Decrees On abolition of Star Chamber all restraints on printing deemed illegal. enforcing by the summary powers of search, confiscation and imprisonment, its decrees, without the least obstruction from Westminster Hall or the Parliament in any instance. In 1556, by a decree of the Star Chamber, it was forbidden, amongst other things, to print contrary to any ordinance, prohibition, or commandment in any of the statutes or laws of the realm, or any injunction, letters patent, or ordinances set forth, or to be set forth by the Queen's grant, commission, or authority. By another decree, dated June 23, 1585, every book was required to be licensed, and all persons were prohibited from printing" any book, work, or copy against the form or meaning of any restraint contained in any statute or laws of this realm, or in any injunction made by Her Majesty, or her Privy Council; or against the true intent and meaning of any letters patent, commissions, or prohibitions under the great seal, or contrary to any allowed ordinance set down for the good government of the Stationers' Company." In 1623, a proclamation was issued to enforce this decree; reciting that it had been evaded, among other ways" by printing beyond sea such allowed books, works, or writings as have been imprinted within the realm, by such to whom the sole printing thereof by letters patent or lawful ordinance or authority doth appertain." 66 In 1637, the Star Chamber again decreed that no person is to print or import (if printed abroad) any book or copy which the Company of Stationers, or any other person, hath or shall, by any letters patent, order or entrance in their register book, or otherwise, have the right, privilege, authority, or allowance, solely to print " (d). In 1640, however, the Star Chamber was abolished; the King's authority was set at nought; all the regulations of the press, and restraints previously imposed upon unlicensed printers by proclamations, decrees of the Star Chamber, and charter powers given to the Stationers' Company, were deemed and certainly were illegal. The licentiousness of libels induced Parliament to make an ordinance which prohibited printing, unless the book was first licensed. The ordinance prohibited printing without the consent of the owner, or importing (if printed abroad), upon pain of forfeiting the same to the owner or owners of the copies of the said books, &c. The provision necessarily presupposed the property to exist; it would have been nugatory if there had been no admitted owner. An owner could not at that time have existed otherwise than by common law. In 1649 the Long Parliament made another ordinance; and in 1662 was passed the (d) 4 Burr. 2312. Car. 2. Licensing Act (18 & 14 Car. 2, c. 33), which interdicted the The Licen sing Act of printing of any book unless first licensed and entered in the registry of the Stationers' Company. It ordered that no person should presume to print "any heretical, seditious, schismatical, or offensive books or pamphlets, wherein any doctrine or opinion shall be asserted or maintained which is contrary to the Christian faith, or the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, or which shall, or may, tend to be to the scandal of religion or the church, or the government or governors of the church, state, or common wealth, or of any corporation or particular person or persons whatever." It further prohibited the publication of unlicensed books, prescribed regulations as to printing and empowered the King's messengers, and the master and wardens of the Stationers' Company, to seize books suspected of containing matters hostile to the Church or Government. It was necessary to print in the beginning of every licensed book the certificate of the licenser to the effect that the books contained nothing "contrary to the Christian faith, or the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, or against the state and government of this realm, or contrary to good life or good manners, or otherwise, as the nature and subject of the work shall require." To prevent fraudulent changes in a book after it had been licensed, a copy was required to be deposited with the licenser when application was made for a licence. The Act further prohibited any person from printing or importing, without the consent of the owner, any book which any person had the sole right to print by virtue of letters patent, or" by force or virtue of any entry or entries thereof duly made or to be made, in the register book of the said Company of Stationers, or in the register book of either of the universities." The penalty of piracy was forfeiture of the books and six shillings and eightpence for each copy; half to go to the King, and half to the owner. The sole property of the owner is here acknowledged in express terms as a common law right; and the legislature which passed that Act could never have entertained the most distant idea "that the productions of the brain were not a subject-matter of property." To support an action on this statute, ownership had to be proved or the plaintiff could not have recovered, because the action was to be brought by the owner who was to have a moiety of the penalty. The various provisions of this Act effectually prevented piracies, without actions at law or bills in equity. But cases arose of disputed property. Some of them were between different patentees of the Crown; in some the point Ordinance of the Stationers' Company in 1681. was whether the property "belonged to the author, from his invention and labour, or the King, froin the subject-matter." The ordinance of 1643 prohibited the printing or importing of any book that had been lawfully licensed and entered in the register of the Stationers' Company, " for any particular member thereof, without the licence and consent of the owner.' The penalty prescribed was forfeiture of the book to the owner, "and such further punishment as shall be thought fit." This clause was repeated in the ordinances of 1647, 1649, and 1652. It has been questioned whether these clauses were applicable to any other than members of the Stationers' Company-in fact, whether they were more than by-laws for the regulation of the members inter se, but it is doubtful whether any such restriction can be put upon their scope. The Licensing Act of Car. 2, was continued by several Acts of Parliament, but expired May, 1679; soon after which there is a case in Lilly's "Entries of Hilary Term," 31 Car. 2, B. R. (e). In this case an action was brought for printing 4,000 copies of the "Pilgrim's Progress," of which the plaintiff was the true proprietor, whereby he lost the profit and benefit of his copy. There is no account, however, of the case having been proceeded with. In 1681, all legislative protection having ceased, the Stationers' Company adopted an ordinance or by-law, which recited that several members of the company had great part of their estates in copies, that by ancient usage of the company, when any book or copy was duly entered in their register to any member, such person had always been reputed and taken to be the proprietor of such book or copy, and ought to have the sole printing thereof. The ordinance further recited that this privilege and interest had of late been often violated and abused; and it then provided a penalty against such violation by any member or members of the company, where the copy had been duly entered in their register. The true view of this ordinance would seem to be, that the members of the Stationers' Company, finding their estates in copies, which belonged to them by the common law, no longer under the protection of the Licensing Act (the repeal of which had incidentally withdrawn the protection that had always been inserted in it, though it had necessarily no connection with the system of licensing), undertook to provide for the failure of legislation, as far as they could, by an ordinance applicable of course to their own members only. The ordinance is not to be cited as any other proof of what the common law right was, than that it shows, in connection with other historical proof, what it (e) Ponder v. Bradyl, Lilly's "Entries," 67; see Carter, 89; 4 Burr. 2317; Skinner, 234; 1 Mod. 257. was then supposed to be. It was much the same as if an association of persons were to agree that any one of their number should pay a penalty for violating the acknowledged rights of property of any other person in the association, provided such rights were duly entered in their common records. It would not be an attempt to create the right, but it would justly be regarded as an acknowledgment of the existence of such a right (f). Stationers' 1694. In another by-law, passed in 1694 (g), it was stated that A by-law copies were constantly bargained and sold amongst the members of the of the company as their property, and devised to their children Company in and others for legacies and to their widows for maintenance; and it was ordained, that if any member should, without the consent of the member by whom the entry was made, print or sell the same, he should forfeit for every copy twelve-pence. For many years successively, attempts were made to obtain a new Licensing Act. Such a Bill once passed the Upper House, but the attempt miscarried upon constitutional objections to a licence. Proprietors of copyright had so long been protected by summary measures, that they regarded an action at law as an inadequate remedy. A Bill in equity was never even thought of no hope of its success appears at the time to have been entertained, Parliament protection of copyright. In one of the petitions presented to the House in support of A petition applications to Parliament in 1709, for a Bill to protect copy- presented to right, the last clause or paragraph was as follows: "The liberty in 1709 for now set on foot of breaking through this ancient and reasonable usage is no way to be effectually restrained but by an Act of Parliament. For by common law, a bookseller can recover no more costs than he can prove damage; but it is impossible for him to prove the tenth, nay, perhaps, the hundredth part of the damage he suffers; because a thousand counterfeit copies may be dispersed into as many hands all over the kingdom, and he not be able to prove the sale of them. Besides, the defendant is always a pauper, and so the plaintiff must lose his costs of suit. (No man of substance has been known to offend in this particular, nor will any ever appear in it.) Therefore, the only remedy by the common law is to confine a beggar to the rules of the King's Bench or Fleet, and there he will continue the evil practice with impunity. We therefore pray that confiscation of counterfeit copies be one of the penalties to be inflicted on offenders" (h). In response to these applications, in the year 1709 the first First Copy (f) Curtis on Copyright, p. 38. (g) In this year expired finally the Licensing Act of 13 & 14 Car. 2, which had been revived by 1 Jac. c. 7, and continued by 4 W. & M. c. 24. (h) 4 Burr. 2318. right Act, 8 Anne, c. 19. Effect of the Universities' copyright. 54 Geo. 3, c. 156. Copyright Copyright Act, the 8 Anne, c. 19, was passed. This Act gave authors of books then printed the sole right and liberty of printing them for a term of twenty-one years from April 10, 1710, and of books not then printed the sole right of printing for fourteen years, with a proviso that after the expiration of the said term of fourteen years the sole right of printing or disposing of copies should return to the authors thereof, if they were then living, for another term of fourteen years. The titles to books had to be registered in the register book of the Stationers' Company, and nine copies had to be delivered to certain libraries. This statute, passed with a view to giving a greater protection to copyright, had the unexpected result of curtailing it; for in the case of Donaldson v. Becket (i) the House of Lords finally decided that the effect of the statute was to extinguish the common law copyright in published works, though leaving the common law copyright in unpublished works unaffected. The universities, alarmed at the consequence of this decision, applied for and obtained an Act of Parliament (k) establishing in perpetuity their right to all the copies given or bequeathed to them or which might thereafter be given to or acquired by them theretofore. The period for which copyright was capable of existing was somewhat varied by the 54 Geo. 3, c. 156, s. 4, which enacted that instead of enduring for fourteen years, and contingently for fourteen more, authors should have the sole liberty of printing and reprinting their works for the term of twenty-eight years, to commence from the day of the first publication of the same; and further, if the author should be living at the expiration of that period, for the residue of his natural life. 66 All these Acts were repealed by the Copyright Act, 1842 (1). To Mr. Serjeant Talfourd was due the honour of obtaining this piece of legislative justice. From 1837 to 1842, in spite of the opposition of Macaulay, he used his best endeavours and expended his most eloquent strains to accomplish its passing. In contending for an extension of the period during which protection was afforded to literary works, he bursts forth :-" There is something peculiarly unjust in bounding the term of an author's property by his natural life, if he should survive so short a period as twenty-eight years. It denies to age and experience the probable reward it permits to youth-to youth, sufficiently full of hope and joys to slight its promises. It gives a bounty to haste, and informs the laborious student, who would wear away his strength (i) (1774), 4 Burr. 2408; Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R. 620; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C. 815. (k) 15 Geo. 3, c. 53. (1) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. |