Chap. VIII. Registration what sufficient. of abode of the publisher and of the proprietor of the copy. right (d). An entry is defective where the date of the first publication is entered inaccurately (e), or the publishers are not entered accurately, either by their individual names or by the name of the firm (f). The registration is bad if the name entered as that of the publisher is not that of the first publisher (9). It is, however, sufficient to enter the first publisher under the trade name of the firm and the actual proprietor of the copyright at the time of registration, without stating who the first proprietor was or how the copyright devolved on the present proprietor (h). Not only the year and the month but also the day of first publication must be entered (i). The place of abode of the publisher may be his place of business (j). The address of his publishers is a sufficient description by an English author of his place of abode, when he is out of England and has no place of abode there (k). Neglect on the part of the officials at Stationers' Hall to register the book may, it would seem, deprive an author of the benefit of the statute (1). A separate article for a periodical is not a book to be registered within the clause (m). The registration of the first number of a periodical or magazine protects each subsequent number as it is published, but not numbers yet unpublished (n). An injunction cannot therefore be granted restraining copying from future numbers the copyright in which only arises on publication (6). A map though published separately must be (d) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 13. (f) Low v. Routledge, 34 L. J. (g) Coote v. Judd, 23 C. D. 727. (h) Weldon v. Dicks, 10 C. D. 247. (i) Mathieson v. Harrod, 7 Eq. 270; Page v. Wisden, 17 W. R. 483; W. N. (1869) 68; Collette v. Goode, 7 C. D. 842; Collingridge v. Emmott, W. N. (1887) 216. (k) Lover v. Davidson, 1 C. B. N. S. 182. (1) Cassell v. Stiff, 2 K. & J. 279. (m) Murray v. Maxwell, 1 J. & H. 312. (n) 5&6 Vict. c. 45, s. 19; see Henderson v. Maxwell, 4 C. D. 163. (0) Cate v. Devon Newspaper Co., 40 C. D. p. 507; but see Bradbury v. Sharp, (1891) W. N. 143. Sect. 3. registered (p); not so, however, a bird's eye view or pictorial Chap. VIII. plan of a city (q). The protection afforded to the title of a newspaper or periodical by registration is not prospective, and only dates from the time of the first publication of such newspaper or periodical (r). Registration if made before publication is bad, for it not a compliance with the requisitions of the statute (s). Registration before publication of the title selected for a forthcoming book does not give copyright in the title so as to entitle the person registering to restrain the use of the title by another (t). Any person associated by the proprietor of a copyright with himself in an entry in the register book has a primâ facie right to sue jointly with him in respect of an infringement (u). Omission to register, when relied on as a defence to a suit for infringement, should be distinctly pleaded (r), and defendant must give notice in writing of the objections on which he means to rely at the trial (w). Persons aggrieved by any entry in the book of registry may apply by motion or summons to have the entry expunged (x). The assignment of a copyright is not valid unless it be Assignment. in writing (y); but attestation, it would appear, is not necessary (z). To allow the assignee to sue, he must be registered. He can be registered either simply as proprietor, in which case his predecessors need not be registered and the assignment. (p) Stannard v. Lee, 6 Ch. 348. The face of a barometer displaying special letterpress, is not capable of being registered under the Act as not being, within sect. 2, a book separately published: Davis & Co. v. Committi, 54 L. J. Ch. 419, W. N. (1885) 15. (q) Stannard v. Lee, 19 W. R. 811. (r) Correspondent Newspaper Co. v. Saunders, 13 W. R. 804, 11 Jur. N. S. 540. (8) Henderson v. Maxwell, 5 C. D. 892; Dicks v. Yates, 18 C. D. 85. (t) Maxwell v. Hogg, 2 Ch. 307; Kelly v. Byles, 13 C. D. 689; Dicks (u) Stevens v. Wildy, 19 L. J. Ch. (r) Chappell v. Davidson, 18 C. B. 194. (w) Ante, p. 276. (a) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 14; see Hole v. Bradbury, 12 C. D. 899; Re Poulton, 53 L. J. Q. B. 320. (y) Leyland v. Stewart, 4 C. D. 419. (z) Cumberland v. Copeland, 1 H. & C. 124; but see 8 Jur. N. S. App. 148. Chap. VIII. Assignment by foreigner. Agreement to publish not an assignment. itself need not be registered; or he can be registered as assignee, in which case the original proprietor (who must himself be registered) must enter the assignment and the name and place of abode of the assignee in the register. A defect in either entry will prevent the assignee from suing ; and if the entry of proprietorship is insufficient, there is no valid assignment by subsequent entry (a). It seems that a purchaser of a copyright who has paid his purchase money but has not obtained an assignment cannot sue for an infringement without making his vendor a party (b). It has been denied that there can be a partial assignment of a copyright (c); but a man may, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 13, assign a portion of his interest in a copyright (d). Though a statutory copyright must be in existence before it can be assigned at law (e), an agreement may be made to assign at a future time (ƒ), in which case an equitable title may vest in an assignee (g). A man who employs another for remuneration to compile a book for him is entitled to copyright in the book (h). A foreign author resident abroad cannot, by assigning a published work according to the law of his own country, give the assignee a title which will be recognised in this country (i). An agreement between publishers and an author to print and publish a work at their own risk, on the terms of dividing equally with him half profits, and stipulating that if another edition should be required the author should make all necessary additions and alterations, is not an assignment of the copyright, but is an agreement of a personal nature or joint (a) 1897, 2 Q. B. p. 4; Low v. Routledge, 33 L. J. Ch. 717; Wood v. Boosey, L. R. 2 Q. B. 340. (b) See Colburn v. Duncombe, 9 Sim. 151; Howitt v. Hall, 6 L. T. 348; Cocks v. Purday, 5 C. B. 860; Lacy v. Toole, 15 L. T. 512; Levy v. Rutley, L. R. 6 C. P. 523. (c) See Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C. 992, per Lord St. Leonards. (d) See Howitt v. Hall, 10 W. R. 381. (e) Colburn v. Duncombe, 9 Sim. 161; Sweet v. Shaw, 3 Jur. 217. (f) Leader v. Purday, 7 C. B. 4. (g) Sims v. Marryatt, 17 Q. B. 281. (h) Grace v. Newman, 19 Eq. 623. (i) Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C. 815. adventure between the parties, which either is at liberty to terminate upon notice after the publication of a given edition, if at the date of such notice no fresh expense has been incurred by the party to whom such notice has been given (j). The benefit of such an agreement is not assignable by the publisher without the consent of the author (k). The publisher is not entitled after the termination of the agreement by the author to restrain the publication by another publisher of a new edition before all the copies of the former edition published by himself have been sold (1). Chap. VIII. A licence to publish is not an assignment of a copyright (m). Licence to publish. A parol licence to publish given by the author, and followed by his acquiescence, may deprive him of his right to an injunction to restrain the licensee from publishing the work (n). An exclusive licensee may bring an action to restrain a publication by third persons, but in such action he must join the licensor as a defendant, if he will not join as a plaintiff (o). In the absence of special agreement to the contrary, the Rights of assignor of a copyright is entitled, after the assignment, to continue selling copies of the work printed by him before the assignment and remaining in his possession (p). So also where an author sells the copyright in a book to a publisher for a certain specified time, the publisher has the right after the expiration of that period of selling copies of the work he has printed before the expiration of the time limited (q). assignor after assignment. Copyright is declared by the statute to be personal pro- Copyright is perty (r). The right is not personal to the author or his personal property. Chap. VIII. Subject-matter of copyright. assigns, but descends to his legal personal representatives. They may, after his death, acquire a copyright in writings. or letters which the author or writer never intended to publish (s). Nor is the privilege confined to cases where there is a known author. A man who has found a manuscript in his ancestor's repository, or got a gift of it, may have a copyright in it although he cannot tell who was the author (†). To come within the protection of the copyright statutes, a work need not consist of new or original matter, nor is the privilege confined to works of literary merit. A mere compilation of old materials, or of materials which are common to all men, and are merely the result of inquiry and industry, may be the subject of copyright if independent work gives an original result (u), such as a road or guide book (v), a book on chronology (w), a directory (x), a book of statistics (y), a trade (2) or shipping list (a), an analysis of Acts of Parliament with appendices (b), a topographical dictionary (c), a court calendar (d), a spelling-book (e), a book of elementary lessons in arithmetic (ƒ), or science (g), or a telegraphic code (h), an annotated catalogue (i), an advertising catalogue (j), additions, (8) Dodsley v. M'Farquhar, Mor. (u) Jarrold v. Houlstone, 3 K. & (v) Cary v. Longman, 1 East, 358. (w) Trusler v. Murray, 1 East, 363, n. (x) Kelly v. Morris, 1 Eq. 697; (y) Scott v. Stanford, 3 Eq. 718. (a) Maclean v. Moody, 20 Dec. of (b) Alexander v. M'Kenzie, 9 ib. p. 748. (g) Jarrold v. Houlstone, 3 K. & J. 708; Jarrold v. Heywood, 18 W. R. 279, W. N. (1869) 265. (h) Agar v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam, &c., Co., 26 C. D. 637. (i) Hotten v. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603. (j) Grace v. Newman, 19 Eq. 624; Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores, 21 C. D. 369; Collis v. Cater, 78 L. T. 613; Cable v. Marks, 52 L. J. Ch. 107. |