Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/862

to be the ingratitude of mankind, that they who teach wisdom by the surest means, shall generally live poor and unregarded; as if they were born only for the public, and had no interest in their own well-being, but were to be lighted up like tapers, and waste themselves for the benefit of others.

On behalf of the respondents it was contended (A. Wedderburn, J. Dunning, F. Hargrave), that the claim of authors to the sole and exclusive right of printing and publishing their own works, is founded upon principles of reason and natural justice. It is just and equitable, that those who labour in the advancement of knowledge, and communicate their ideas in written compositions to the public, should have a recompence; and in order to obtain a suitable one, authors, when they publish their works, mean to reserve to themselves the right of multiplying printed copies; and the nature of printing, and the circumstances attending publication being considered, there is an implied agreement, on the sale of each particular copy, that the purchaser shall not invade the beneficial right of multiplying copies, intend-[144]-ed to be reserved by the author. From the first introduction of the art of printing into England, this peculiar species of property has been known by the expressive name of copy right; has continually been the subject of sale, gift, and family settlement; has always been protected from invasion; and in some instances has even been recognized by the legislature. It is a point too well established to be denied, that at common law the sole and exclusive right of multiplying for sale, the copies of acts of parliament, proclamations, and other papers of a public nature, belongs to the King and his patentees; not in consequence of any prerogative over the art of printing, but on account of his peculiar interest, as the executive power, in all publications and acts of state, flowing from himself, or parliament. This shows that an interest or property similar to that claimed by authors, may subsist at common law; and though the reasons on which authors claim an interest in their own private copies, are not precisely the same as those from which the interest of the crown in public copies is derived, yet they are not less forcible; but give to authors a title of property as well founded in justice, as the title of the crown is founded in policy, and one equally consistent with public utility.

There is nothing in the statute of Queen Ann to take away that interest or property, to which authors were before entitled, in the publication and sale of their own works. The object of that statute was to secure literary property, by penalties, from piracy and invasion; and though the protection given is only temporary, yet so far from being made so under an idea of the legislature, that authors had no property in their works before, or with an intention to limit its duration, the statute expressly declares, that nothing contained in it shall prejudice or confirm any right which the universities, or any person or persons, might claim to the printing or reprinting of any book or copy then printed, or afterwards to be printed. Since this statute, many injunctions have been granted by the Court of Chancery, to restrain the invasion of copy right, notwithstanding the expiration of the term, during which only the statute gives a protection by penalties; and the opinion of the Chancellors who granted those injunctions, has been confirmed by a judgment of the Court of King's Bench (4 Burr. 2303), in favour of literary property, which was given after solemn argument. Upon the faith of the protection which has hitherto been given to literary property, independently of the statute of Queen Ann, great sums of money have been expended in purchasing copies, and in the printing and manufacturing books from such copies; vast stocks of which books, from the unalterable nature of printing, are unavoidably in hand; and if such protection should be now withdrawn, many families would lose their whole estates, and necessarily be involved in ruin.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, the following questions were put to the judges, viz.

I. Whether, at common law, an author of any book or literary composition had the sole right of first printing and publishing the same for sale, and might [145] bring an action against any person who printed, published, and sold the same without his consent? II. If the author had such right originally, did the law take it away upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition; and might any person afterwards reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the author? III. If such action would have lain at common law, is it taken away by the statute 8th Ann; and is an author, by the said statute, precluded from every remedy except on the founda-