85:
97:
345:"taken away" by the statute; but that their views had been rejected by the full House of Lords. However those scholars now appear to acknowledge, in light of a review of a wider range of documents, that the journal reported the positions of the judges correctly, as did law reports based on it; and that it was the reporting of the view of Justice
72:. The earliest reports of the case, those prepared by James Burrow in 1776 and Josiah Brown (1st edition) in 1783, also spelled his surname Becket. The "Beckett" variation seems to have gained ground from a decision made in 1803 by T. E. Tomlins, the editor of the second edition of Brown's report of the case, to change the spelling to
518:
predominating in favor of an antecedent common-law right in literary works, both before and after first publication. This viewpoint probably stemmed from the fact that a majority of the judges who had advised the House on the issue—and even a majority of the judges and speaking Lords combined who had
362:
The balance of opinions on the first question has sometimes traditionally been represented as ten-to-one; however according to the tallies while both Barons
Perrott and Adams accepted that an author should have the sole right of printing or publishing a book or literary composition, they rejected the
372:
answered the first question affirmatively, his detailed answer made clear that his position on this related only to the physical manuscript; his views on rights to "more than the materials or the manuscript" were the province of the second question (in which he opined that author's right at common
240:
The practice of the House of Lords at the time when considering a challenging case was to ask the twelve judges of the King's Bench, Common Pleas, and the
Exchequer for their expert views on particular issues identified, for the consideration of the House. This would then be followed by a debate,
392:
On 22 February the motion was made to reverse the
Chancery decree. The Lords then debated, the record showing that five Lords spoke. Four of these, Lord Camden, Lord Chancellor Apsley, the Bishop of Carlisle, and the Earl of Effingham, spoke in favour of the motion to reverse the decree, and one,
230:
concluded his speech with a compliment to his learned coadjutor, and a hope, that as the lords of session in
Scotland had freed that country from a monopoly which took its rise from the chimerical idea of the actuality of literary property, their lordships, whom he addressed, would likewise, by a
534:, though it appears that only one of them continues to advocate this view. Scholars have criticized the sole holdout—who conceded in his principal article on the subject to being "unfamiliar with the nuances of 18th century English parliamentary procedure"—for relying on anachronistic arguments.
120:
granted a fourteen-year term for a copyright, extendable once for another 14 years if the author was still alive at the expiration of the first term. Parliament also provided a special grandfather clause allowing those works already published before the statute to enjoy twenty-one years of
64:. Those records include the original proceedings of the dispute in the Court of Chancery. Additionally, the manuscript records of the appeal in the House of Lords, including the manuscript minutes and manuscript journal of the House of Lords, caption the case using the spelling
417:
In the end, the full House voted to reverse the decree against
Donaldson. Thus the House of Lords rejected perpetual copyright in published works and held that they were subject to the durational limits of the Statute of Anne. As a result, published works would fall into the
259:
2. "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 afterward reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the
262:
3. "If such action would have lain at common law, is it taken away by the statute of 8th Anne: and is an author, by the said statute, precluded from every remedy except on the foundation of the said statute, and on the terms and conditions prescribed thereby?"
256:
1. "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 bring an action against any person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his
51:
The spelling of the chief respondent in the case, Thomas Becket, sometimes appears as
Beckett. For those looking to choose one spelling over the other, it would be more correct to use Becket. Firstly, Becket overwhelmingly spelled his surname
121:
protection. When the twenty-one years were up, the booksellers—for copyrights in published works were usually held and exploited by publishers and booksellers—asked for an extension. Parliament declined to grant it.
340:
For a time in the late 20th century, some scholars believed that the tally in the journal for the crucial third question was incorrect, and that a majority of the judges had opined that a common-law copyright was
363:
second half of the proposition, advising that an author should only be able to bring an action against someone who printed, published or sold it if they had obtained the copy by fraud or violence. A report in
412:
of this kingdom; and yet, by a variety of subtle reasoning and metaphysical refinements, have they endeavoured to squeeze out the spirit of the common law from premises in which it could not possibly have
367:
of
Perrott's detailed reasons he makes clear that in his view the author's right at common law extended only to the physical copy, not to the content within it. Furthermore, while the Lord Chief Justice
879:
The Lyon in
Mourning or a Collection of Speeches Letters Journals etc. Relative to the Affairs of Prince Charles Edward Stuart by the Rev. Robert Forbes, A.M., Bishop of Ross and Caithness 1746-1775
373:
law was indeed extinguished by first publication). Arguably a true statement of the judges' positions on whether authors had a natural copyright at common law would therefore be seven to four.
124:
Thwarted by
Parliament, the booksellers turned to the courts for relief. They attempted to secure a ruling that there was a natural or customary right to ownership of the copyright under the
485:, the court had merely established that once a work was published it was governed solely by the durational terms of the Statute of Anne. This was how the holding was stated by Justice
495:(7th edition, 1775). It is also the general view of scholars of the case today. This notably was also the view of the case taken by the judges and Law Lords who spoke on the issue in
429:. But research has demonstrated that the vote in the case was taken by a collective voice vote, and thus without knowing how many Lords voted, their names, or how they each voted.
945:
Whicher, John (1961), "The Ghost of
Donaldson v. Beckett: An Inquiry into the Constitutional Distribution of Powers over the Law of Literary Property in the United States",
76:
in the caption and then to a decision made by the clerk of the journals in the House of Lords, when the House printed its manuscript journal in around 1806, to do the same.
1050:
281:
While the first questions were couched in terms of the rights of the authors, Lord Camden's emphasised the other side of the coin, the issue of a perpetual monopoly.
275:
4. "Whether the author of any literary composition, and his assigns, had the sole right of printing and publishing the same, in perpetuity, by the common law?"
154:, the chief judge on the case, had previously been counsel to the copyright-holding booksellers in various suits filed in the Court of Chancery in the 1730s.
408:; all of them the effects of the grossest tyranny and usurpation; the very last places in which I should have dreamt of finding the least trace of the
35:(1774) 2 Brown's Parl. Cases (2d ed.) 129, 1 Eng. Rep. 837; 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 257; 17 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 953 is the ruling by the
226:. Attorney General Thurlow, speaking for the appellants, referred to the Scottish case in his opening argument to the Lords on 4 February:
553:
1202:
43:
in published works was not perpetual but was subject to statutory limits. Some scholars disagree on the reasoning behind the decision.
448:
great rejoicings in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property; bonfires and illuminations, ordered tho' by a mob, with drum and 2
503:, Lord Brougham stated that "upon the general question of literary property at common law no judgment whatever was pronounced."
461:
930:
Cornish, WR (2000). "The Author's Surrogate: The Genesis of British Copyright". In O'Donovan, Katherine; Rubin, Gerry (eds.).
377:
369:
151:
712:
Abrams, Howard B. (1983), "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law: Exploding the Myth of Common-Law Copyright",
231:
decree of a similar nature, rescue the cause of literature and authorship from the hands of a few monopolizing booksellers.
17:
543:
491:
440:, Bishop of Ross and Caithness, noted in his journal entry of 26 February 1774, that when news of the Lords' decision in
1212:
1017:
663:
639:
464:, the bill was defeated in the Lords. In 1834, the United States Supreme Court also rejected perpetual copyright in
245:
211:
143:
268:
981:"Une Chose Publique"? The Author's Domain and the Public Domain in Early British, French and US Copyright Law"
519:
advised the House and who spoke on the antecedent right—opined or allowed that an antecedent right did exist.
400:
The arguments attempted to be maintained on the side of the respondents, were founded on patents, privileges,
1187:
737:
Rose, Mark (1988), "The Author as Proprietor: "Donaldson v. Becket" and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship",
1207:
210:, the Scots Court of Session had ruled that copyright did not exist in the common law of Scotland, so that
831:
302:
authors' right of first publication at common law and right of action against publication without consent
117:
1093:
147:
89:
1192:
694:
690:
686:
548:
478:
The significance of the decision for the doctrine of common-law copyright was (and is) less clear.
456:
Later that year, UK booksellers sought to extend their statutory copyright to 14 years through the
426:
277:
5. "Whether this right is any way impeached, restrained, or taken away, by the statute 8th Anne?"
866:
862:
678:. Volume 34: 1774-1776. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, c.1806.
980:
1197:
682:
506:
Nevertheless, it became common for observers in the late eighteenth century and beyond to read
437:
405:
84:
36:
626:
Reports of Cases upon Appeals and Writs of Error, in the High Court of Parliament (2d edition)
60:. Secondly, many of the original contemporaneous records in the case also spelled his surname
355:
527:
515:
457:
346:
155:
8:
858:
142:
4 Burr. 2303, 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (K.B. 1769), concerning infringement of the copyright on
1149:
1141:
1070:
1000:
754:
486:
206:
1171:
1153:
1074:
1004:
559:
466:
449:
219:
129:
292:
According to the journal of the House of Lords, the balance of their opinions were:
162:, had himself previously been counsel to the challengers of common-law copyright in
1133:
1062:
992:
746:
350:
563:, U.S. Supreme Court case also addressing the existence of copyright at common law
642:, in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer,
611:
Reports of Cases upon Appeals and Writs of Error, in the High Court of Parliament
531:
489:, one of the judges whose view had been in favour of perpetual copyright, in his
249:
138:
109:
1024:, in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer
666:, in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer
376:
A twelfth judge who was entitled to state and give reasons for his answers was
185:
181:
1066:
996:
1181:
419:
401:
176:
and an injunction was granted by the Court of Chancery on the precedent of
327:
that, at common law, authors had sole right of publication, in perpetuity
150:" by Robert Taylor, and the booksellers won a favourable 3-1 judgment. (
1145:
758:
522:
In recent times, two scholars have argued that the House affirmatively
409:
309:
the authors' rights at common law being taken away by first publication
289:
The judges presented their views in the period from 15 to 21 February.
125:
425:
It had been thought, for many years, that the House of Lords voted by
482:
380:. Presumably his views still conformed to his original judgment, in
105:
40:
1137:
750:
136:, but the courts threw it out. A second lawsuit was later brought,
897:
799:
777:
396:
Lord Camden, in his speech, was scathing toward the booksellers:
96:
68:, but sometimes in the text of the proceedings used the spelling
917:
Copyright Law and the Public Interest in the Nineteenth Century
113:
1168:
Alexander Donaldson and another v Thomas Beckett and others
180:. An appeal from the Chancery decree was carried to the
384:. But – to the frustration of some – he did not speak.
898:"A Reply to my Colleagues Regarding Donaldson v Becket"
800:"The Persistent Myth of Perpetual Common Law Copyright"
596:
Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of King's Bench
316:
that authors' rights at common law in published works
218:
with his elder brother, John) could lawfully publish
891:
889:
887:
855:
The Law of Copyright, in Works of Literature and Art
825:
823:
821:
819:
817:
815:
813:
499:, 4 H.L.C. 815, 872, 961 (H.L. 1854). Referring to
349:in various works based ultimately on an account by
884:
810:
92:by James Thomson Published by Alexander Donaldson
1179:
334:that this right was circumscribed by the statute
172:was brought regarding the same poem at issue in
1091:
1036:Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language
895:
865:; but compare Copinger's first edition (1870),
829:
658:
656:
654:
652:
650:
648:
1038:. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 6–7, 169.
252:, formulated three questions for the judges:
1120:Rose, M. (1988), "The author as proprietor:
934:. Oxford University Press. pp. 254–270.
623:
554:List of leading legal cases in copyright law
201:Counsel was heard on 4, 7–9 February.
188:'s court of final appeal, in February 1774.
900:. In Cooper, Elena; Deazley, Ronan (eds.).
802:. In Cooper, Elena; Deazley, Ronan (eds.).
793:
791:
780:. In Cooper, Elena; Deazley, Ronan (eds.).
645:
707:
705:
703:
624:Brown, Josiah & Tomlins, T.E. (1803),
393:Lord Lyttleton, spoke against the motion.
1124:and the genealogy of modern authorship",
1109:
914:
853:for example, see Walter Arthur Copinger,
771:
769:
767:
640:Commentary on: Hinton v. Donaldson (1773)
1114:, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press
978:
788:
732:
730:
728:
664:Commentary on Donaldson v. Becket (1774)
204:Seven months previously, in the case of
95:
83:
1048:
1033:
944:
929:
902:What is the Point of Copyright History?
804:What is the Point of Copyright History?
782:What is the Point of Copyright History?
700:
473:
404:decrees, and the bye (sic) laws of the
271:, two further questions were also put:
184:, which at that time functioned as the
14:
1180:
963:
861:, retained in the 4th edition (1904),
797:
764:
711:
593:
1051:"The Myth of Copyright at Common Law"
947:Bulletin of the Copyright Society USA
896:Gomez-Arostegui, Tomas (March 2016).
725:
608:
422:after their copyright terms expired.
250:Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain
1119:
775:
736:
1112:Copyright in Historical Perspective
778:"Donaldson and the Muse of History"
544:Copyright law of the United Kingdom
492:Commentaries on the Laws of England
241:and then a vote of the full house.
24:
968:. T&T Clark. p. 5:770–71.
881:, vol. 3, p. 294, (Edinburgh 1896)
387:
25:
1224:
1203:United Kingdom copyright case law
1161:
1094:"Copyright at Common Law in 1774"
832:"Copyright at Common Law in 1774"
510:, sometimes in combination with
1042:
1027:
1010:
972:
957:
938:
923:
908:
871:
847:
830:Gomez-Arostegui, Tomas (2014),
481:As a matter of strict judicial
432:
1170: (1774) 2 Bro PC 129,
1092:Gomez-Arostegui, H.T. (2014),
932:Human Rights and Legal History
669:
632:
617:
602:
587:
574:
191:
128:. The booksellers arranged a
104:The first recognizably modern
13:
1:
1110:Patterson, Lyman Ray (1968),
1085:
798:Abrams, Howard (March 2016).
676:Journal of the House of Lords
582:English Short Title Catalogue
444:reached Scotland, there were
224:New History of the Holy Bible
88:Photograph of Frontispiece –
915:Alexander, Isabella (2010).
235:
7:
966:A Legal History of Scotland
598:, vol. 4, p. 2408
537:
196:
10:
1229:
628:, vol. 2, p. 129
284:
158:, the dissenting judge in
1067:10.1017/S0008197303006251
1055:The Cambridge Law Journal
997:10.1017/S0008197306007252
985:The Cambridge Law Journal
904:. CREATe. pp. 45–59.
806:. CREATe. pp. 10–22.
784:. CREATe. pp. 37–42.
776:Rose, Mark (March 2016).
613:, vol. 7, p. 88
320:superseded by the statute
1213:History of copyright law
567:
549:History of copyright law
298:Eight answers to three,
116:c. 21) (1710), in which
79:
1174: (22 February 1774)
1049:Deazley, Ronan (2003),
1034:Deazley, Ronan (2006).
979:Ginsburg, Jane (2006),
460:but, having passed the
323:Seven answers to four,
305:Seven answers to four,
46:
1098:Connecticut Law Review
964:Walker, David (1998).
857:, 2nd edition (1881),
836:Connecticut Law Review
683:British History Online
609:Brown, Josiah (1783),
594:Burrow, James (1776),
454:
415:
279:
267:At the instigation of
265:
233:
101:
93:
37:British House of Lords
446:
398:
356:The Morning Chronicle
330:Six answers to five,
312:Six answers to five,
273:
254:
228:
99:
87:
1188:House of Lords cases
638:Deazley, R. (2008),
528:common law copyright
516:persuasive authority
474:Common-law copyright
359:that was incorrect.
18:Donaldson v. Beckett
1208:1774 in British law
1122:Donaldson v. Becket
1016:Deazley, R. (2008)
877:Henry Paton, ed.,
662:Deazley, R. (2008)
530:existed before the
442:Donaldson v. Becket
406:Stationers' Company
216:Donaldson v. Becket
212:Alexander Donaldson
1020:Jeffreys v. Boosey
919:. Hart Publishing.
526:the notion that a
497:Jefferys v. Boosey
207:Hinton v Donaldson
170:Donaldson v Becket
102:
94:
32:Donaldson v Becket
560:Wheaton v. Peters
467:Wheaton v. Peters
458:Booksellers' Bill
220:Thomas Stackhouse
214:(an appellant in
164:Tonson v. Collins
130:collusive lawsuit
16:(Redirected from
1220:
1193:1774 in case law
1156:
1115:
1105:
1079:
1077:
1046:
1040:
1039:
1031:
1025:
1014:
1008:
1007:
976:
970:
969:
961:
955:
954:
942:
936:
935:
927:
921:
920:
912:
906:
905:
893:
882:
875:
869:
851:
845:
843:
827:
808:
807:
795:
786:
785:
773:
762:
761:
734:
723:
721:
714:Wayne Law Review
709:
698:
673:
667:
660:
643:
636:
630:
629:
621:
615:
614:
606:
600:
599:
591:
585:
584:
578:
462:House of Commons
351:William Woodfall
178:Millar v. Taylor
160:Millar v. Taylor
134:Tonson v Collins
108:statute was the
21:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1178:
1177:
1164:
1138:10.2307/2928566
1126:Representations
1088:
1083:
1082:
1047:
1043:
1032:
1028:
1015:
1011:
977:
973:
962:
958:
943:
939:
928:
924:
913:
909:
894:
885:
876:
872:
852:
848:
828:
811:
796:
789:
774:
765:
751:10.2307/2928566
739:Representations
735:
726:
710:
701:
674:
670:
661:
646:
637:
633:
622:
618:
607:
603:
592:
588:
580:
579:
575:
570:
540:
532:Statute of Anne
476:
435:
390:
388:Debate and vote
382:Millar v Taylor
287:
276:
261:
258:
244:On 9 February,
238:
199:
194:
139:Millar v Taylor
110:Statute of Anne
100:Statute of Anne
82:
49:
39:that held that
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1226:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1176:
1175:
1163:
1162:External links
1160:
1159:
1158:
1117:
1107:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1061:(1): 106–133,
1041:
1026:
1018:Commentary on
1009:
991:(3): 636–670,
971:
956:
937:
922:
907:
883:
870:
846:
809:
787:
763:
724:
699:
685:. Entries for
668:
644:
631:
616:
601:
586:
572:
571:
569:
566:
565:
564:
556:
551:
546:
539:
536:
475:
472:
434:
431:
389:
386:
378:Lord Mansfield
338:
337:
336:
335:
328:
321:
310:
303:
286:
283:
237:
234:
198:
195:
193:
190:
186:United Kingdom
182:House of Lords
152:Lord Mansfield
81:
78:
48:
45:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1225:
1214:
1211:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1198:James Boswell
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1045:
1037:
1030:
1023:
1021:
1013:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
975:
967:
960:
952:
948:
941:
933:
926:
918:
911:
903:
899:
892:
890:
888:
880:
874:
868:
864:
860:
856:
850:
841:
837:
833:
826:
824:
822:
820:
818:
816:
814:
805:
801:
794:
792:
783:
779:
772:
770:
768:
760:
756:
752:
748:
745:(23): 51–85,
744:
740:
733:
731:
729:
719:
715:
708:
706:
704:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
677:
672:
665:
659:
657:
655:
653:
651:
649:
641:
635:
627:
620:
612:
605:
597:
590:
583:
577:
573:
562:
561:
557:
555:
552:
550:
547:
545:
542:
541:
535:
533:
529:
525:
520:
517:
513:
509:
504:
502:
498:
494:
493:
488:
484:
479:
471:
469:
468:
463:
459:
453:
451:
445:
443:
439:
438:Robert Forbes
430:
428:
423:
421:
420:public domain
414:
411:
407:
403:
397:
394:
385:
383:
379:
374:
371:
366:
360:
358:
357:
352:
348:
344:
333:
329:
326:
322:
319:
315:
311:
308:
304:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
282:
278:
272:
270:
264:
253:
251:
247:
242:
232:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
202:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
165:
161:
157:
156:Justice Yates
153:
149:
145:
144:James Thomson
141:
140:
135:
131:
127:
122:
119:
115:
111:
107:
98:
91:
86:
77:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
44:
42:
38:
34:
33:
19:
1167:
1132:(1): 51–85,
1129:
1125:
1121:
1111:
1101:
1097:
1058:
1054:
1044:
1035:
1029:
1019:
1012:
988:
984:
974:
965:
959:
950:
946:
940:
931:
925:
916:
910:
901:
878:
873:
854:
849:
839:
835:
803:
781:
742:
738:
717:
713:
679:
675:
671:
634:
625:
619:
610:
604:
595:
589:
581:
576:
558:
523:
521:
511:
507:
505:
500:
496:
490:
480:
477:
465:
455:
447:
441:
436:
433:Significance
424:
416:
402:Star Chamber
399:
395:
391:
381:
375:
370:Lord de Grey
364:
361:
354:
347:George Nares
342:
339:
331:
324:
317:
313:
306:
299:
291:
288:
280:
274:
266:
255:
243:
239:
229:
223:
215:
205:
203:
200:
177:
173:
169:
168:
163:
159:
137:
133:
123:
103:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
31:
30:
29:
695:21 February
691:17 February
687:15 February
269:Lord Camden
246:Lord Apsley
192:Proceedings
148:The Seasons
90:The Seasons
1182:Categories
1086:References
487:Blackstone
413:existence.
410:common law
332:supporting
325:supporting
314:supporting
300:supporting
126:common law
118:Parliament
27:Court case
1154:171026190
1104:(1): 1–57
1075:146426672
1005:145049797
508:Donaldson
501:Donaldson
483:precedent
257:consent?"
236:Questions
146:'s poem "
106:copyright
41:copyright
1172:1 ER 837
538:See also
524:rejected
427:division
197:Argument
1146:2928566
759:2928566
365:Hansard
307:against
285:Answers
260:author?
74:Beckett
70:Beckett
1152:
1144:
1073:
1022:(1854)
1003:
757:
720:: 1119
512:Millar
248:, the
174:Millar
114:8 Ann.
66:Becket
62:Becket
56:, not
1150:S2CID
1142:JSTOR
1071:S2CID
1001:S2CID
953:: 102
755:JSTOR
568:Notes
514:, as
450:fifes
80:Facts
867:p.17
863:p.24
859:p.30
697:1774
318:were
47:Name
1134:doi
1063:doi
993:doi
842:: 1
747:doi
680:via
353:in
343:not
222:'s
166:.)
1184::
1148:,
1140:,
1130:23
1128:,
1102:47
1100:,
1096:,
1069:,
1059:62
1057:,
1053:,
999:,
989:65
987:,
983:,
949:,
886:^
840:47
838:,
834:,
812:^
790:^
766:^
753:,
743:23
741:,
727:^
718:29
716:,
702:^
693:,
689:,
647:^
470:.
132:,
58:tt
1157:.
1136::
1116:.
1106:.
1078:.
1065::
995::
951:9
844:.
749::
722:.
452:.
112:(
54:t
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.jpg)
