Page images
PDF
EPUB

ciently long trial in all conscience. In venturing, as we have done, to suggest that written agreements should for the future be construed according to the plain meaning of their contents, we cannot do better than shelter ourselves under the authority of Barons Martin and Bramwell. The former learned Judge, while feeling himself bound by the cases to decide against enforcing a penalty for the breach of the agreement before the Court, observed (Betts v. Burch, 28 L. J. Ex. 269) that in his opinion "persons being at liberty to enter into any bargains they think fit, the proper mode of ascertaining what the bargain is, if it be in writing, is to ascertain what the expressed meaning is, and carry out that meaning. If a person has made an improper bargain, it would be a warning to others not to enter into such bargains. A great deal of the difficulty in the administration of the law arises from the having to ascertain what is the meaning of agreements that parties have made; but if the Court of Law were simply to ascertain what the parties have expressed, and carry those expressed bargains out, much of the difficulty would be removed. I consider, however, that I am not at liberty to act upon that view with respect to that question." Mr. Baron Bramwell said, "I quite agree with my Brother Martin in thinking the best possible thing would be to let people make agreements and keep to them, according to their words, till they are tired of it, and then you will find out that this little piece of paternal legislation-[i.c., the Act of Will. III., above referred to]-has introduced a great deal of mischief because it has introduced a great deal of litigation."

ROBERT COLLIER.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

BELGIUM. — Pictures. Right of Reproduction. Court of Ghent, 22nd February, 1876. Carolus v. Fievez. (Pasicrisie, 1876, II., 202.)

The sale of a picture, when made without reservation, carries to the acquirer the absolute right of reproduction.

This decision, in accordance with a former decision of the Court of Brussels (6th July, 1871), was based on the principle that the owner of a thing has the right to take all the advantages which it can offer, and that, in the absence of a prohibitory law, a vendor who sells without reservation is held to transmit the property as he owned it, and that the distinction between the ownership of a picture and the right of reproducing it is purely theoretical. The Court quoted the French Law in support of this view.

But it should be noted, as is observed by the Journal de Droit International Privé (November-December, 1876) on this case, that a Bill on Literary and Artistic Copyright, laid before the Belgian Chambers, 1858-9, which has not yet become Law, contained a contrary solution of this question.

Copyright, Literary.

(1.) ITALY.-Title. Generic Title. Change. Advertisement. Cival Tribunal of Milan, 3rd August, 1874. Manini v. Pagnoni. (Monitore dei Tribunali, 1874, 929.)

The exclusive right of publication and reproduction recognised in authors by the Law of 25th June, 1865, extends to all parts of a work, and specially to the title. Art. 35 of the above Law applies this doctrine even if the title be generic. By Generic Title is to be understood one to which another epithet is usually added, such as Dictionary, History, Treatise, Guide, &c.

[ocr errors]

The title, "Every Man his own Lawyer" (l'Avvocato da sè stesso) is not generic. It is an infringement of this title to give another work such a title as "The Family Lawyer' (l'Avvocato di Famiglia), because notwithstanding the change of the last words the identity of the first word is sufficient to cause confusion. The exclusive right to the title of a work may be exercised from the moment of the publication of an advertisement in which the title is set forth as that of a new work; it is not necessary that the book should have appeared.

(2.) Title. Advertisements. Author. Publisher. Court of Appeal, Milan, 14th December, 1874. Pagnoni v. Manini. (Monitore dei Tribunali, 1875, 164.)

The advertisement of a work is essentially distinct from the work advertised, and the title announced in an advertisement is not to be confounded with the title of the work itself. It is not an infringement of copyright when the title of a work is reproduced in the advertisements of a different work, but is not placed on the copies of the new book. It would only be an infringement if special circumstances showed the intention of a dishonest competition by means of the advertisements.

A publisher may have the property in a title through having caused the work to be compiled.

The Journal de Droit International Privé (March-April, 1876), observes upon these Judgments that "mala fides,” which the Court of Appeal held had not been proved in the case before it, is a constituent element in literary, as distinguished from industrial piracy (contrefaçon), and refers to a Judgment of the French Court of Cassation, 13th January, 1866 (Sirey, 1866, I., 267). (3.) Photograph. Intellectual Work. of Appeal, Rome, 17th July, 1875. (Casaregis, 1875, II., 207. Monitore dei Tribunali, 1875, 165.) A photographic portrait is not an intellectual work.

Work of Art. Court
Sbriscia v. Rinaldini.

The essential condition for an intellectual work is that

the productive power of the mind should be dominant in it. But this condition is wanting in the work of the photographer. Still less can photography be classed with drawings, for while the creative power of the designer is revealed in every movement of his hand, the photographer's mind can exercise no influence over the chemical action which produces the negative.

Italian Legislation, not considering photography to be of the nature of a publication or reproduction, has assimilated it, in the Law of 25th June, 1865, Art. 20, on the Rights of Authors, to any other kind of proceeding by which the identity of a work of art may be established.

Consequently, the reproduction of a photographic portrait without the authorisation of its first publisher is not an infringement of the Law on Rights of Authors.

On the case of Sbriscia v. Rinaldini, the Journal de Droit International Privé remarks, that the question raised in it has been frequently brought before the French Courts, and that conflicting Judgments have been given, but that an intermediate view tends to prevail, admitting that a photograph may be recognised as a work of art, but is not necessarily so. Reference to Court of Appeal, Paris, 10th April, 1862, and 29th November, 1869, Court of Cassation, Paris, 28th November, 1862 (Sirey, 1863, I., 41, and 1870, II., 77). But cf. Court of Appeal, Turin, 25th October, 1851 (Duroni), to same effect as Sbriscia v. Rinaldini.

(4.) Tables of Agreement. Administrative Authority. Court of Appeal, Rome, 11th October, 1875. Angelelli v. Paravia. (Legge, 1875, 843.)

Tables of Agreement between old and new weights and measures are not an intellectual work. The publication of such Tables, drawn up on the plan of other Tables, is not piracy. The registration of the first published Tables, in the Register of Copyrights kept by the Administrative Authority, is of little importance. The Judicial Authority alone decides questions of private property.

It may be noted on this case that, in France, the character of a work susceptible of being private property has been, according to the circumstances of the case, allowed or refused to compilations of the nature of Almanacks, Annuals, Guides, Tables, Catalogues, &c. (Aix, 10th February, 1862, Sirey, 1866, II., 228.)

Italian Law of 10th August, 1875, on Rights of Authors.

The Italian Law of Copyright of 25th June, 1865, referred to in Sbriscia v. Rinaldini, having given rise to some difficulties in its application, the subject was taken in hand by the Ministry, in 1875, and a Bill on Dramatic Copyright brought in and passed. We transcribe its provisions, together with those of the Norwegian Law of 1875, from the Annuaire de la Société de Législation Comparée, 1876 (Paris, Cotillon).

Art. 1. The author of a work fit to be represented on the stage (opera adatta a pubblico spettacolo), whether unpublished, or published by printing, or in any other way, has over it the exclusive right of representation and execution, on condition of his having accomplished, whether with regard to publication or representation, the formalities required by ch. iii. of the Law of 25th June, 1865, where they do not differ from the following provisions::

Art. 2. No one may bring out or produce a work fit for representation on the stage, and subject to the exclusive right mentioned in Art. 1, without the consent of the author or his agents.

Art. 3. The exclusive right of representation and production belongs to the author and his representatives for eighty years from the first representation or publication of the work. After this period, the piece becomes public property in regard to representation and production.

Art. 4. The declarations to be made respecting unpublished works fit for the stage, and of which it is desired to reserve the exclusive right of representation and production,

« PreviousContinue »