Articks.—Subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911, the author of a work is deemed to be the first owner of the copyright therein. But where he was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of such employment, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the employer is deemed to be the first owner of the copyright. So, in the ordinary course of things, the copyright in the work of a member of the staff of the newspaper would vest and remain in the proprietor. Nevertheless, where there is no agreement to the contrary, the author has the right to restrain the publication of his work otherwise than as part of the newspaper. Articles in magazines or similar periodicals come within the same rule. A writer of periodical articles, if he desires to retain the copyright, should therefore be careful to have an express agreement to that effect. And it would also seem, on the authority of Cox v. Cox, that, apart from an express or implied agreement reserving to the author the copyright or some interest in it, the purchaser of the manuscript of the articles is entitled to alter and deal therewith as periodical articles in what manner he pleases. As against this, however, is the general principle, laid down in Archbold v. S weet, that an author may maintain an action for an injury to his reputation against a publisher of an inaccurate edition of his work, falsely purporting to be by him, even though the pal disher is the sole owner of the copyright. And his reputation may bo injured in yet another way. He and his publisher may, for example, have contracted for the writing of a work of a popular nature, to be published in a periodical intended for a juvenile class of readers ; under such circumstances the publisher cannot, without the consent of the author, publish the work only in a separate and distinct form, and so render the author liable to be judged by more severe rules than would he applied to a familiar work intended merely for children. This opinion was incidentally expro,st d by Chief-Justice Tindal, in Planche v. Colburn, a case which decided a point very useful to periodical proprietors and contributors. There, C. engaged P. to write a treatise for a periodical publication ; P. commenced the treatise, but before he had completed it, C. abandoned the periodical ; it was held that P. might sue for compensation, and that without oven tendering or delivering the treatise.
What a literary composition is.—It has already been stated that there is copy right in the news of the day, so far as the mode of expression of that news is concerned. And this is all that can safely be said, for the Courts have declined to define in general terms what amounts to a literary composition. In Chilton v. Progress Printing and Publishing Co. the plaintiff published a weekly periodical, inserting in each issue, under the heading, " One Horse Selections," a list of horses expected to win certain races. The defendants having published a some what similar list under the title, " The Specials, One Horse Finals," the plaintiff claimed copyright in his list and proceeded against the defendants in respect of an alleged infringement. But he failed in his action. In tho Court of Appeal Lord Halsbury said : "I have not been able to entertain a doubt that there is no copyright in this thing, notwithstanding the ingenious argument pressed upon us. It is really difficult to know by what name to describe it. What is really
sought to be restrained is the publication of the fact that this gentleman, who is supposed to have good judgment as to winning horses, has expressed an opinion that this horse or that horse will win. It is idle to speak of this as something in the nature of literary composition such as is intended to be protected by the Copyright Act. It is not the form of printed words into which this gentleman has cast the result of his investigation which is sought to be protected. What is really sought to be protected is his opinion ; and he has published his opinion, which is susceptible of being handed down from one person to another in any way, it is admitted, except in writing. But it is contended by the applicant that if any person chooses to print it, and thereby make a copy of it, that is an in fringement. . • . I am of opinion . . . there is nothing here which ought to be protected, and that there is no subject-matter of copyright." Reports of Public Speeches.—li was decided, in Walter v. Lane, that a newspaper can have a copyright in its verbatim report of a public speech ; the reporter is the " author" of the report within the meaning of the Copyright Act, and it is through him that the newspaper proprietor derives his title to the copyright. There the plaintiffs, as proprietors of the Times, had published reports of certain public speeches of Lord Rosebery, the reports having been taken by reporters who wore employed on the terms that the copyright in all reports and articles composed by them for the Times should belong to the proprietors. The defendant had published a book containing, without the permission of the Times, identical reproductions of those reports. The Times thereupon took proceedings--success fully—for infringement of copyright. Lord Rosebery made no claim. In the el:Ruse of his judgment, Lord Davey said that in his opinion " the reporter is the author of his own report. He it was who brought into existence in the form of a writing the piece of letterpress which the respondent ha.s copied. I think also that he and he alone composed his report. The materials for his composition were his notes, which were his own propel ty, aided to some extent by his memory and trained judgment. Owing to the peifection which the art of shorthand writing has attained in recent years, memory and judgment bear a loss important part in the composition of a report of a speech than was formerly the case. But the question whether the composer has copyright in his report does not seem to me to vary inversely u ith or depend on his skill in stenography. Nor, as it appears to me, does the fact that the subject-matter of the report had been made public property, or that no originality or literary skill was demanded for the composition of the roport, have anything to do witb the matter. . . . It was of course open te any other reporter to compose his own report of Lord Rosebery's speech, and to any other newspaper or book to publish that report; but it is a sound principle that a man shall not avail hitnself of another's skill, labour, awl expense by copying the written product thereof." But as against the orator a newspaper has no right to publish his public deliverances, except in the case of political speeches. In respect to such speeches when delivered at public meetings the Copyright Act 1911, sect. 20, expressly provides that it shall not be an infringement of the author's copyright to publish a report thereof in a newspaper.