Reports of the proceedings of Public Auth,orities.—Representatives of the press are entitled to admis.sion to the meetings, other than a committee meeting, of every local authority, though they may bo temporarily excluded by a resolution of a majority of members present where, in view of the special nature of tho business then being dealt with, or about to be dealt with, such exclusion is advisable in the public interest.
Reporting Lectures,—A public lecture can be lawfully reported in a newspaper or other publication only when the lecture does not come within . the protection of the Copyright. Act 1911, sect. 2 (1) (v), or when the lecturer has given his consent to the publication. In order to obtain this statutory protection in respect of a lecture, the report .must be prohibited by conspicuous written or printed notice affixed before and maintained during the lecture at or about the main entrance of the building in which the lecture is given, and, except whilst the building is being used for public worship, in a position near the lecturer. But nothing in the foregoing is to affect the right of a newspaper to publish a summary of such a lecture. Onco within the protection of the statute the author of the lecture, or his assignees, have the sole right o f publishing it. But after copyright in the lecture has expired then any one may publish. In the case of Caird v. Sims, a professor was held entitled to restrain the publication, without his consent, of lectures delivered by him in his class-room at a university. The protection afforded to a lecture extends even so far as the prohibition of its publication in shorthand characters, as in the case of Nicols v. Pitman.
Reporting Summaries.—There is no infringement of copyright in any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, .criticism, review, or newspaper summary.
Reporting Trials.—The press may be excluded from a trial for incest.
News Agencies.—In Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Gregory & Co., where the plaintiffs were the purchasers from the Committee of the London Stock Exchange of certain unpublished information in the nature of the prices of stocks and shares, collected originally by that committee, and the defendants had surrepti tiously obtained the same information and were publishing it, the plaintiffs were held entitled to restrain the defendants from continuing to collect and publish the information. A somewhat similar case was that of Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Central News, the essential difference being that the information published by the plaintiffs was originally public property, such for example as the result of a horse race. The plaintiffs carried on the business of a telegraphic news agency in
London, collecting news of different kinds, and by means of telegraphic apparatus, including a tapo machine, communicating that news to subscribers. The latter contracted with the plaintiffs that they would not publish the news so recorded, or allow it to be published except within certain restricted limits. In breach, however, of this contract, and induced thereto by a third party, one of the subscribers communicated the news to the third party who published it for his own benefit. Upon the plaintiffs taking action the Court restrained the subscriber from communicating the news to any third party in breach of his contract, and also restrained the third party from inducing the subscriber to break his contract by supplying him with news with a view to publication. The defendants had urged that the news had become public property before it had been supplied to the subscriber. "But," said Mr. Justice Stirling, "the information was not made known to the whole world. • . . By the expenditure of labour and money the plaintiffs had acquired this information, and it was in their hands valuable property." Newsvendors outside shops are not subject to the provisions of the Shops Act, 1911.
Wireless Telegraphy.—A newspaper may now, under the Wireless Telegraph Act, 1904, obtain a special licence, at reduced terms, to establish and work a wireless telegraph station.
Name.—There is nothing analogous to copy-right in the name of a newspaper (Kelly v. Ilutton), but the proprietor has a right to prevent any other person from adopting the same name for any other similar publication (ibid.). This right is a " chattel interest " capable of assignment either by way of sale or mortgage. There is no need to register an assignment of a name at Stationers' Hall under the Copyright Act. If a name not precisely similar is adopted by a rival news paper, the Court will not restrain its use in connection with that newspaper unless such use is likely to mislead the public to the prejudice of the original user. In considering whether there will be such an effect it is necessary to consider the degree of similarity between the two names, the class and appearance of the re spective publications, and their respective prices and geographical spheres of circulation (Bradbury v. Beeton).