1824.

CLEMENTI

0.

WALKER.

wards set up a claim to the exclusive publication of it in England. There can be no doubt that the defendant might legally have imported and sold in this country any number of copies printed in France; and upon what principle can it be contended that he might not also reprint the work here? Can it be said, that if some individual in England reprints a work which has been published for half a century in France, the author may, after such an interval, come forward here for the first time and claim the copyright, reprint it here himself, and then maintain an action against the individual who had already reprinted it here? Surely not; and yet to that length the argument on the part of the plaintiffs must go. If the author had the right to an exclusive publication in both countries, the plaintiffs are not his assignees within the meaning of the statute. They are the assignees of a part of the copyright only; but a copyright cannot be divided into parts; and therefore, upon that ground, this action is not maintainable. But if they are, properly speaking, the assignees of the copyright, still, no right vested in them until the year 1822, before which time the defendant had published the work here. That was a Jawful publication, for he might then have imported copies of the French publication, and therefore the subsequent sale was lawful also. The main argument however is, that the author having previously published in France, has dedicated the work to all the world, and cannot now set up a claim to an exclusive publication in England.

The case was argued on a former day, when the Court took time to consider of their judgment, which was now delivered by

BAYLEY, J. who, after stating the facts of the case, proceeded as follows:-The question for the consideration of the Court is, whether, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action. The first point is, whether the publication of the work in the month

of September, 1814, gave any privileges [conferred upon authors under the different acts of parliament on which the question arises] either to the plaintiffs, or to Kalkbrenner ; and we are of opinion that it did not. We think it clearly gave none to the plaintiffs, because there was no assignment or consent in writing from Kalkbrenner to them, so as to make it a privileged publication; for, according to the case of Power v. Walker, which is founded upon the words of the different statutes, there must either be a consent or an assignment in writing, a parol assignment being insufficient to confer any privilege upon the assignee by whom the publication is made. We think also, that there was no exclusive privilege conferred on Kalkbrenner, because the work was not printed on his account, nor had he any thing to do with the printing of it; and though he had done what he might think sufficient to give a right to the present plaintiff to print and publish, yet he had not done that with any view of conferring a benefit or privilege on himself. Then the next question is, whether the publication by the defendant, in 1818, was at that time a wrongful publication, so that Kalkbrenner, or any other person who might claim under him, and have an effectual title under him, might either immediately, or at any distant period of time, when he or they should have printed and published in this kingdom, put a stop to the defendant's publication. That question will depend upon two points; first, whether the statutes which give a privilege to publications in this country, confine the privilege to books printed here, or whether they extend the privilege to books printed abroad, which have never been published by the author here; and second, whether that privilege extends to the case of an author who first publishes abroad, and afterwards publishes here, but not until a reasonable time for his publishing in this country has elapsed, and after some other person, without any fraud, and in the fair course of trade, has published the work here. It appears to us, upon looking at the different statutes upon this subject, that they confer the privi

1824.

CLEMENTI

v.

WALKER.

.1824.

CLEMENTI

v.

lege úpon British publications only, and that they do not confer, and were not intended to confer, any privilege on foreign publications. The different statutes upon this subWALKER. ject, it is to be observed, apply to printed books, and to printed books only. It is recited by 8 Anne, c. 19. "That printers, booksellers and others, had of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, &c. books and other writings without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families;" and to prevent such practices in future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books, it -enacts, that the author of any book or books already printed, &c. shall have the sole right and liberty of printing such book or books for the term of twenty-one years; and that the author of any book or books already composed, and not printed and published, or that shall thereafter be composed, shall have the sole right of printing such book or books for the term of fourteen years; and that if any other person shall print, reprint, or import any such book or books without the consent of the proprietors thereof first had and obtained in writing, signed in the presence of two or more witnesses; or knowing the same to be so printed or reprinted, shall sell, &c. without such consent, he shall be liable to the forfeitures and penalties therein mentioned. By sect. 2. it is enacted, that no person shall be subject to these forfeitures or penalties for printing or reprinting any book without such consent, unless the title of such book hereafter published shall, before such publication, (that is, by the author,) be entered in the register book of the company at Stationers' Hall, &c. By sect. 5. it is enacted, that nine copies of each book, on the best paper, that shall be printed and published as aforesaid, &c. shall be delivered to the warehouse keeper of the company at Stationers' Hall, &c. before such publication made, for the use of the royal library, and the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, the four Scotch universities, Sion College in London, and the Faculty

of Advocates' Library in Edinburgh, on pain of forfeit-
ing five pounds for every copy, besides the value of the
copy to be recovered, &c. and if the penalties are incurred
in Scotland, they shall, by sect. 6., be recovered in the
Court of Session; and by s. 7 it is enacted, that nothing.
in this act shall be construed to extend to prohibit the im-
portation, vending or selling of any books in Greek, Latin,
or any other foreign language, printed beyond the seas.
Therefore the statute of Anne applies not only to books
thereafter to be printed, but extends also to books which
have been previously printed, and it would have been a
remarkable thing if the legislature had been conferring this
exclusive privilege, at that period of time, upon books
which had not been printed in this kingdom, but which had
been printed abroad. The legislature must be presumed to
have British interests and British learning in view when
they passed this act. Printing works in this kingdom brings
into activity British capital, British workmen, British ma-
terials, and it produces a circulation of literary knowledge
within the reach of the British public. Upon publications:
printed abroad, British capital, British workmen, or British
materials are not likely to be employed, and it may be.
matter of mere chance whether such works when published
will ultimately reach the British public or find their way
amongst British readers, and if they do, the advantage will
not be so great as if they were published in this kingdom..
And, therefore, unless there were words clearly shewing that
the privilege was meant to be extended to works printed.
abroad, we think, from the nature of the thing, the privilege,
must be confined to books printed in this country. The
words of the statute of Anne, it is true, speak generally of
printing, without saying where printed, but that is an act of
the British legislature, and therefore the British legislature.
would naturally have it in contemplation to protect British
interests; and the provisions not only of that, but of subse-,
quent acts of parliament, clearly shew, that British pub-
lications only were in the contemplation of the legislature

1824.

CLEMENTL

v.

WALKER.

1824.

CLEMENTI

v.

WALKER.

་

at the time when that and the subsequent acts passed. The provision in the 8 Anne that the authors of books, generally, shall have the sole right of printing and reprinting, and that, before the publication, the title of the book shall be entered, and that copies shall be delivered at Stationers' Hall, manifestly contemplate British, and not foreign publications. The statute 12 Geo. 2. c. 36. which prohibits the importation of books reprinted abroad, that have been first composed or written and printed in Great Britain, evidently considers the privilege conferred by the statute of Anne as confined to books printed here. The statute 41 Geo. 3. c. 107. contains provisions similar to those in the 8 Anne and 12 Geo.2. and extends those privileges to works published in Ireland and other places, so as to prevent the pirating of British works in any of the British dominions within Europe not protected before. The 54 Geo. 3. supersedes the necessity of leaving copies at Stationers' Hall at all events, but contains a provision that, upon demand made in writing, at the place of abode of the publisher, within twelve months after the publication thereof, eleven copies shall be delivered at Stationers' Hall, under a penalty of five pounds for each copy not delivered, and the value; and therefore that act clearly contemplates that the publisher is to be a person who is to have a place of abode in this kingdom, which would not be likely to be the case with a person who prints books abroad. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the privileges mentioned by these several statutes, were manifestly intended to be conferred upon books printed in this kingdom, and not upon books printed abroad. Then if that be the case, it is clear that in the year 1818, when the defendant printed his work, his publication of it was not wrongful, but was warranted by law. It is true that in September, 1814, the work had been published here, but that was not a publication by the author, and therefore he had no privilege conferred upon him, and being published by the plaintiff under a parol license only, he had no rights which were protected by the statutes. Then the question arises whether the subsequent assignment in January, 1822,