Re: For the nightemare

Blue Sow wrote:

"The history of copyright in the UK is usually traced back to
privileges granted by the monarch in the early modern period before
1700, giving printers (but not authors as such)

Publishers, rather than printers. Not authors at all :-)

exclusive rights to
print and distribute books. After the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707,
the author gained the exclusive ?right and liberty? of printing books
through the Statute of Anne 1709; a right and liberty usually
exercised, however, by granting a licence to the actual printer.

Publisher.

The
Statute of Anne confined the right to a 14-year term, renewable once.
Questions about whether the author was entitled to a perpetual right
to copyright under the common law, or whether the statute had
restricted its duration, were answered by the courts in favour of the
latter view. Henceforth copyright was clearly a right dependent only
on statute, lasting for only a limited period of time."

"Statute of Anne" is a pretty meaningless term, popular with American
writers on copyright, but it does show that the origin of copyright is
Statute, not Common Law. Common Law copyright (if it ever existed, which is
doubtful) was a wheeze invented by publishers to try and claw back the
ground they had lost to authors. Common Law copyright in unpublished works
(assuming it ever existed, of course) was definitively abolished by the
Copyright Act of 1911. (That "henceforth" means after 1774.)
--
John Briggs


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: For the nightemare
    ... the Statute of Anne 1709. ... about whether the author was entitled to a perpetual right to copyright under the common law, or whether the statute had restricted its duration, were answered by the courts in favour of the latter view. ... To conclude, all of these interesting points are not dependent upon the author attaching a copyright statement to every word they utter on Usenet, although the law grants them the right to do so in superfluity (-; ...
    (uk.culture.language.english)
  • Re: MALFOY=JERK
    ... >>>comprehensive criminal code. ... intentionally delete a murder statute without replacing it. ... > perfectly possible for a statute to abolish a common law crime. ... because the code does not criminalize ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: MALFOY=JERK
    ... Does the fact that murder is the classic "malum in se" mean that this situation should or would be treated differently than the gum example above? ... If a statute lapses, for any reason, then presumably the common-law will reassert itself. ... because the code does not criminalize everything the legislature wanted to criminalize. ... If the statutes abolish common law crimes, then judges cannot criminalize anything that the statutes do not criminalize. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • disagree,Re: Naturist Law
    ... examole where statute has made legal something which was previously ... Rights of Way Act 2000 which overrode the common law relating to ... trespass in the circumstances legislated for. ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)
  • Re: disagree,Re: Naturist Law
    ... examole where statute has made legal something which was previously ... Rights of Way Act 2000 which overrode the common law relating to ... trespass in the circumstances legislated for. ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)