Bach v Longman

Last updated

Bach v Longman 2 Cowper 623 (1777) is a landmark judgment regarding copyright. The case related to whether printed music fell within the protection of the Statute of Anne (1710). Lord Mansfield held that published music is protected as 'writing' within the terms of the legislation. [1]

Johann Christian Bach, painted in London by Thomas Gainsborough, 1776 (National Portrait Gallery, London) Johann Christian Bach by Thomas Gainsborough.jpg
Johann Christian Bach, painted in London by Thomas Gainsborough, 1776 (National Portrait Gallery, London)

Johann Christian Bach and Karl Friedrich Abel sued publisher James Longman [2] who had been violating the copyright of their works in London.

The only copyright legislation at the time was the Statute of Anne, which was assumed not to cover music. [3] However, the judge, Lord Mansfield, found that the Statute's preamble referred to "books and other writings." [4] This he felt included written music. [5] His decision allowed for a spate of further cases [5] and a more stable performing environment that allowed the growth of freelance musicians in the 18th century.

Further reading

Related Research Articles

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of Anne</span> 1710 legislation in Great Britain regulating copyright

The Statute of Anne, also known as the Copyright Act 1710, was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed in 1710, which was the first statute to provide for copyright regulated by the government and courts, rather than by private parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Johann Christian Bach</span> German composer (1735–1782)

Johann Christian Bach was a German composer of the Classical era, the eighteenth child of Johann Sebastian Bach, and the youngest of his eleven sons. After living in Italy for five years (1757-1762), Bach moved to London, where he became known as "The London Bach". He is also sometimes known as "The English Bach", and during his time spent living in the British capital, he came to be known as John Bach. He is noted for playing a role in influencing the concerto styles of Haydn and Mozart. He contributed significantly to the development of the new sonata principle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield</span> British barrister, politician and judge (1705–1793)

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, PC, SL was a British barrister, politician and judge noted for his reform of English law. Born to Scottish nobility, he was educated in Perth, Scotland, before moving to London at the age of 13 to take up a place at Westminster School. He was accepted into Christ Church, Oxford, in May 1723, and graduated four years later. Returning to London from Oxford, he was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn on 23 November 1730, and quickly gained a reputation as an excellent barrister.

The history of copyright starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1790</span> First U.S. federal legislation on copyright

The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War. The stated object of the act was the "encouragement of learning," and it achieved this by securing authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" the copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14-year term should the copyright holder still be alive.

<i>Millar v Taylor</i> English legal case concerning common law copyright

Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303, 98 ER 201 is an English court decision that held there is a perpetual common law copyright and that no works ever enter the public domain. It represented a major victory for the bookseller monopolies.

Donaldson v Becket (1774) 2 Brown's Parl. Cases 129, 1 Eng. Rep. 837; 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 257; 17 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 953 is the ruling by the British House of Lords that held that copyright in published works was not perpetual but was subject to statutory limits. Some scholars disagree on the reasoning behind the decision.

Perpetual copyright, also known as indefinite copyright, is copyright that lasts indefinitely. Perpetual copyright arises either when a copyright has no finite term from outset, or when a copyright's original finite term is perpetually extended. The first of these two scenarios is highly uncommon, as the current laws of all countries with copyright statutes set a standard limit on the duration, based either on the date of creation/publication, or on the date of the creator's death. Exceptions have sometimes been made, however, for unpublished works. Usually, special legislation is required, granting a perpetual copyright to a specific work.

In law, comity is "a practice among different political entities " involving the "mutual recognition of legislative, executive, and judicial acts."

Slavery at common law in the British Empire developed slowly over centuries, and was characterised by inconsistent decisions and varying rationales for the treatment of slavery, the slave trade, and the rights of slaves and slave owners. Unlike in its colonies, within the home islands of Britain, until 1807, except for statutes facilitating and taxing the international slave trade, there was virtually no legislative intervention in relation to slaves as property, and accordingly the common law had something of a "free hand" to develop, untrammelled by the "paralysing hand of the Parliamentary draftsmen". Two attempts to pass a slave code via Parliament itself both failed, one in the 1660s and the other in 1674.

Lex mercatoria, often referred to as "the Law Merchant" in English, is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It developed into an integrated body of law that was voluntarily produced, adjudicated and enforced on a voluntary basis, alleviating the friction stemming from the diverse backgrounds and local traditions of the participants. Due to the international background local state law was not always applicable and the merchant law provided a leveled framework to conduct transactions reducing the preliminary of a trusted second party. It emphasized contractual freedom and inalienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono. With lex mercatoria professional merchants revitalized the almost nonexistent commercial activities in Europe, which had plummeted after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Motte v Faulkner was a copyright lawsuit between Benjamin Motte and George Faulkner over who had the legal rights to publish the works of Jonathan Swift in London. This trial was one of the first to test the Statute of Anne copyright law in regards to Irish publishing independence. Although neither held the copyright to all of Swift's works, the suit became a legal struggle over Irish rights, which were eventually denied by the English courts. Faulkner, in 1735, published the Works of Jonathan Swift in Dublin. However, a few of the works were under Motte's copyright within the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when Faulkner sought to sell his book in London, Motte issued a formal complaint to Jonathan Swift and then proceeded to sue Faulkner. An injunction was issued in Motte's favor, and the book was prohibited from being sold on British soil. The basis of the law protected the rights of the author, and not the publisher, of the works, and Swift was unwilling to support a lawsuit against Faulkner. With Swift's reaction used as a basis, the lawsuit was later seen as a struggle between the rights of Irishmen to print material that were denied under English law.

The copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Copyright Act 1968, which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act as well as by the Design Act. Since 2007, performers have moral rights in recordings of their work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act 1911</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Copyright Act 1911, also known as the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (UK) which received royal assent on 16 December 1911. The act established copyright law in the UK and the British Empire. The act amended existing UK copyright law, as recommended by a royal commission in 1878 and repealed all previous copyright legislation that had been in force in the UK. The act also implemented changes arising from the first revision of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1908.

The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.

Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 is a judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, relating to the right of an enslaved person on English soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale. Lord Mansfield decided that:

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom</span> Constitutional principle of the United Kingdom

Parliamentary sovereignty is an ancient concept central to the functioning of the constitution of the United Kingdom but which is also not fully defined and has long been debated. Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament, and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there have been the questions of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether or not it should.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian intellectual property law</span> Regulation of intellectual property

Canadian intellectual property law governs the regulation of the exploitation of intellectual property in Canada. Creators of intellectual property gain rights either by statute or by the common law. Intellectual property is governed both by provincial and federal jurisdiction, although most legislation and judicial activity occur at the federal level.

References

  1. primary sources on Copyright Archived 2014-09-15 at the Wayback Machine .
  2. Bach v. Longman et al., 2 Cowper 623 (1777).
  3. Scherer, F. M. (2008). The Emergence of Musical Copyright in Europe from 1709 to 1850. Harvard University. p. 8.
  4. Bach v. Longman et al., 2 Cowper 623 (1777) at 624.
  5. 1 2 Torremans, Paul (2009). Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 138–140. doi:10.4337/9781848440210. ISBN   9781845424879.