Gyles v Wilcox

Last updated
Gyles v Wilcox
Old book bindings cropped.jpg
Court Court of Chancery
Full case nameGyles v Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt [1]
Decided6 March 1740
Citation(s)(1740) 3 Atk 143; 26 ER 489
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke
Keywords
Fair use

Gyles v Wilcox (1740) 26 ER 489 was a decision of the Court of Chancery of England [2] that established the doctrine of fair abridgement, which would later evolve into the concept of fair use. The case was heard and the opinion written by Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke, and concerned Fletcher Gyles, a bookseller who had published a copy of Matthew Hale's Pleas of the Crown . Soon after the initial publication, the publishers Wilcox and Nutt hired a writer named Barrow to abridge the book, and repackaged it as Modern Crown Law. Gyles sued for a stay on the book's publishing, claiming his rights under the Statute of Anne had been infringed.

Contents

The main issues in the case were whether or not abridgements of a work inherently constituted copyright infringement, or whether they could qualify as a separate, new work. Lord Hartwicke ruled that abridgements fell under two categories: "true abridgements" and "coloured shortenings". True abridgements presented a true effort on the part of the editor, and by this effort, constituted a new work which did not infringe upon the copyright of the original. Leaving it to literary and legal experts to decide, Hartwicke ruled that Modern Crown Law was not a true abridgement, but merely a duplication intending to circumvent the law.

The case set a legal precedent which has shaped copyright law to the present day. It established the common law doctrine of fair abridgement, which was cited in other cases, ultimately building up to the idea of fair use. The opinion also recognised the author's right to a work through the nature of the labour it took to produce it, shifting copyright away from publishing rights and towards the idea of serving the greater good by encouraging the production of new, useful works.

Facts

Fletcher Gyles, an English bookseller, had previously published a book entitled Matthew Hale's Pleas of the Crown, for which he had purchased the exclusive publishing rights. Around the same time, publishers Wilcox and Nutt paid a writer named Barrow to abridge the book, circulating it under the title Modern Crown Law. Gyles alleged that Modern Crown Law was a near verbatim copy of his publication, with only minor alterations, including the translation of Latin and French passages into English and cutting old, obsolete laws. [3] Seeking to protect his printing rights, Gyles sued both Wilcox and Nutt, along with Barrow, for a stay on the publication. [4]

Arguments

The case involved whether Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt had violated Gyles' publishing rights as defined under the Statute of Anne, [3] particularly the section stating that an author, or purchaser of an author's copyrights as Gyles was, "shall have the sole Liberty of Printing and Reprinting such Book and Books for the Term of four-teen years." [5] Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke presided over and decided the case. [6]

Browning, Gyles' attorney, cited a case which had also appeared before Hardwicke, that of Read v Hodges. In that case, a publisher attempted to circumvent the rights of the author of Czar Peter the Great by including all three volumes in one and cutting several pages. [7] Hardwicke rejected the argument, however, declaring that the former case had been decided merely on a motion, and that he had given his decision and statements without the thought he would have given a normal hearing. [7] [8] Hardwicke further took contention with the Attorney General for England and Wales' assertion that the Statute of Anne provided a publishing monopoly, instead interpreting the act as one meant to promote public education and the public good. [7] [9]

As Hardwicke had decided to interpret the Statute of Anne as for the public good, the main question of the case became which "any such book or books" the act referred to and protected. [9] The defendants argued that his abridgement must be considered separate from the original work published by Gyles. The defendant's lawyers furthered pushed the court to try the case as if the abridgement had been recorded in the Stationers' Register, an action that would have given Wilcox and Nutt the right to publish their book, and the lawsuit brought against a second, unique book. Therefore, the only question before the court was whether the second book differentiated sufficiently from the first. [10] Further, the attorneys for the defendants argued that the book was not a direct transcription, but that several chapters had been omitted, while other, original sections had been added to the Wilcox and Nutt publication. [11] They further pointed to the fact that the Gyles' publication consisted of 275 sheets, whereas the abridgement contained only 35 sheets. [12]

Judgment

Lord Hardwicke, the jurist who presided over the case. Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke.jpg
Lord Hardwicke, the jurist who presided over the case.

The opinion, written by Hardwicke, found that a true abridgement of a published book may be considered an entirely separate, new work, as the abridgement showed the labour, originality, education, and judgement of the editor. [6] [13] [14] This new book did not run the risk of infringing the rights of the author or bookseller who owned the publishing rights. However, Lord Hardwicke drew a distinction between works "fairly made" and those "colourably shortened". Hardwicke refused to compare the books himself to determine whether Modern Crown Law was indeed a fair abridgement, or to force a judge and jury to sit and hear both books read, instead opting to have two legal experts and a literary master read the books and report the findings to the court. [15] The parties were allowed to choose these examiners, in a way leaving the case to arbitration. [16] After a week in which the parties were given a chance to make amends outside of court, [17] the book in question was ruled a colourable shortening, created only to circumvent the law, [18] and thus was an infringement of Gyles' printing rights. [6]

In his decision, Hartwicke went counter to the prevailing view that the Statute of Anne should be interpreted very strictly, proclaiming, "I am quite of a different opinion, and that it ought to receive a liberal construction, for it is far from being a monopoly, as it is intended to secure the property of books in the authors themselves, or the purchasers of the copy, as some recompense for their pains and labour in such works as may be of use to the learned world." [19]

Consequences

The case established the doctrine of fair abridgement, which allowed that abridgements displaying a fair amount of labour on the part of the editor, and that differed from the original published work in a significant way, could not be copyright violations. [20] This in effect raised the abridger to the level of an author. [21] [22] The decision did not define the exact parameters that would qualify a work as a valid abridgement. This distinction came with a later case involving an abridgement of Hawksworth's Voyages, in a decision written by Lord Chancellor Apsley. [23] This concept of fair abridgement eventually evolved through common law, initiated from Gyles v Wilcox, [24] into the current concept of fair use. [25] Hardwicke's decision also added the exercise of personal judgement to the list of admissible defences against the charge of copyright infringement, [2] adding to the growing case law establishing that British copyright would be based on labour and not on originality. The opinion advanced the position that copyright law should serve the public interest by promoting the creation of new educational and useful works, rather than focusing on publishing rights. [25] The case played a significant role in the development of English copyright law. [25] The United States federal courts have cited the case as recently as the 1980s. [26]

Notes

  1. ↑ Devlin (1980), 73.
  2. 1 2 Saunders (1992), 29.
  3. 1 2 Atkyns (1740), 142.
  4. ↑ Loyola Law Review (1994), 928.
  5. ↑ House of Commons (1710), 1.
  6. 1 2 3 Curtis (2005), 265.
  7. 1 2 3 Atkyns (1740), 143.
  8. ↑ Parker (1853), 456.
  9. 1 2 Barnardiston (1741), 368.
  10. ↑ Barnardiston (1741), 369.
  11. ↑ Deazley (2004), 82.
  12. ↑ Scrutton (1896), 130.
  13. ↑ Henley (1821), 281.
  14. ↑ MacGillivray (1902), 25.
  15. ↑ Gresley and Alderson (1847), 455.
  16. ↑ Cairns and McLeod (2002), 148.
  17. ↑ Barnardiston (1741), 370.
  18. ↑ Henley (1821), 280.
  19. ↑ Patterson (1968), 162.
  20. ↑ Curiosities of Copyright Law (1888), 172.
  21. ↑ Carr, Carr, and Schultz (2005), 215.
  22. ↑ Rose (1995), 51.
  23. ↑ Curtis (2005), 267.
  24. ↑ Fisher (1988), 1663.
  25. 1 2 3 Deazley (2008).
  26. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1986).

Related Research Articles

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to make copies of 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.

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

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.

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the scope of rights accorded owners of a copyright versus owners of a particular copy of a copyrighted work. This was a case of first impression concerning whether the copyright laws permit an owner to control a purchaser's subsequent sale of a copyrighted work. The court stated the issue as:

Does the sole right to vend secure to the owner of the copyright the right, after a sale of the book to a purchaser, to restrict future sales of the book at retail, to the right to sell it at a certain price per copy, because of a notice in the book that a sale at a different price will be treated as an infringement, which notice has been brought home to one undertaking to sell for less than the named sum?

Common law copyright is the legal doctrine which grants copyright protection based on common law of various jurisdictions, rather than through protection of statutory law.

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.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure’s impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure’s account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

An abridgement is a condensing or reduction of a book or other creative work into a shorter form while maintaining the unity of the source. The abridgement can be true to the original work in terms of mood and tone, capturing the parts the abridging author perceives to be most important; it could be a complete parody of the original or it could fall anywhere in between, generally capturing the tone and message of the original author but falling short in some manner or subtly twisting their words and message to favor a different interpretation or agenda.

The Copyright Act 1957 governs the subject of copyright law in India. The Act is applicable from 21 January 1958. The history of copyright law in India can be traced back to its colonial era under the British Empire. The Copyright Act 1957 was the first post-independence copyright legislation in India and the law has been amended six times since 1957. The most recent amendment was in the year 2012, through the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012. India is a member of most of the important international conventions governing the area of copyright law, including the Berne Convention of 1886, the Universal Copyright Convention of 1951, the Rome Convention of 1961 and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Initially, India was not a member of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) but subsequently entered the treaty in 2013.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

Nominate reports, also known as nominative reports, named reports and private reports, is a legal term from common-law jurisdictions referring to the various published collections of reports of English cases in various courts from the Middle Ages to the 1860s, when law reporting was officially taken over by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, for example Edmund F. Moore's Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Judicial Committee and the Lords of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council on Appeal from the Supreme and Sudder Dewanny Courts in the East Indies published in London from 1837 to 1873, referred to as Moore's Indian Appeals and cited for example as: Moofti Mohummud Ubdoollah v. Baboo Mootechund 1 M.I.A. 383.

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.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Copyright Law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1926, are in the public domain.

Robert Atkyns (judge)

Sir Robert Atkyns (1620–1710) was an English Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, Member of parliament, and Speaker of the House of Lords.

<i>British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Co</i>

British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co. is a 1986 decision of the House of Lords concerning the doctrine of non-derogation from grants. This doctrine is comparable to, but somewhat broader than, the doctrine of legal estoppel, assignor estoppel, or estoppel by deed in U.S. law. Under the doctrine of non-derogation from grants, a seller of realty or goods is not permitted to take any action that would lessen the value to the buyer of the thing sold.

Copyright troll Party that enforces copyrights for purposes of making money through litigation

A copyright troll is a party that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes while without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works.

Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery, 13 and 14 Geo. II. from April 25, 1740, to May 9, 1741 is the title of a collection of nominate reports, by Thomas Barnardiston, of cases decided by the Court of Chancery, between approximately 1740 and 1741. For the purpose of citation, their name may be abbreviated to "Barn C". They are reprinted in volume 27 of the English Reports.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.