West against Francis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 1361
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 1 D. & R. 400. Discussed, Dicks v. Brooks, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 29; Hanfstaengl v. Bines, [1895] A. C. 27; Boosey v. Whight, [1900] 1 Ch. 124; Hanfstaengl v. Smith, [1905] 1 Ch. 523.
5 B. & ALB. 738, WEST V. FRANCIS 1361 west against francis. Wednesday, May 15th, 1822. The vendor of a print, being a copy in part of another, by varying in some trifling respects from the main design, is liable to an action by the proprietor of the original; and that although the vendor did not know it to be a copy. [S. C. 1 D. & E. 400. Discussed, Dicks v. Brooks, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 29; Hanfstaengl v. Baines, [1895] A. C. 27; Boosey v. PHiight, [1900] 1 Ch. 124; Hanfstaengl v. Smith, [1905] 1 Ch. 523.] Declaration stated, that the plaintiff was the proprietor of seven prints therein described, and that he was entitled to the sole right and liberty of printing and reprinting the same; yet, that the defendant published, sold, and disposed of 500 copies of each [738] of the said prints, without the consent of the plaintiff in writing. The second, count stated, that the defendant wrongfully sold and disposed of 500 copies of the said prints, being respectively copies in part of such prints, by small variations from the main designs. The third count charged, that a person, whose name to the plaintiff is yet unknown, did copy 500 of the said prints, by varying from the main designs thereof, without the express consent of the plaintiff; and that the defendant sold and disposed of 500 copies of the said prints so unlawfully copied. Plea, not guilty, At the trial before Abbott C.J. at the Middlesex sittings after last Trinity term, it appeared, that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the prints described in the declaration; and that the defendant, who was a print-seller, had sold copies of the same, all varying from the original in some respect, but preserving generally the design of the original. There was no evidence to shew that the defendant knew the prints he sold, to be copied from the plaintiff's prints. It was objected for the defendant, that the action was not maintainable under the 17 G. 3, c. 57, for merely selling a varied copy of a print. The Lord Chief Justice reserved the point, and the plaintiff having obtained a verdict, a rule nisi was obtained in last Michaelmas term for entering a nonsuit; and now, Scarlett, Marryat, and Reader shewed cause. The question is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King Features Syndicate Inc. v Kleeman (O. & M.) Ltd
...have thought in the not very different case of ( Hanfstaengl v. Baines & Co. 1895 A.C. 20 at p. 27), that the language of Bayley, J. in West v. Francis 5 B. & Aild. 737, though not always applicable, gives some assistance in determining what resemblance constitutes copying. Bayley, J. said:......
-
Baily v Taylor
...held by Lord Ellenborough, at nisi prius, in Gary v. Kearsley (4 Esp. 172. See also Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 424; and West v. Frauds, 5 B. & A. 737), that part of the work of one author found in another was not of itself piracy, or sufficient to support an action ; a man might fairly adopt......
-
Geeen v Irish Independent Company, Ltd Same v Freeman's Journal Company, Ltd
...Lucas v. Cooke 13 Ch. Div. 872. Nottage v. JacksonELR 11 Q. B. Div. 627. Truck v. PriesterELR 19 Q. B. D. 48, 629. West v. FrancisENR 5 B. & Ald. 737. 386 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1899. Appeal. GREEN v. IRISH INDEPENDENT CO., LIMITED. 1899. Feb. 8, 9, 10. SAME v. FREEMAN'S JOURNAL CO., LIMITED (......
-
San-x Co. Ltd. v Tai Pan Bread & Cakes Co. Ltd. And Another
...as a new material form of the essential 'Popeye'? instead of asking: Is this a copy of a material sketch? Bayley J. in West v. Francis 5 B. & Ald. 737, 743 defined a copy as 'that 'which comes so near to the original as to give to every person 'seeing it the idea created by the original.' T......
-
Restructuring the test for copyright infringement in relation to literary and dramatic plots.
...Act 1734 (UK) 8 Geo 2, c 13, s 1. (27) (1809) 16 Ves Jun 269; 33 ER 987. (28) Kaplan, above n 6, 19. (29) (1822) B & Ald 738, 743; 106 ER 1361, 1363 (Lord Eldon (30) Act of 18 August 1856, ch 169, 11 Stat 138 (1856). (31) Daly v Palmer, 6 Fed Cas 1132 (SDNY, 1868). (32) Attributed to T ......