Publishers and Lawyers
Publishers of piracies could be sued for damages in courts of common law, but this remedy was inadequate, as everyone recognized; far better to prevent the injury by stopping sale of the piracy. Because fighting infringement was thus, in practice, a matter for Chancery, Turner solicited an opinion i...
Saved in:
| Published in: | The Wordsworth circle 2013-04, Vol.44 (2/3), p.121-126 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Publishers of piracies could be sued for damages in courts of common law, but this remedy was inadequate, as everyone recognized; far better to prevent the injury by stopping sale of the piracy. Because fighting infringement was thus, in practice, a matter for Chancery, Turner solicited an opinion in 1814 from a prominent equity specialist, John Bell, as to whether Byron had relinquished the copyright of English Bards and Scotch Revieivers (1809) (Bell concluded he had not). [...]criticism of published books enjoyed special latitude, and in such a case, the verdict would be for the defendant, unless the plaintiff demonstrated that the supposed libel went beyond certain boundaries. When the travel writer, Sir John Carr, sued publishers Hood and Sharpe in 1808, the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, told the jury that they must find for the defendants if the alleged libel, in a parody of Carr titled My Pocket-Book, were "a criticism of the work of this author, and of the author himself, as far as he is connected with the work only"; on the other hand, the jury must find for the plaintiff if the libel were "written against this author, as a man, and unconnected with his work" (Libel 29; see also "Carr v. Hood"). Because the Quarterly reviewed recent books, the publisher needed to consider whether articles could be defended by invoking Ellenborough's principle. Yet Turner assured Murray that "to make an Individual ridiculous merely because he has written a foolish if it be a harmless book is not I think justifiable on any moral principle." Because Caledonian Sketches was harmless, there was no good reason to inflict pain on its author: "if as you say it will hurt his Mind, for Gods sake Omit the Article" (Turner to Murray, February 13, 1809, Ms. 41209). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0043-8006 2640-7310 |