§ (1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction or interdict, damages, accounts, and otherwise, as may be conferred by law.
§ (2) The costs in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall be in the absolute discretion of the court.
§ (3) In any action for infringement of copyright in any work, the work shall be presumed to be a work in which copyright subsists, and the plaintiff shall be pre- 2139 sumed to be the owner of the copyright, unless the defendant, in his pleadings in defence, states that he disputes the existence of the copyright, or, as the case may be, the title of the plaintiff, with the addition of a statement of the ground of such objection, and the name of the person (if any) whom the defendant alleges to be the owner of the copyright.
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "costs" ["The costs in any proceedings"], to insert the words "of all parties."
The object of this Amendment is to make quite certain the court will have absolute discretion in regard to any order they may make as to the payment of costs.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "in his pleadings in defence, states that he disputes," and to insert instead thereof the words "puts in issue."
If the House will turn to page 6 of the Bill, they will find a provision as to what is to happen in an action for infringement of copyright as regards the presumption of the ownership of the work, or the existence of the copyright. The Clause, as it was originally drawn, was unnecessarily cumbrous, and the result of the Amendment put down in the name of the President of the Board of Trade will, in substance, be to provide, in the first place, that when an action is brought for infringement and there is no challenge to the assertion that the plaintiff is entitled to the copyright it should be presumed; and further, where it is in issue that the author or publisher whose name appears in the ordinary way, is to be regarded primâ facie as the person entitled to bring the action. It will still be necessary to prove the work is copyright, but it is surely not necessary we should impose, it may be on the descendants of an author after his death, the difficult and elaborate task of proving the actual devolution of the title of the copyright. I do not think, in practice, this can involve any hardship upon anybody.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the words 'puts in issue' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3) leave out the words "With the 2140 addition of a statement of the ground of such objection, and the name of the person (if any) whom the defendant alleges to be the owner of the copyright," and to insert instead thereof the words "and where any such question is in issue, then—
- (a) if a name purporting to be that of the author of the work is printed or otherwise indicated thereon in the usual manner the person whose name is so printed or indicated shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the author of the work;
- (b) if no name is so printed or indicated, or if the name so printed or indicated is not the author's true name or the name by which he is commonly known, and a name purporting to be that of the publisher of the work is printed or otherwise indicated thereon in the usual manner, the person whose name is so printed or indicated shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the owner of the copyright in the work for the purposes of proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright therein."