§ (1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright does anything the sole right to do which is by this Act conferred on the owner of 1946 the copyright: Provided that the following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright:—
- (i) Any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review, or newspaper summary:
- (ii) Where the author of an artistic work is not the owner of the copyright therein, the use by the author of any mould, cast, sketch, plan, model, or study made by him for the purpose of the work, provided that he does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of that work:
- (iii) The making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situate in a public place or building, or the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs (which are not in the nature of architectural drawings or plans) of any architectural work of art, or the making or publishing of photographs, of paintings, drawings, or engravings not being private property and situate in a public place or building the maintenance of which depends wholly or in part on public funds:
- (iv.) The publication in a newspaper of a report of a lecture delivered in public, unless the report is prohibited by conspicuous written or printed notice affixed before and maintained during the lecture at or about the main entrance of the building in which the lecture is given, and, except whilst the building is being used for public worship, in a position near the lecturer; but nothing in this paragraph shall affect the provisions in paragraph (i.) as to newspaper summaries:
- (v.) The reading or recitation in public by one person of any reasonable extract from any published work.
§ (2) Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who sells or lets for hire, or exposes, offers for sale or hire by way of trade, or widely or by way of trade distributes or exhibits in public, or imports for sale or hire into any part of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, any work which to his knowledge infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made within the part of His Majesty's dominions in or into which the sale or hiring, exposure, offering for sale or hire or importation took place.
§ (3) Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who for private profit permits a theatre or other place of entertainment to be used for the performance in public of the work without 1948 the consent of the owner of the copyright, unless he was not aware, and had no reasonable ground for suspecting, that the performance would be an infringement of copyright.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (iii.), to leave out the words "not being" ["engravings, not being private property"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the copyright in which is not."
The words now submitted were before the Committee and were omitted by mistake, and it was understood that they would be brought up on Report. They were necessary to make clear the question of copyright in certain cases.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (iii.), after the word "and" ["private property and situate"], to insert the words "which are."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after paragraph (iii.), to insert the following:
"(iv.) The publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bonâ fide intended for the use of schools, and so described in the title and in any advertisements issued by the publisher, of short passages from published literary works in which copyright subsists, provided that not more than two of such passages from works by the same author are published by the same publisher within five years, and that the source from which such passages are taken is acknowledged."
The object of this Amendment is to exclude from copyright passages from copyright works which are embodied in school literature. The great length of the Amendment is caused by the fact that when the discussion took place in Committee one danger after another was suggested by hon. Members opposite, with the result that proviso after proviso was added to the Amendment in order to avoid all the pitfalls that were contemplated. I think the Amendment meets every one of the difficulties which were suggested. It will be seen that the book is advertised as a school book, and it is to bear on the title page the fact that it is for the use of schools, both of which announcements will make it very improbable that the ordinary reader of literature would use it as a library edition. The passages are to be short passages; there are not to be more 1949 than two of such passages from the works of the same author in the book, so that it will be impossible to bring out, so to speak, an edition of Rudyard Kipling or other authors under the guise of a school book. Further, the poem from which passages are taken is to be stated, together with the name of the author. In effect, therefore, the publication of these passages from a book will act as an advertisement for the author. Finally, the publisher is not to bring out another school book, quoting from the same author, within five years of the book originally published. I think it will be seen that every safeguard is provided, and I do hope that hon. Members opposite, who defeated us in Committee, will not resist the Amendment. I am very deeply obliged to the President of the Board of Trade for accepting this Amendment in Committee and backing it up on Report, and I will not abuse his kindness by taking up the time of the House any longer, as we want to get on with this Bill.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI beg leave to second the Amendment, the terms of which are a sufficient compromise.
Mr. BUXTONOn behalf of the Government, I certainly have pleasure in accepting the Amendment, and I think it is quite obvious that, as the lion moves it and the lamb seconds it, we may conclude that it is acceptable and that it is unnecessary to discuss it any further. I think it is very satisfactory that on the Report stage we have been able to arrive at this conclusion, meeting the objections on one side by affording adequate safeguards on the other.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI was very strong on the point in Committee as to school books containing extracts from authors should be bonâ fide school books, and it will be remembered that I suggested that it should be advertised on the title page of the book that it is for school use. That having been done, the objection which I took upstairs is now removed, and I am very happy to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. RADFORDI am very sorry that this proposal should be revived in this House. It is inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill, which is intended to secure to an author the sole copyright, and his rights in connection with his work through-out the world. Why make exception in favour of the class of men known as school 1950 book publishers? I have heard no argument whatever in support of it. The fact that these books contain extracts for the purpose of teaching children was used in Committee by way of making a sentimental appeal to Members, but I have heard nothing from the President of the Board of Trade to justify the particular Amendment now before us. I hope that those Members who in Committee resisted encroachments on the rights of authors will again resist this proposal.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (iv.),to leave out the words, "except whilst the building is being used for public worship" ["building in which the lecture is given, and except whilst the building is being used for public worship "].
Surely the fact that a building is used for public worship has nothing whatever to do with the matter. The idea is that this is a beneficent law and a just law, a law in accordance with Christian doctrines, and in that case one ought to be proud of doing the right thing. The whole matter is to be protected as regards notice, and I fail to see why one should not apply the Act because some religious worship is going on. Under this Bill, if there be any public worship going on, they need not put up this conspicuous printed notice; but if it is right to put up a printed notice during a lecture it is right at all times, and the fact that there is a lecture just before or immediately after a sermon to my mind ought not to be dealt with in this way. It will avoid law suits and some trouble if these words are omitted, and I really cannot see what good object their retention will serve. A meeting for public worship is a very solemn thing, and the audience, as a rule, is more attentive than at an ordinary meeting, and the fact that there is some important notice to remind the people of this beneficent law on which we are engaged, I am sure will not detract from the solemnity of the worship. I consider the words are paltry, and quite unworthy of a deliberative assembly such as this.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to second the Amendment.
I think we ought to have some explanation of this provision. The effect of this Amendment, if it were carried, is to make it impossible for clergymen, in certain circumstances, to copyright their sermons. I do not like copyright at any time, but I 1951 think copyright in sermons, or what a man supposes to be true and to the advantage of everybody to know, is a monstrous thing, and I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend if it goes to a Division in order to show that I do not think it right that any clergyman, or anybody preaching from the pulpit in a place of religious worship, should be able to put up a restriction, Toy way of an announcement, securing copyright for what he says.
Mr. BUXTONI do not think that either of my hon. Friends has really studied the first of the Clause, because that is the main and genuine part of the Clause. In the ordinary case the lecturer has to affix a conspicuous written notice at the main entrance to the building, and in addition to that, there has to be a notice in a position near to the lecturer.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIf this Amendment is carried and a notice has to be stuck on the pulpit, that is obviously impossible.
Mr. BUXTONThe objection to this is really a very simple one and it is that a clergyman or minister in his place of worship should not be expected, in addition to a notice at the door, to have a notice stuck on the pulpit that the service or sermon is copyright. The matter is really a matter of common sense, and I think my hon. Friends will see that it would be lather hard on the clergyman that he should, week after week, have to put a notice on the pulpit in addition to the notice on the door.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words,
(vi.) The publication of letters where such publication is necessary in the public interest, or to preserve or establish the rights or reputation of the recipient or his family.
This Amendment arose out of a slight difference of opinion as to the position of the law as it now stands in the Bill between the Solicitor-General and myself. I am bound to say, with very great deference, that I venture to differ from him. I am quite sure he will be able to put me right as to what the law is. I have looked at what I suppose is the greatest established 1952 book on English law, Lord Halsbury's monumental work as to the question of copyright. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice the Solicitor-General has not joined in those ironical cheers with regard to Lord Halsbury's position as a lawyer.
§ Sir J. SIMONWho wrote the article?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIt is published under the authority of Lord Halsbury. Under the Bill as now drawn nobody can publish a letter which he has received because it would be copyright. Under Clause 2 a letter, like every other original work, is copyright, and if I want to publish a letter which I have received in defence of public interest, or to refute an imputation made on myself, I cannot do so under the provisions of this Bill. It would clearly be an infringement of copyright as set out in Clause 2. The existing law equally clearly does give me that right. From time to time action has been brought in order to establish the right of the recipient of a letter to publish a letter if such publication is needed in the public interest, or to refute personal attacks or insinuations on his own character. I have added one slight further extension, the character of himself or his family, to which I think no possible objection can be taken. This Bill is a consolidating Bill, and I do think that we have no right to make alterations in the existing law unless there is some clear cause shown for it. We have no right to pass sub silentio alterations in the existing law unless there is some adequate reason given by the law officers why that alteration should take place. Here we are clearly, I submit, doing away with the right which the recipient of a letter now has to publish it under certain particular circumstances, a right which has been won at the expense of litigation and established through the instrumentality of the courts. I was very much struck by a speech made earlier this afternoon by the Solicitor-General in supporting an Amendment from his own point of view, in which he said that by Clause 31 judge-made law on the subject of copyright was abrogated. We have that clearly stated by the Solicitor-General, and he cannot get out of it. It is only by judge-made law there is no statute whatever which gives the recipient of a letter the right to publish it if necessary in defence of his own reputation. The compendium of English law to which I have referred states that the receiver of a letter may use it for any lawful purpose, but must not publish it in its literal form without the writer's consent. 1953 He may, however, communicate the information in it if the letter is not a confidential or private letter. The compendium proceeds:
In special circumstances, for the purpose of refuting personal imputation, the receiver of a letter may be permitted to publish it.The Solicitor-General knows well the case from which that is taken. That statement is abrogated by this new Bill. This may be a small point, but all I ask is to restore the law to the position it was in before this Bill was brought in by accepting the Amendment, which makes the law exactly as it is to-day. Unless the Solicitor-General can give us some very good reason why the law should be altered, I shall have to persist with this Amendment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment will appreciate that on this point at any rate there is no question of vested interest on one side or the other. There is no question of the poor man's position one way or the other. All that we want to do is what is on the whole the fairest and the wisest thing. The only reason why I oppose this Amendment is because I think after full consideration that it is better not to insert this further exception. The first question, as the hon. Gentleman very clearly showed, is what is the situation now. I am bound to say that I very much dislike this chopping of legal questions across the floor of the House of Commons when it can be avoided. I should not myself have thought that the law was quite so clear as I understand from the hon. Gentleman he thinks it is. At any rate I am quite willing to concede that this much is clear under the existing law. A man who writes a letter and sends that letter to somebody else retains the copyright of that letter, the right of publication of that letter. On the other hand, a man who receives a letter is entitled to the manuscript or paper material, the thing on which the letter is recorded. That is quite clear, and from time to time questions are raised in the course of law when this subject is discussed. What is a little doubtful, or rather not perfectly clear, is this. What are the circumstances, if any, under which a man who has received a letter from another, though plainly he has no copyright in the letter, is entitled, as he thinks in his own interest, to make its | contents public? On that, the first obser- 1954 vation I have to make is that I rather think the existing law is practically to this effect. A man who receives a private letter from another must not make an unconscionable or unfair use of it—he must not sell copies of it for reward or exercise a copyright in it. That would be to make an unfair use of it. But it may be possible that there are cases when a man who has received a letter, although he has no copyright in it, may be entitled to produce it in a court of law and publish it. I am not acquainted with the legal decisions to which the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has referred. Mr. Justice Scrutton's book expresses a view upon the law with some doubt, and after reference to a number of authorities. I simply ask, is it a wise course for us to adopt? Is it the better course for us to say to every disreputable person, you have in your hands somebody else's private letters, and we wish to inform you that, although in the eyes of every honourable man, to publish such letters would be a breach of confidence, here you have an Act of Parliament to tell you it is no breach of the law to publish those letters if you are prepared to assert that the publication is in defence of yourself or of your relatives.
Is that right? Or is it a wiser thing, on the other hand, to say a breach of confidence is a very serious thing, and before any man can fairly justify a breach of confidence he ought to fully consider the position, and be able to say, "I am going to publish this letter I have received, and if the man who wrote it to me is prepared to take proceedings to stop me I challenge him to persuade any court to grant an injunction against me to stop me in this matter or to award damages and costs." Under the Bill we have provided what I think is a wise thing, that in all cases of the infringement of copyright the amount of damages, if any, and the allocation of costs, as well as the granting of injunction, shall be entirely at the discretion of the tribunal. Under the old law 40s. could be given in every single case of infringement of copyright in a certain, department. We have swept all that aside, and we are now, in fact, doing what the hon. Member wishes us to do. We are providing for the rare cases in which a man thinks it right to infringe what is an ordinary rule of good faith and conduct because he knows that a fair judgment upon his action would be that he ought not to be stopped or punished for doing what is right. I suggest that is very much 1955 better than saying to a recipient of a letter that if he wishes to publish it he can do so and no court will grant an injunction against him, or, at any rate, that no court is obliged to grant one against him, even if he were a blackmailer, and even if the letters were used of some private person, because he should be able to produce an Act of Parliament and say, "I am entitled to publish this letter provided I think it was an attack upon me." It is purely a question of common sense, and I invite the House to say whether it is not wiser on the whole that we should not introduce into the Bill what is practically speaking no part of the law of copyright at all. It is not a question of copyright, it is a question of evidence. We should leave those rare cases to be dealt with as they would be dealt with under the law, where simply no injunction could be obtained.
§ Mr. BOOTHI must frankly say I think the right hon. Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) has convinced me. I do not know whether my Friend opposite intends to go on with the Amendment. I hope not, because we should not like to be put in a position of voting against him. We are not against his ideas. My own idea is that a man whose honour is attacked will publish anything he has got, he will use his fists if necessary, and no Act of Parliament will restrain him. Knowing my own temperament, I should not hesitate. I think he can depend upon the man of this race to vindicate his position when the necessity arises.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI congratulate the Solicitor-General on his latest recruit, who has really put the Solicitor-General's legal advice into concrete form. He really asks us to leave the Clause as it is in the Bill, and to trust the man who is the recipient of the letter, if he wants to publish it, to commit an illegal act and take the consequences. But I put this point to the Solicitor-General, that this right to publish letters has been won after litigation, and now it has got to be won again after litigation if this Bill goes through. That is the point I tried to make, that there was no right to publish letters until it was established by what is called judge-made law. I am sorry the Solicitor-General made light of the authorities upon this point. I had hoped he would have had time to look into them. I have looked pretty carefully into them, and I say this right is the result of a series of judge-made 1956 decisions which secure to a man the right to publish a letter which reflects upon his character in order to vindicate himself, and only by those decisions has he secured that right. Now you are taking away that right. The Solicitor-General may say that if a man published a letter reflecting upon him from a desire to clear his character he would be ready to take the consequences, but he would expose himself to litigation. Blackmailing is another matter altogether. Here is the copyright law, and if a man has got a letter, and, to clear his character, he wishes to produce it, this law will be invoked against him as it was in previous cases, and the machinery of the law may prevent him from making that letter public. The Solicitor-General invites us to say that if a man has a letter he will publish it, and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) says, "I would not only publish a letter, but I would use my fists." That is not the way the House of Commons should discuss the matter. It ought to make the law perfectly clear. I do not think it right to press the matter to a division, especially as the Solicitor-General has got such strong support behind him, and I retire as gracefully as possible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "or" ["lets for hire, or exposes "], to insert the words "by way of trade."
These Amendments are consequential on the decisions of a Grand Committee with reference to Clause 11. The Committee will remember that this part of the Clause was a good deal altered as we went along, and we were unable to go back, as a matter of Order. Words were inserted, and it was understood at the time that when we came to Clause 11, which is a similar Clause dealing with similar matters, we would put the Clause into proper shape and that on the Report stage I would move words bringing Clause 2 into conformity with Clause 11. Exactly similar words to those I proposed are in Clause 11.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "exposes," insert the word "or."
§ Leave out the words "by way of trade" ["or hire by way of trade"].—[Mr. Buxton.]
1957§ Mr. WEDGWOODI think that the omission of these words was not part of the bargain, and it would make a distinct difference in the Bill. If the words are left as they were put in in Committee, in front of the word "distributes," we limit the infringement of copyright to the act of distributing by way of trade. If we cut out the words, any form of distributing becomes an infringement of copyright, and renders people liable to summary proceedings.
Mr. BUXTONWhen the word "widely" was inserted we were not able to think of a better word, but in Clause 11, instead of "widely," we have the words, "to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright," and we propose to insert similar words in this Clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "distributes," insert the words "either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright."
§ After the word "or" ["or exhibits in public"], insert the words, "by way of trade"; in Sub-section (3), after the word "for" ["for private profit"], insert the word "his."—[Mr. Buxton].