Literary Property – Professor in a University – Publication – The lecturer had delivered his lecture to a class of students. A speaker has a common law right of property in his speech before it is delivered to the public and may prevent its publication by any one else, but ‘ abandoned his ideas and words to the use of the public at large, or in other words has himself published them.’
Held (rev. Second Division, diss. Lord Fitzgerald) that a professor in a university is entitled to prevent by interdict the publication by any of his students of lectures delivered by him in the ordinary university course.
Per Lord Watson: ‘Where the persons present at a lecture are not the general public, but a limited class of the public, selected and admitted for the sole and special purpose of receiving individual instruction, they may make any use they can of the lecture to the extent of taking it down in shorthand for their own information and improvement, but cannot publish it.’
Observations upon the construction of the Act 5 and 6 Will. IV. cap. 65, entitled ‘an Act for preventing the publication of lectures without consent.’
In a petition in a Sheriff Court by a professor for interdict to prevent the defender publishing a book alleged to be a reproduction of the pursuer’s lectures, the Sheriff-Substitute found, on the evidence, that the book was in substance a reproduction of the lectures, and in law that the defender was not entitled to publish them, and granted interdict. On appeal the case went to the whole Court, with the result that nine judges were of opinion that the book was in substance a reproduction of the lectures, three were of opinion that it was not, whilst the remaining judge reserved his opinion on the point.
On the question whether the pursuer was entitled to interdict, six judges were of opinion that he was, five that he was not, whilst the two remaining judges gave no judgment on the question, holding that the book was not a reproduction of the lectures. The Second Division ( diss. Lord Rutherfurd Clark) then pronounced judgment, finding that the lectures were delivered by the pursuer as part of his course, and that the book complained of was published by the defender, having been compiled by a student who had attended the lectures and taken notes; they then found ‘that such publication did not constitute an infringement of any legal right of property belonging to or vested in the pursuer,’ and refused interdict.
Observed that there was a statutory duty upon the Court under the Judicature Act to insert a finding in fact in the interlocutor expressing the opinion of the majority of the consulted Judges upon the question of infringement.
The appeal was accordingly heard on the merits as if the interlocutor had contained an express finding to the effect that the book complained of was in substance a reproduction of the lectures.
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Watson and Fitzgerald
[1887] UKHL 569, 24 SLR 569, (1887) 12 App Cas 326
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Caird v Sime HL 13-Jun-1887
Literary Property – Professor in a University – Publication – The lecturer had delivered his lecture to a class of students. A speaker has a common law right of property in his speech before it is delivered to the public and may prevent its . .
Cited by:
Cited – Walter v Lane HL 6-Aug-1900
Reporter of Public Speech Owns Copyright I
A reporter attended a speech by Lord Rosebery. His report of the speech was republished in the Times after another journalist who had not been present published a verbatim copy. He claimed a copyright in the work he produced.
Held: The first . .
Cited – Caird v Sime HL 13-Jun-1887
Literary Property – Professor in a University – Publication – The lecturer had delivered his lecture to a class of students. A speaker has a common law right of property in his speech before it is delivered to the public and may prevent its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.636753