Chapter 1—Early History

“The right of an author, irrespective of statute, to his own productions and to a control of their publication, seems to have been recognized by the common law.” ^{1Endnotes Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82, 19 S. Ct. 606, 43 L. Education, 904, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 1267, 1269 (1899).} “At common law an author had a property in his manuscript and might have redress against any one who undertook to realize a profit from its publication without authority of the author. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 659 (1834).” ^{2Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus et al, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 364, 368 (1908).}RRPCI 3.1

“There was much contention in England as to whether the common law recognized this property in copyright before the Statute of Anne.” ^{3American Tobacco Company v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 28 S. Ct. 72, 52 L. Education, 208, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 39, 42 (1907).} It was not “until the eighth year of Queen Anne, when the first copyright act was passed, giving authors a monopoly in the publications of their works for a period of from fourteen to twenty-eight years. Notwithstanding this act, however, the chancery courts continued to hold that, by the common law and independently of legislation, there was a property of unlimited duration in the printed books.... thereafter the House of the Lords ... declared that the common law right had been taken away the statute of Anne, and that authors were limited in their monopoly by the act.” ^{4Holmes v. Hurst, 1269.} While the propriety of these decisions (Donaldsons v. Becket, 4 Burr. 2408 [1774] and Wheaton v. Peters, supra) has been the subject of a good deal of controversy among legal writers, it seems now (1899) to be considered the settled law of this country and England that the right of an author to a monopoly of his publications is measured and determined by the copyright act—in other words, “that while a right did exist by common law, it has been superseded by statute.” ^{5Holmes v. Hurst, 1269, 1270.} Stated otherwise, “No proposition is better settled than that a statutory copyright operates to divest a party of the common-law right.” ^{6Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus et al, 147 F. 15, 13-16 C.O. Bull. 350, 354.}RRPCI 3.2