Name
The spelling of the chief respondent in the case, Thomas Becket, sometimes appears as Beckett. For those looking to choose one spelling over the other, it would be more correct to use Becket. Firstly, Becket overwhelmingly spelled his surname ''t'', not ''tt''. Secondly, many of the original contemporaneous records in the case also spelled his surname ''Becket''. Those records include the original proceedings of the dispute in the Court of Chancery. Additionally, the manuscript records of the appeal in the House of Lords, including the manuscript minutes and manuscript journal of the House of Lords, caption the case using the spelling ''Becket'', but sometimes in the text of the proceedings used the spelling ''Beckett''. The earliest reports of the case, those prepared by James Burrow in 1776 and Josiah Brown (1st edition) in 1783, also spelled his surname Becket. The "Beckett" variation seems to have gained ground from a decision made in 1803 by T.E. Tomlins, the editor of the second edition of Brown’s report of the case, to change the spelling to ''Beckett'' in the caption and then to a decision made by the clerk of the journals in the House of Lords, when the House printed its manuscript journal in around 1806, to do the same.Facts
The first recognizably modernProceedings
Argument
Counsel was heard on 4, 7–9 February. Seven months previously, in the case of ''ttorney-General Thurlowconcluded his speech with a compliment to his learned coadjutor, and a hope, that as the lords of session in Scotland had freed that country from a monopoly which took its rise from the chimerical idea of the actuality of literary property, their lordships, whom he addressed, would likewise, by a decree of a similar nature, rescue the cause of literature and authorship from the hands of a few monopolizing booksellers.
Questions
The practice of the House of Lords at the time when considering a challenging case was to ask the twelve judges of the King's Bench, Common Pleas, and the Exchequer for their expert views on particular issues identified, for the consideration of the House. This would then be followed by a debate, and then a vote of the full house. On 9 February, Lord Apsley, the1. "Whether, at common law, an author of any book or literary composition, had the sole right of first printing and publishing the same for sale, and might bring an action against any person who printed, published, and sold the same, without his consent?"At the instigation of Lord Camden, two further questions were also put:
2. "If the author had such right originally, did the law take it away upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition, and might any person afterward reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the author?
3. "If such action would have lain at common law, is it taken away by the statute of 8th Anne: and is an author, by the said statute, precluded from every remedy except on the foundation of the said statute, and on the terms and conditions prescribed thereby?"
4. "Whether the author of any literary composition, and his assigns, had the sole right of printing and publishing the same, in perpetuity, by the common law?"While the first questions were couched in terms of the rights of the authors, Lord Camden's emphasised the other side of the coin, the issue of a perpetual monopoly.
5. "Whether this right is any way impeached, restrained, or taken away, by the statute 8th Anne?"
Answers
The judges presented their views in the period from 15 to 21 February. According to the journal of the House of Lords, the balance of their opinions were: :* Eight answers to three, ''supporting'' authors' right of first publication at common law and right of action against publication without consent :* Seven answers to four, ''against'' the authors' rights at common law being taken away by first publication :* Six answers to five, ''supporting'' that authors' rights at common law in published works ''were'' superseded by the statute :* Seven answers to four, ''supporting'' that, at common law, authors had sole right of publication, in perpetuity :* Six answers to five, ''supporting'' that this right was circumscribed by the statute For a time in the late 20th century, some scholars believed that the tally in the journal for the crucial third question was incorrect, and that a majority of the judges had opined that a common-law copyright was ''not'' "taken away" by the statute; but that their views had been rejected by the full House of Lords.. However those scholars now appear to acknowledge, in light of a review of a wider range of documents,. that the journal reported the positions of the judges correctly, as did law reports based on it; and that it was the reporting of the view of Justice George Nares in various works based ultimately on an account by William Woodfall in '' The Morning Chronicle'' that was incorrect. The balance of opinions on the first question has sometimes traditionally been represented as ten-to-one; however according to the tallies while both Barons Perrott and Adams accepted that an author should have the sole right of printing or publishing a book or literary composition, they rejected the second half of the proposition, advising that an author should only be able to bring an action against someone who printed, published or sold it if they had obtained the copy by fraud or violence. A report in ''Hansard'' of Perrott's detailed reasons he makes clear that in his view the author's right at common law extended only to the physical copy, not to the content within it. Furthermore, while the Lord Chief Justice Lord de Grey answered the first question affirmatively, his detailed answer made clear that his position on this related only to the physical manuscript; his views on rights to "more than the materials or the manuscript" were the province of the second question (in which he opined that author's right at common law was indeed extinguished by first publication). Arguably a true statement of the judges' positions on whether authors had a natural copyright at common law would therefore be seven to four. A twelfth judge who was entitled to state and give reasons for his answers was Lord Mansfield. Presumably his views still conformed to his original judgment, in ''Millar v Taylor''. But – to the frustration of some – he did not speak.Debate and vote
On 22 February the motion was made to reverse the Chancery decree. The Lords then debated, the record showing that five Lords spoke. Four of these, Lord Camden, Lord Chancellor Apsley, the Bishop of Carlisle, and the Earl of Effingham, spoke in favour of the motion to reverse the decree, and one, Lord Lyttleton, spoke against the motion. Lord Camden, in his speech, was scathing toward the booksellers:The arguments attempted to be maintained on the side of the respondents, were founded on patents, privileges, Star Chamber decrees, and the bye (sic) laws of the Stationers' Company; all of them the effects of the grossest tyranny and usurpation; the very last places in which I should have dreamt of finding the least trace of theIn the end, the full House voted to reverse the decree against Donaldson. Thus the House of Lords rejected perpetual copyright in published works and held that they were subject to the durational limits of the Statute of Anne. As a result, published works would fall into thecommon law In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omniprese ...of this kingdom; and yet, by a variety of subtle reasoning and metaphysical refinements, have they endeavoured to squeeze out the spirit of the common law from premises in which it could not possibly have existence.
Significance
Robert Forbes, Bishop of Ross and Caithness, noted in his journal entry of 26 February 1774, that when news of the Lords' decision in ''Donaldson v. Becket'' reached Scotland, there weregreat rejoicings in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property; bonfires and illuminations, ordered tho' by a mob, with drum and 2 fifes.Later that year, UK booksellers sought to extend their statutory copyright to 14 years through the Booksellers' Bill but, having passed the House of Commons, the bill was defeated in the Lords. In 1834, the United States Supreme Court also rejected perpetual copyright in '' Wheaton v. Peters''.
Common-law copyright
The significance of the decision for the doctrine of common-law copyright was (and is) less clear. As a matter of strict judicialSee also
* Copyright law of the United Kingdom * History of copyright law * List of leading legal cases in copyright law *'' Wheaton v. Peters'', U.S. Supreme Court case also addressing the existence of copyright at common lawNotes
References
*. *. *.External links
* {{cite CommonLII, litigants=Alexander Donaldson and another v Thomas Beckett and others, link=, reporter=ER, year=1774, num=47, volume=1, firstpage=837, parallelcite=2 Bro PC 129, date=22 February 1774, courtname=, juris= House of Lords cases 1774 in case law James Boswell United Kingdom copyright case law 1774 in British law History of copyright law