We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE 29
existing between the parties. That has been specially the case where the person was engaged to perform services other than that of writing and he has merely as an incident to his employment composed literary works.
In one instance where the contract provided that the plaintiff should 'write a play to be produced at defendant’s theatre and plaintiff and his wife were to act therein, and the profits to be divided equally between the parties, it was held that the parties were independent contractors and as there had been no express grant to the defendant the play belonged absolutely to the plaintiff.38
right, and was, as such, enforcible by the publisher.
See also Section 62 of the Copyright Act of 1909.
But see in this connection Hereford ( Bishop ) v. Griffin (Eng.) (1848), 16 Sim. 190; 17 L. J. Ch. 210; 12 Jur. 255. Where one was employed to write an article for an encyclopaedia, the owner of that encyclopaedia might not publish the article in any other form without the author’s consent, unless the article was written under the express agreement that copyright in it should vest in the owner of the encyclopaedia for all purposes.
And see: London University Press v. University Tutorial Press (Eng.) (1916), 2 Ch. 601; 115 L. T. 301; 32 T. L. R. 698. Where examiners getting up a set of
examination papers were held not to be “employes,” and entitled to copyright therein.
38 Boucicault v. Fox (1862), 5 Blatchf. 87. Plaintiff who was an actor and author contracted with defendant to write a play to be produced at defendant’s theatre and in which plaintiff was to act. He acted in it for a week, then withdrew, although the play was continued for some weeks more. Plaintiff took out copyright of the play in his own name. A few days later he attempted to enjoin defendant from continuing to produce the play. The court said: “That agreement was that he should write this play and, perhaps some other plays, and that he should contribute his and his wife’s services at the Winter Garden