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 31
among other things, compile and prepare instruction and question papers, it was held that the literary works of
which was performed. The defendant gave plaintff a week’s notice to quit, and then took with him the score of the music and subsequently gave performances of the same. Held, liable, as the music was the independent composition of the plaintiff and belonged to him.
See also: Shepherd v. Conquest (Eng.) (1856), 17 C. B. 427; 25 L. J. C. P. 127; 2 Jur. N. S. 236; 4 W. R. 283.
In this case an author was engaged by the owner of a theatre to write a dramatic composition and he received therefor a specified weekly salary and travelling expenses. The action was brought by the proprietor of the theatre for damages for infringement of the play.
“The question is whether the plaintiffs by the transaction between them and Courtney (the writer) became entitled to the sole right of representation of this piece in London, so as to be able to maintain the action. We do not think it necessary in the present case to express any opinion whether under any circumstances, the copyright in a literary work or the right of
representation can become vested ab initio in an employer other than the person who has actually composed or adapted the literary work. It is enough to say in the present case that no such effect can be produced where the employer merely suggests the subject and has no share in the design or execution of the work, the whole of which, so far as any character of originality belongs to it, flows from the mind of the person employed. It appears to us an abuse of terms to say, that in such a case, the employer is the author of a work to which his mind has not contributed an idea, and it is upon the author in the first instance that the right is conferred by the statute which creates it. We cannot bring our minds to any other conclusion than that Courtney, the person who actually made the adaptation, though at the suggestion of the plaintiffs, acquired for himself, as the author of the adaptation, and, so far as that adaptation gives any new character to the work, the statutory right of representing it; and that inasmuch as the plaintiffs have no assignment in writing of that