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.
CRITICISM OF THE WORK
63
Section 13. — Criticism of the work.
“When an author places his book before the public he invites criticism; and, however hostile that criticism may be, and however much damage it may cause him . . . the critic is not liable in an action for libel, provided he makes no misstatement of any material facts contained in the writing, and does not attack the character of the author.” 90
The critic may use ridicule.91 He may even underrate
name of the author from advertisements did not justify defendant in himself using the play.
Booth v. Lloyd (Eng.) (1910), 26 T. L. R. 549. Plaintiff was owner of the copyright of a musical composition. He granted the right to a third person to “print, publish and sell.” Held that the licensee was not bound to print and publish the musical composition in his name.
But see Clemens v. Press Publishing Co. (1910), 67 Misc. (N. Y.) 183; 122 N. Y. Supp. 206.
90 Dowling v. Livingstone (1896) , 108 Mich. 321; 66 N. W. 225. Plaintiff published a book entitled “The Wage Worker’s Remedy.” The defendants in their newspaper severely criticised the composition as well as the theories of the author but made no personal attack on him. See also: Campbell v. Spoltiswood
(Eng.), 3 F. & F. 421 ; Morrison v. Belcher (Eng,), 3 F. & F. 614; Belknapp v. Ball (1890), 83 Mich. 589; 47 N. W. 674; Walker v. Tribune (1887), 29 Fed. (C. C.) 827.
Stewart v. Reuters Telegram (Eng.), 1911, Times, Feb. 1. Statements made concerning a publication which were untrue were held to be not libellous per se when made in good faith.
Thomas v. Bradbury (Eng.) (1905), Times, July 5-6-7; aff’d 95 L. T. 23. Plaintiff sued alleging that defendant, publishers of Punch, had criticised his work so harshly as to evince malice. He received a verdict of £300.
91 Dowling v. Livingstone (1896) , 108 Mich. 321; 66 N. W. 225. “One writer in exposing the follies and errors of another may make use of ridicule, however poignant, and if loss occurs it is