Hinton v Donaldson
| Hinton v Donaldson | |
|---|---|
 A Plan of the City of Babylon from the 1795 edition of Stackhouse's The New History of the Holy Bible | |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Decided | 28 July 1773 |
| Citation | [1773] 5 Brn 508 |
| Keywords | |
| Copyright | |
Hinton v Donaldson (1773, 5 Brn 508) is a Scots copyright law case, in which the Court of Session rejected the claim that copyright existed beyond the limited term introduced under the Statute of Anne.[1][2]: 111–122
Background
[edit]The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, as the United Kingdom's first copyright statute.[3] Under the statute, authors (and their publishers) had the sole authority to reproduce and sell their works for a period of 14 years. The term could be renewed if the author was still alive.[3] Thomas Stackhouse, an English theologian, wrote New History of the Holy Bible in 1738. His copyright, therefore, had expired in 1752.[4]
A London bookseller, John Hinton printed and profitably sold the second edition of the book, although the statutory copyright term had expired.[2][5] Scottish bookseller, Alexander Donaldson, John Wood, and James Meurose were printing a different edition of Stackhouse's book.[5] Hinton sued the three booksellers before the Court of Session, arguing that he had acquired a common law right of copyright, although the statutory term had ended.[2] He claimed that because he had acquired the copyright from Stackhouse through a conveyance, he had a perpetual property right.[6]
James Boswell, who was a friend of Donaldson, represented the defender-booksellers.[7][8]
Decision
[edit]Eleven out of twelve[4] judges found (with Lord Monboddo dissenting) that an author had no property rights in a book, but only the temporary rights which had been granted under the Statute.[6] There was no common law right of copyright.[2][9]
Lord Monboddo, however, decided that once a copyright was created under the Statute, it continued in perpetuity.[2][6]
The case influenced the subsequent House of Lords ruling in Donaldson v Beckett (1774).[2]: 121
References
[edit]- ^ Deazley, Ronan (2008). "Commentary on: Hinton v. Donaldson (1773)". www.copyrighthistory.org. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
- ^ a b c d e f Mitchell, Iain (2009). "Case law report - BACK TO THE FUTURE: Hinton v Donaldson, Wood and Meurose (Court of Session, Scotland, 28th July, 1773)". International Free and Open Source Software Law Review. 1 (2). doi:10.5033/ifosslr.v1i2.23. Archived from the original on 23 March 2020. Retrieved 5 January 2025.
- ^ a b Nathan Gallagher (15 January 2021). "The weird world of copyright law". The Queen's Journal. Queen's University at Kingston. Archived from the original on 5 January 2025. Retrieved 5 January 2025.
- ^ a b Edward L Carter (2012). "Choking the Channel of Public Information: Re-Examination of an Eighteenth-Century Warning about Copyright and Free Speech". Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law. 1 (1). NYU Law: 79. Archived from the original on 8 July 2024. Retrieved 5 January 2025.
- ^ a b "Hinton v Donaldson". Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive. University of Virginia Law Library. Archived from the original on 5 January 2025. Retrieved 5 January 2025.
- ^ a b c John Hinton, Bookseller in London, v Donaldson and Others, Booksellers in Scotland, 5 Brn 508 (Court of Session 1773).
- ^ Hugh M Milne, ed. (2001). Boswell's Edinburgh Journals 1767-1786. Mercat Press Ltd. p. 100. ISBN 1841830208.
- ^ "Lords Opinion concerning Literary Property". The Scots Magazine. January 1774. pp. 9–17. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
- ^ Cadell v Robertson, 5 Paton 493, 505 (House of Lords 1811).
  | This article related to law in Scotland is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |