New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-12-29

French nross but to call Il a copy Of the original would
be ss ridiculous the translation itself
The notion tia translntion piracy Oi the oginai
co,nnoston IL founded the analogy assumed between
copIrqh and patents for inventions and where the IN
fnere mschi is only change OF the form or proper
tiors ~ he orrina while il embodes the principle or
essence Of the Invention Eg the authors exclusive
propfry in literary composition or bis copyright conssis
only in right to multiply copies Of his SocH ana e1,o
The profits therefro and not in exclusive right 20 hii
coues rfious and inventions, which may be termed the
power Of biz composition the argument from The supposed
Hence IN question: Of Infringement; Of copyright the in
ouir "a not whether The defendant has used the thoughts
eoTceptioIs information discoveries promulgated by
the original ba, whether his composn,n may De con'
1ered rev work recurring invention, learning or judg
er or only mere transcript Of the whole or parts OF the
original with merely olerable variations Hence also
III many 10 be found IN the reports when DECIDE
thet iona f4e ebridgement Of book Il no: an Infringe
no 1nske good Translation Of work often requires
more L. amino talent and Judgment than required 10
Wit, the oricnal Many can fraHsfer from language
ia al other bit few troHfa To call the translation
Of sn authors ideas and into anotheranyuage
oopv Of his Joot would be abuse d terms ana as0i
irsry judicial legislation
Aiffou.h the question: under considerations was not
directly in ssue in the great case Of Miller 49, Taylor yet
the inference that translaon 4 not e. infringement OF
Of copyrigL l. logical result and stat By the judges
themelvts necessary coroiary, from the principles OF
law then decided by tie Court
The case exhausted the arg msui nni has finally set
tied the question 20 the nature 81 no property winch
III author has in bis works and H. that aiie pibca9n
"tho s,e right Of publishing and selling h' literary CON
position book not that be has suh property IN his
original cOuoeI tons hat he alen can hem IN tho go n
position Of new work cioihr thCn dnercIt dress
hy tisnslaiion lie may be Incompetent 20 such task or
10 make new work out Of bis Old uaierals ami neither
the common law the statute give him such monopoly
even Of lis Ogy ere a;iOns.
An author. says Lord Mansfred has the property
IN III. book which the King has to tbs English translation
Of the Bible Yet any man ,hould turn the fsam or
tie Writings Of Solomon or job into verse, the King
could not stop the printing sale OF such WORK ~ Is
"He osfh0rs voyk the King has no power or control
"oyer The subject matter. Ills power rest- in roPry
His whole right rests upon the foundation OF prop rig a.
Mr. Justice wines in answer to the question Wherein
consists the identity of book, says Certainty bonn
"tae limitations, anslatOas and abrdgmens are differ
cent and in respect of property may be considered "ee
"uo,ks"
And Mr. Justice Ashton observes; Tha Publication II
"a COMPOSITION does not give away the property in the
work. But nc Tgt Of copy ell remains N the author.
No passes to The public ron the Tree VIII ana con
-tut Of the author than B~gca Of every advantage
"a he chaser reap from tue doctrine enl seat
"mcnts wLioh.the work Contains He may improve it.
initiate it, translate H. oppose It's sentiments but he bays
"no right to ggJlish tie idcntioai icOrk.
Tie distinction taken by writers on the suhlec; Of
literary VoJ9rly between the works which are Ptthct
;pyi and OF those which are subject copyright has
foundation IN fec if the established doctrine OF the cases
be true, and the authors property in Published BOOK
consists only in night OF copy BY the publication o. her
book the creations Of the germs and gnaon OF the au-
thorhavc become much public property those Of oner
and Cervanes Uncle Tom aud Topsy a much pn5et
Juris as Don Qu1oe and Saucho Panza All her eonceP
on and inventions may be used and abused by miators,
uayWTieLts and poetasieis.
1iey are no longer her ownthOse who have purchased
her book olotheth them in English doggre in ermanor
Chnese prose Her absolute domnons and property in the
creations genius and nagnaton has been voluntarily
rcnquishod aud all that remains is the copyright OF
her book; the exclusive right print reprint and vend IT,
aud those only can be called ininger OF her rights Of
pirates of her property who are guilty OF printing publish
Q importing or vending without her license "ooPs Of
"Ier Joo In tropical but not very precise phrascooyy
translation may be called transcrp pit copy OF her
thoughts or Ons but in correct sense can be
called a copy Of her book
he plainiiT bin is therefore dismissed with costs