New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-07-02
TIE REVISED VERSION III ENGLAND.
4 QUESTION OF COPYRIGHT.
From The London Chronicle.

From The London Chronicle.
The decision Of Mr.. Justice Cozens- Hardy in
the action which the syndics Of the universities
of oxford and Cambridge brought against
Messrs Gill & Sons, the educational publishers,
TO restrain them from printing publishing
books containing any reference or citation from
the Revised Version Of the New Testament has
aroused considerable interest. The learned
judge decided that in using 23f out Of 251S al
tentative readings from the Revised Version
although 300 of the former number are readings
familiar to students Of the Greek New Tesla
ment-Messrs Gill & Sons had been guilty Of
infringement Of the copyright held by the
universities.
Yesterday one Of our representatives. had an
interview with Mr.. Reginald Gill. managing
director Of the firm. and put the preliminary
question to him. How will this judgment affect
the general use Of extracts?"
1T is the first ruling We have had in copy
right law" replied Mr.. Gill and it shows the
quantity-less than 10 per cent-that will be
considered unfair 20 use in quotation by any
author editor. irrespective Of the fact that
the book quoted from is the only authority
will there be any appeal against the judg
ment?'
IL do not think it will be advisable. but the
Publishers Association will be asked TO take
up the question. not on our behalf but because
IT raises points in which more than one publish
ing house is concerned"
Apart from this question OF the quantity of
quotations. the university authorities say they
paid t2GOOo for the copyright Of the Revised
Version"
That f2O,OO0" replied Mr. Gill, "was paid.
not for the revision which could have been done
so far as translation from the Greek is CON
cerned. by any boy who had passed the senior
local eXamina ton The money paid for the
authority which the reysers' names carried. just
a litigant would have To pay leading q. G.
a fee of 100 guneas 10 so into Queens Bench
Division Court and make simple statement
How about the quotations in the St Luke
manual which the subject of the action
"Well, as TO that, there are not twenty newly
translated words in the whole Gospel, although
there are 300 alterations BY that | mean that
there more than twenty words which had
not been translated in works anterior to the
Revised Version"
Then you could have gone to other sources?
' Precisely. our st. Luke manual and the
others must necessarily be suppressed now; but
going with the publications all the
same. We have already published six manuals.
and had two others in preparation. We shall
go to the original sources, and our scholars, VINO
think | can say equally as competent as
the revisers. will put their own original work
into the translation. 1t - impossible for them,
however. to arrive at any other conclusion than
the revisers They will simply have to adopt
the same course as the reVscrs. who, in the case
of alternative readings never departed from the
ruling If the majority Of Transitions"
"To come back to Mr.. Justice COZ -HardyS
decision, Mr.. Gill. what will be its immediate
effect"
1T is impossible. for instance. after that ruling
for any clergyme1 to publish sermons contain
fng references and extracts from the Revised
Version unless they first obtain the permission
OF the authorities Of the two universities. If he
did the universities would have a right Of
action"
Here for the present the question rests but it
will be interesting to note what action - taken
by the Publishers Association