The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-11-11

would lose the right to publish his own
addresses, and the exclusive right to do so
would have been acquired by the reporters
who took down his words, or their em-
ployer. It must be understood that the
defendant did not claim any copyright Tor
the speeches in the book. He commended
simply that Lord RosEBERY, by delivering
the speeches without previously having
printed them and obtained a copyright, had
parted with all right to control their publ
cation. and that any one who chose to do 50
was at liberty thereafter to print and pub
lish them. In behalf OF the Times, how
ever. IL was insisted that the reporters had
80 edited the matter which they took down
from the speakers lips as to make their
report a new and original production
Hence, It was argued, they were to be re-
garded az authors within the meaning Of
the copyright law.
Mr.. BIRRELL rldiculed this proposition.
He conceded that skill, knowledge and edu-
cation were necessary to enable the news
paper men to make the report, but he
denied that the exercise OF these qualities
thus applied could constitute the reporter
an author In the literary sense OF that term.
II was essential to copyright that there
should be independent labor, research and
originality. Wequot. from hisargument:
could this be said Of person who took down
speech in shorthand and Aftsrward transcribed .
report from his notss' No doubt the reports Of .
speech made by different reporters generally DIFF.
fsred. And there was great difference In the re.
ports of different speakers. Tho reports Of the
speeches OF an Accurste speaker such ss PITT con.
veyed tho preston that they his actual words
on the other hand, the reports Of such . speaker
as Fox clearly showed that they not giving the
very words used By the orator In the present case
there va, not the originality the shi necessary To
constitute tho reporter an author. The originality
the humor wore Lord RosEBERr's; II would he
absurd to attribute those qualities " the reporters
he had only endeavorsd to present tho speeches to
the public as they ~oro delivered. He was no moro
tho anthor than MrLTosr daughter wssthe author OF
the m manuscript Of Paradise Lost though II needed
great skill to take II down from the lips OF tho
composer. Transcription. svsn intelligent. could
not confer copyright. No doubt the reporter
did a little moro than merely transcribs. He
corrected mistakes. hut It WAS impossible TO say
whether the mistakes were his own or those Of the
speaker. But these speeches were we'll considered
literary productions. not like speeches delivered In
the heat OF debate. This was . case in which tho
speaker evidently gave his speech to tho public. OF.
a. Lord WATSON said in 'C,iRp v. SINE. abandoned
his ideas aud words to the use Of the public at large
1t would he = strange thing II . number Of para
,itIcAl copyrights should prevent . speaker from
publishing his own speech
Tho hearing OF the appeal occupied the
time OF the Court for two days. At the con-
clusion OF the discussion it had become
quite apparent from the remarks OF the
Judges that they were adverse to the
position OF the Times. Il think" said the
Master OF the Rolls TO Mr.. TERRELL, that
you are asking US to turn this Copyright
act which was for the benefit Of authors,
into an act for the benefit OF reporters
That a reporter Is an author within the
meaning OF the act Ia to my mind sub
versive of the true idea OF copyright"
The decision which the cable announced
yesterday was precisely what was to be
expected after this intimation from the
bench.
In the English judicial system the Court
of Appeal corresponds to the Appellate
Division OF the Supreme Court in New
York, or the United States Circuit Court OF
Appeals in the Federal Judiciary. The
Times has further appeal. and will take
the case 20 the House OF Lords.