The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5520, 5 December 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1878.

There is no reason ■whatever, so far as we are aware, for questioning the soundness of the decision arrived at by the Judges in the case of Holt and another v. Webb, which cams before tho Appeal Court for judgment on Monday last on demurrer to tha plaintiffs’ declaration. But although their Honors’ interpretation of the existing law is all that can be desired, wo aro by no means clear that the Legislature ought not to step in and grant, in some shape or other, the protection which the plaintiffs in the above action nought in vain. Ic was alleged in their declaration that the defendant had for some time past been in tha habit of publishing in his newspaper, without the permission of tho plaintiffs, copies of foreign telegrams procured by them at great cost through their agents abroad, and supplied by them to certain newspapers for a money consideration. This unauthorized publication was obviously calculated to injure the plaintiffs, who therefore requested defendant to discontinue it, and on his refusal an injunction was prayed, to restrain him for tho future. The defendant demurred to the declaration on three grounds:—lst. That no equity is shown entitling tho plaintiffs to an injunction. 2nd. That tha reprinting from a newspaper ot news is not an actionable wrong. 3rd. That there is no copyright in news published by a newspaper. It is unnecessary to refer at any great length to the judgments delivered on Monday last, and published in the “ Times” on Tuesday. They are remarkably clear on the main point, are of no great length, and will well repay perusal. All the sitting Judges, namely, the Chief Justice, and Judges Johnston-, Williams, and Gillies, were of opinion that the demurrer must bo allowed. The principal peculiarity of the prayer for tho injunction to restrain was that it related to literary matter not actually in existence at the time of the application. What the plaintiffs wanted was that their property in telegrams which might in the future be from time to time compiled for their use and at their expense should be recognised beforehand. The Court was asked to say, in effect, “If in the future any more “ of these telegrams aro compiled for the “ plaintiffs, you, the defendant, are for- “ bidden to publish them without permis- “ sion first obtained.” It seems clear that New Zealand law can afford no such prospective protection. The Chief Justice said “ that though copyright might at- “ taoh upon each successive publication, “ yet that which has no present existence “ as a publication cannot be the subject “ of the species of property called copyright.” Judge Johnston was equally clear on the point,—“There can be no “ copyright in matter such as prospective “ telegraphic abstracts ot the plaintiffs “expected to be received and prepared “ by the plaintiffs, and which it is ex- “ peoted will be published in the defen- “ dant’s paper, and therefore there can “ be no injunction to restrain the possible “ or probable publication of them.” dome, if not all of the judgments, would lead to the belief that in New Zealand no copyright whatever attaches to a newspaper or any of its contents. The Chief Justice incidentally used the words “ though copyright may attach upon “ such successive publication,” but ho gave no opinion on the point, and expressly founded his judgment on the simple ground that the plaintiffs did not seek the protection of an existing copyright. Judge Johnston having previously alluded to a case—Jeffrey v. Boosey (4 H. of L. 814)—which affirms that copyright, when signifying the right of multiplying copies of writings after their first publication, exists only by statute, gave it as his opinion that the New Zealand Copyright Ordinance of 1842 did not create a copyright in newspaper paragraphs. Judge Williams spoke very much to tho same effect. The Ordinance of 1843 grants a copyright in New Zealand for 28 years to authors of books, and Judge Gillies could not “assent to the argument that “ book includes a newspaper and every “ paragraph in a newspaper.” And a little further on he remarked—“ It seems to “ me that the publication of any compila- “ tion of news in a newspaper is a dedi- “ cation of it to the whole world, and in “ the absence ot any.statutory prohibi- “ tion anyone is at liberty to reproduce “ copies thereof.” On reviewing these Judgments it becomes pretty evident that had the plaintiffs sued defendant for publishing certain of these telegrams, and proved damages, they would not have been able to recover, because there is no copyright ot newspapers in tho colony. With regard to the ordinary general contents of newspaper columns wo do not know that there is any ground for complaint at this absence of copyright. Evory newspaper in the world makes use, more or less, of the literary work ot its contain, poraries, an acknowledgement of tho source from which articles or paragraphs aro taken being given as a simple matter of courtesy, and it cannot bo denied that tho public reap incalculable benefits by the arrangement. Any attempt to curtail this free interchange of facts and ideas would be highly prejudicial both to tho Press and the public. But telegrams, especially foreign telegrams, are apparently an exception to tho general rule. It is au easy matter to show that in New Zealand at all events a copyright of press telegrams would bo an advantage to all parties. As a rule individual newspapers aro totally unable to bear the expense of giving their readers regular telegraphic intelligence from the various centres of population in tho colony, and from other parts of the world. Combination of some sort was recognised as a necessity as soon as tho first wire was stretched. Tho object has been attained in a moderately satisfaotoiy manner by a private firm undertaking tho business of supplying all or any of tho newspapers in the colony with daily telegrams by means of agents in tho various towns and in Australia, a telegram from any locality serving for all other parts of the Colony. At a comparatively small cost a paper can thus secure all the advantages which it would enjoy if it employed its own special agents independently of the rest of the

Press. From each newspaper the firm looks to make profit, and it is evident that the larger the number on their books the better will they be able to do their work. If their success is great from a financial point of view they will be able' to give such remuneration to their agents as will secure the services of capable men. If, on the other hand, their success is small, the agents will, as a matter of course, be of an inferior class, their work will be badly performed, and the public will bo the sufferers. Anything which takes from the legitimate profits of the agency must be felt eventually by newspaper readers, and nothing can tend more surely in that direction than publishing the telegrams without paying for them. Under newspaper law as it appears to exist at present in New Zealand there is a strong temptation for an unscrupulous man having the control of a newspaper to put his hand into his neighbor’s pocket by appropriating these telegrams. There does not seem to be anything to stop him if his own sense of what is right and decent fail toopeiate as a check. As this piracy might bo carried to a great length, andasitisobviouslyinjurious to the public, it may be hoped that the Legislature will take the matter in hand and grant the necessary protection. We do not venture at present to say how far a newspaper copyright Bill should go, but it would be as well to interfere with nothing but telegrams, and great care would have to be taken in dealing with them. Probably a protection for a week or so after first publication would bo sufficient to meet the case.