Statute of Anne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Statute of Anne
Chapter c.19
Introduced by Edward Wortley
Territorial extent England and Wales, Scotland, later Ireland
Royal Assent 5 April 1710
Commencement 10 April 1710
Repeal date 1 July 1842
Other legislation
Related legislation Licensing of the Press Act 1662
Repealing legislation Copyright Act 1842
Status: Repealed

The Statute of Anne (c.19), an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, was the first statute to provide for copyright regulated by the government and courts, rather than by private parties.


Over the next 10 years the Stationers repeatedly advocated bills to re-authorize the old licensing system, but Parliament declined to enact them. Faced with this failure, the Stationers decided to emphasise the benefits of licensing to authors rather than publishers, and the Stationers succeeded in getting Parliament to consider a new bill. This bill, which after substantial amendments was granted Royal Assent on 5 April 1710, became known as the Statute of Anne due to its passage during the reign of Queen Anne. The new law prescribed a copyright term of 14 years, with a provision for renewal for a similar term, during which only the author and the printers they chose to license their works to could publish the author's creations. Following this, the work's copyright would expire, with the material falling into the public domain. Despite a period of instability known as the Battle of the Booksellers when the initial copyright terms under the Statute began to expire, the Statute of Anne remained in force until the Copyright Act 1842 repealed it.



With the introduction of the printing press to England by William Caxton in 1476,[5] printed works became both more common and more economically important. As early as 1483, Richard III recognised the value of literary works by specifically exempting them from the government's protectionist legislation.[6] Over the next fifty years, the government moved further towards economic regulation,[7] abolishing the provision with the Printers and Binders Act 1534, which also banned the import of foreign works and empowered the Lord Chancellor to set maximum pricing for English books.[8] This was followed by increasing degrees of censorship.[9] A further proclamation of 1538, aiming to stop the spread of Lutheran doctrine, saw Henry VIII note that "sondry contentious and sinyster opiniones, have by wrong teachynge and naughtye bokes increaced and growen within this his realme of England", and declare that all authors and printers must allow the Privy Council or their agents to read and censor books before publication.[8]

Stationers' Company[edit]


This censorship peaked on 4 May 1557, when Mary I issued a royal warrant formally incorporating the Stationers' Company. The old method of censorship had been limited by the Second Statute of Repeal, and with Mary's increasing unpopularity the existing system was unable to cope with the number of critical works being printed. Instead, the royal warrant devolved this power to the Company.[10] This was done by decreeing that only the Company's publishers could print and distribute books. Their Wardens were given the power to enter any printing premises, destroy illegal works and imprison anyone found manufacturing them.[7] In this way the government "harnessed the self interest of the publishers to the yoke of royal incentive", guaranteeing that the Company would follow the rules due to the economic monopoly it gave their members.[11] With the abolition of the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission by the Long Parliament, the legal basis for this warrant was removed, but the Long Parliament chose to replace it with the Licensing Act 1662.[12] This provided that the Company would retain their original powers, and imposed additional restrictions on printing; King's Messengers were permitted to enter any home or business in search of illegal presses. The legislation required renewal every two years, and was regularly reapproved.[13]

This was not "copyright" as is normally understood; although there was a monopoly on the right to copy, this was available to publishers, not authors, and did not exist by default; it only applied to books which had been accepted and published by the Company.[14] A member of the Company would register the book, and would then have a perpetual copyright over its printing, copying and publication, which could be leased, transferred to others or given to heirs upon the member's death.[15] The only exception to this was that, if a book was out of print for more than 6 months and the publisher ignored a warning to make it available, the copyright would be released and other publishers would be permitted to copy it.[16] Authors themselves were not particularly respected until the 18th century, and were not permitted to be members of the Company, playing no role in the development or use of its licenses despite the Company's sovereign authority to decide what was published.[17] There is evidence that some authors were recognised by the Company itself to have the right to copy and the right to alter their works; these authors were uniformly the writers of uneconomical books who were underwriting their publication.[18]


Lapse of the Licensing Act[edit]



John Locke's close relationship with Clarke, along with the respect he commanded, is seen by academics as what led to this decision.[22] Locke had spent the early 1690s campaigning against the statute, considering it "ridiculous" that the works of dead authors were held perpetually in copyright.[23] In letters to Clarke he wrote of the absurdity of the existing system, complaining primarily about the unfairness of it to authors, and "[t]he parallels between Locke's commentary and those reasons presented by the Commons to the Lords for refusing to renew the 1662 Act are striking".[24] He was assisted by a number of independent printers and booksellers, who opposed the monopolistic aspects of the Act, and introduced a petition in February 1693 that the Act prevented them from conducting their business.[23] The "developing public sphere",[1] along with the harm the existing system had caused to both major political parties, is also seen as a factor.[25]


Attempts at replacement[edit]



Authors, as well as Stationers, then joined the demand for a new system of licensing. Jonathan Swift was a strong advocate for licensing,[31] and Daniel Defoe wrote on 8 November 1705 that with the absence of licensing, "One Man Studies Seven Year, to bring a finish'd Peice into the World, and a Pyrate Printer, Reprints his Copy immediately, and Sells it for a quarter of the Price ... these things call for an Act of Parliament".[32] Seeing this, the Company took the opportunity to experiment with a change to their approach and argument. Instead of lobbying because of the impact the absence of legislation was having on their trade, they lobbied on behalf of the authors, but seeking the same things. The first indication of this change in approach comes from the 1706 pamphlet by John How, a stationer, titled Reasons humbly Offer'd for a Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and the Improvement of Printing. This argued for a return to licensing, not with reference to the printers, but because without something to protect authors and guarantee them an income, "Learned men will be wholly discouraged from Propagating the most useful Parts of Knowledge and Literature".[33] Using these new tactics and the support of authors, the Company petitioned Parliament again in both 1707 and 1709 to introduce a bill providing for copyright.[31]



Although both bills failed, they led to media pressure that was exacerbated by both Defoe and How. Defoe's A Review, published on 3 December 1709 and demanding "a Law in the present Parliament ... for the Encouragement of Learning, Arts, and Industry, by securing the Property of Books to the Authors or Editors of them",[34] was followed by How's Some Thoughts on the Present State of Printing and Bookselling, which hoped that Parliament "might think fit to secure Property in Books by a Law".[34] This was followed by another review by Defoe on 6 December, in which he even went so far as to provide a draft text for the bill.[34] On 12 December, the Stationers submitted yet another petition asking for legislation on the issue, and the House of Commons gave three MPs – Spencer Compton, Craven Peyton and Edward Wortley – permission to form a drafting committee. On 11 January 1710, Wortley introduced this bill, titling it A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof.[35]

The bill allowed for fines for anyone who imported or traded in unlicensed or foreign books, required every book that would be given copyright protection to be entered into the Stationers' Register, provided a legal deposit system centred around the King's Library, the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge, but said nothing about limiting the term of copyright. It also specified that books were property; an emphasis on the idea that authors deserved copyright simply due to their efforts.[36] The Stationers were enthusiastic, urging Parliament to pass the bill, and it received its second reading on 9 February. A Committee of the Whole met to amend it on 21 February, with further alterations made when it was passed back to the House of Commons on 25 February.[37] Alterations during this period included minor changes, such as extending the legal deposit system to cover Sion College and the Faculty of Advocates, but also major ones, including the introduction of a limit on the length of time for which copyright would be granted.[38]

Linguistic amendments were also included; the line in the preamble emphasising that authors possessed books as they would any other piece of property was dropped, and the bill moved from something designed "for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof" to a bill "for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies".[39] Another amendment allowed anyone to own and trade in copies of books, undermining the Stationers.[39] Other changes were made when the bill went to the House of Lords, and it was finally returned to the Commons on 5 April. The aims of the resulting statute are debated; Ronan Deazley suggests that the intent was to balance the rights of the author, publisher and public in such a way as to ensure the maximum dissemination of works,[40] while other academics argue that the bill was intended to protect the Company's monopoly or, conversely, to weaken it. Oren Bracha, writing in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, says that when considering which of these options are correct, "the most probable answer [is] all of them".[41] Whatever the motivations, the bill was passed on 5 April 1710, and is commonly known simply as the Statute of Anne due its passage during the reign of Queen Anne.[42]


The Statute of Anne

Consisting of 11 sections, the Statute of Anne is formally titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".[43] The preamble for the Statute indicates the purpose of the legislation - to bring order to the book trade - saying:



Once registration had been completed and the deposits were made, the author was granted an exclusive right to control the copying of the book. Penalties for infringing this right were severe, with all infringing copies to be destroyed and large fines to be paid to both the copyright holder and the government; there was only a three-month statute of limitations on bringing a case, however.[45] This exclusive right's length was dependent on when the book had been published. If it was published after 10 April 1710, the length of copyright was 14 years; if published before that date, 21 years.[47] An author who survived until the copyright expired would be granted an additional 14-year term, and when that ran out, the works would enter the public domain.[45] Copyright under the Statute applied to Scotland and England, as well as Ireland when that country joined the union in 1800.[48]



The passage of the Statute was initially much welcomed, ushering in "stability to an insecure book trade" while providing for a "pragmatic bargain" between the rights of the author, publisher and public intended to boost public learning and the availability of knowledge.[49] The clause requiring book deposits, however, was not seen as a success. If the books were not deposited, the penalties would be severe, with a fine of £5. The number of deposits required, however, meant that it was a substantial burden; a print run might only be of 250 copies, and if they were particularly expensive to print, it could be cheaper to ignore the law. Some booksellers argued that the deposit provision only applied to registered books, and so deliberately avoided registration just to be able to minimise their liability.[50] This was further undermined by the ruling in Beckford v Hood,[51] where the Court of King's Bench confirmed that, even without registration, copyright could be enforced against infringers.[52]


Battle of the Booksellers[edit]



The first major action taken to clarify the situation was Millar v Taylor.[56] Andrew Millar, a British publisher, purchased the rights to James Thomson's The Seasons in 1729, and when the copyright term expired, a competing publisher named Robert Taylor began issuing his own reprints of the work. Millar sued, and went to the Court of King's Bench to obtain an injunction and advocate perpetual copyright at common law.[57] The jury found that the facts submitted by Millar were accurate, and asked the judges to clarify whether common law copyright existed. The first arguments were delivered on 30 June 1767, with John Dunning representing Millar and Edward Thurlow representing Taylor. A second set of arguments were submitted for Millar by William Blackstone on 7 June, and judgment was given on 20 April 1769. The final decision, written by Lord Mansfield and endorsed by Aston and Willes JJ, confirmed that there existed copyright at common law that turned "upon Principles before and independent" of the Statute of Anne, something justified because it was right "that an Author should reap the pecuniary Profits of his own Ingenuity and Labour". In other words, regardless of the Statute, there existed a perpetual copyright under the common law.[58] Yates J dissented, on the grounds that the focus on the author obscured the impact this decision would have on "the rest of mankind", which he felt would be to create a virtual monopoly, something that would have a detrimental impact on the public and should certainly not be considered "an encouragement of the propagation of learning".[59]

Although this decision was a boon to the Stationers, it was short-lived. Following Millar, the right to print The Seasons was sold to a coalition of publishers including Thomas Becket. Two Scottish printers, Alexander and John Donaldson, began publishing an unlicensed edition, and Becket successfully obtained an injunction to stop them. This decision was appealed in Donaldson v Beckett,[60] and eventually went to the House of Lords.[61] After consulting with the judges of the King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer of Pleas, the Lords concluded that there was no copyright at common law - certainly not perpetual copyright - and as such, that the term permitted by the Statute of Anne was the maximum length of legal protection for publishers and authors alike.[62]

Expansion and repeal[edit]




Talfourd's proposals led to opposition, and he reintroduced modified versions of them year on year. Printers, publishers and booksellers were concerned about the cost implications for original works, and for reprinting works that had fallen out of copyright.[67] Many within Parliament argued that the bill failed to take into account the public interest, including Lord Macaulay, who succeeded in defeating one of Talfourd's bills in 1841.[68] The Copyright Act 1842 passed, but "fell far short of Talfourd's dream of a uniform, consistent, codified law of copyright".[69] It extended copyright to life plus seven years, and, as part of the codification clauses, repealed the Statute of Anne.[66]



It also marked the first time that copyright had been vested primarily in the author, rather than the publisher, and also the first time that the injurious treatment of authors by publishers was recognised; regardless of what authors signed away, the second 14-year term of copyright would automatically return to them.[71] Even in the 21st century, the Statute of Anne is "frequently invoked by modern judges and academics as embodying the utilitarian underpinnings of copyright law".[4] In IceTV v Nine Network,[72] for example, the High Court of Australia noted that the title of the Statute "echoed explicitly the emphasis on the practical or utilitarian importance that certain seventeenth-century philosophers attached to knowledge and its encouragement in the scheme of human progress".[4] Despite "widely recognised flaws", the Act became a model copyright statute, both within the United Kingdom and internationally.[73] Christophe Geiger notes that it is "a difficult, almost impossible task" to analyse the relationship between the Statute of Anne and early French copyright law, both because it is difficult to make a direct connection, and because the ongoing debate over both has led to radically different interpretations of each nation's law.[74]

Similarly, Belgium took no direct influence from the Statute or English copyright theory, but Joris Deene of the University of Ghent identifies an indirect influence "at two levels"; the criteria for what constitutes copyrightable material, which comes from the work of English theorists such as Locke and Edward Young,[75] and the underlying justification of copyright law. In Belgium, this justification is both that copyright serves the public interest, and that copyright is a "private right" that serves the interests of individual authors. Both theories were taken into account in Donaldson v Beckett, as well as in the drafting of the Statute of Anne, and Deene infers that they subsequently had an impact on the Belgian debates over their first copyright statute.[76] In the United States, the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution and the first Federal copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790, both draw on the Statute of Anne. The 1790 Act contains provisions for a 14-year term of copyright and sections that provide for authors who published their works before 1790, both of which mirror the protection offered by the Statute 80 years previously.[77]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b c Rose 2009, p. 137.
  2. ^ a b Deazley 2004, p. 1.
  3. ^ a b Patterson & Joyce 2003, p. 916.
  4. ^ a b c Alexander 2010, p. 17.
  5. ^ Streibich 1976, p. 55.
  6. ^ Hauhart 1983, p. 545.
  7. ^ a b Hauhart 1983, p. 546.
  8. ^ a b Robinson 1991, p. 59.
  9. ^ Abrams 1985, p. 1135.
  10. ^ Robinson 1991, p. 60.
  11. ^ Abrams 1985, p. 1136.
  12. ^ Abrams 1985, p. 1137.
  13. ^ a b Hauhart 1983, p. 547.
  14. ^ Streibich 1976, p. 60.
  15. ^ Patterson & Joyce 2003, p. 914.
  16. ^ Holdsworth 1920, p. 844.
  17. ^ Streibich 1976, p. 59.
  18. ^ Robinson 1991, p. 63.
  19. ^ Rose 2009, p. 133.
  20. ^ Rose 2003, p. 78.
  21. ^ Rose 2009, p. 136.
  22. ^ a b c Deazley 2004, p. 2.
  23. ^ a b Alexander 2010, p. 19.
  24. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 4.
  25. ^ a b Robinson 1991, p. 66.
  26. ^ Alexander 2010, p. 21.
  27. ^ Rose 2009, p. 138.
  28. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 7.
  29. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 10.
  30. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 12-13.
  31. ^ a b Robinson 1991, p. 67.
  32. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 32.
  33. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 33.
  34. ^ a b c Deazley 2004, p. 35.
  35. ^ Rose 1993, p. 42.
  36. ^ Deazley 2003, p. 107.
  37. ^ Rose 1993, p. 43.
  38. ^ Rose 1993, p. 44.
  39. ^ a b c Deazley 2004, p. 41.
  40. ^ Deazley 2003, p. 108.
  41. ^ Bracha 2010, p. 1431-2.
  42. ^ Deazley 2010, p. 793.
  43. ^ Patterson & Joyce 2003, p. 917.
  44. ^ Patterson & Joyce 2003, p. 919.
  45. ^ a b c Patterson & Joyce 2003, p. 920.
  46. ^ Seville 2010, p. 827.
  47. ^ a b Deazley 2006, p. 13.
  48. ^ a b Cornish 2010, p. 22.
  49. ^ a b Deazley 2006, p. 14.
  50. ^ Seville 2010, p. 828.
  51. ^ (1798) 7 D&E 620
  52. ^ Seville 2010, p. 829.
  53. ^ a b Bracha 2010, p. 1439.
  54. ^ Patterson 1965, p. 245.
  55. ^ Robinson 1991, p. 71.
  56. ^ (1768) 4 Burr 2303
  57. ^ Seville 2010, p. 822.
  58. ^ Deazley 2006, p. 15.
  59. ^ Deazley 2004, p. 178.
  60. ^ 1 Eng. Rep. 837
  61. ^ Abrams 1985, p. 1156.
  62. ^ Abrams 1985, p. 1157.
  63. ^ Robinson 1991, p. 69.
  64. ^ Alexander 2010, p. 48-9.
  65. ^ Seville 2011, p. 4.
  66. ^ a b Alexander 2010, p. 92.
  67. ^ Alexander 2010, p. 94-5.
  68. ^ Alexander 2010, p. 96.
  69. ^ Alexander 2010, p. 100.
  70. ^ Patterson 1965, p. 236.
  71. ^ Bracha 2010, p. 1438.
  72. ^ [2009] HCA 14
  73. ^ Bently 2010, p. 11.
  74. ^ Geiger 2010, p. 122-3.
  75. ^ Deene 2010, p. 141.
  76. ^ Deene 2010, p. 142-3.
  77. ^ Patterson & Joyce 2003, p. 939.


External links[edit]