88
��Copyright Act, 1911,
��§8.
��believed he had the plaintiff's licence, if the person who pur- ported to grant the licence as the plaintiff's agent had, in fact, EXISTING LAW. HO authority («). Innocent printers and publishers without any knowledge of the source of the work which they print are liable for infringement (y). Common law rights (2), copyright and playright, are all in the nature of an absolute right of property, and any tresj^asser is liable in damages. Innocence only goes to the question of costs, or it may influence the discretion of the Court in granting equitable remedies {a). Actors who innocently take part in the iinauthorized performance of a dramatic piece are liable to penalties under the Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833(6). As regards acts which are not a direct invasi(m of the monopoly, but only incidental thereto, such as importing or selling infringing copies, persons who innocently do such acts are liable, except in so far as the terms of the statute sjjecify knowledge as part of the offence (r).
��§9
��Restriction on remedies in the ease of architecture.
��9. — (1) Where the construction of a building or other structure which infringes (d) or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright (e) in some other work has been commenced, the owner (f) of the copyright shall not be entitled to obtain an injunction or interdict to restrain the construction of such building or structure or to order its demolition.
(2) Such of the other provisions of this Act as provide that an infringing copy ((/) of a work
��Co. (1889), 40 Ch. D. 500 ; Cooper v. fVhittingham (1880). 15 Ch. D. 501 ; Chatterto)! v. Cave (1878), 3 A. C. 483, 601 ; Novello v. Sudloic (1852). 12 C. B. 177; Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R. 15 Eq. 104; Lee v. Simpson (1847), 3 C. B. 871.
{x) Jfeiitemann v. Smart Set Publishinq Co. (190'J), Cop. Cas. 1905-10, p. 221 ; The Time.s, July 15.
[y) Kclli/s Directories v. Gavin and Lloxjds, [1901] 1 Ch. 374 ; Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543; Baschet v. London Lllustrated, [1900] 1 Ch. 73; Smith v. Laily Neus, Ltd. (1910), Cop. Cas. 1905-10, p. 302; The Times, December 2.
[z) Mansell v. Vallei/ Printing Co., [1908] 2 Ch. 441; Prince Albert y . Strange (1849), 2 De G. & Sm. 652, 688.
{a) Tredesco v. National Monthly (1910), Cop. Cas. 1905-10, p. 272.
{b) Luck V. Mayeu (1892), 8 T. L. R. 339.
(c) Hanfstaengl v. W. H. Smith ^- Sons, [1905] 1 Ch. 519.
[d) Sect. 2. (c) Sect. 1 (2). (/) Sect. 5.
Ig) Sect. 35 (I) (" Infring-ing ").
�� �
