§ 5 (1).
made and executed for or on behalf of another for valuable consideration, in the employer[1].
Existing law. Side by side with the statutory provisions there is judicial authority for the view that when any work is executed by a person in the course of his employment as the paid servant of another the copyright in that work vests in the employer[2].
Collective works.
Copyright Act, 1842, s. 18.
When copyright is claimed by the proprietor of a collective work
under sect. 18 of the Copyright Act, 1842, the proprietor must prove that the employment was on the terms that copyright should
belong to him. Such terms need not, however, be expressed, and
when a proprietor has employed and paid an author, there is a
primâ facie presumption that the employment was on the terms that the copyright should belong to the proprietor[3]. Payment is a condition precedent to the copyright vesting in the proprietor of the collective work, and, apparently, if the work is published before payment, copyright vests in the author, but passes by operation of law to the proprietor on payment being made[4]. If two or more proprietors of several publications have jointly employed an author to compose a work which is published in their several publications, the proprietors of each publication has, subject to the rights of the other proprietors, a separate copyright as if he alone had employed the author [5]. When the proprietor of a collective work has established his right under sect. 18, then, in the case of nonperiodical works, the copyright passes to him absolutely. In the case, however, of periodicals, the proprietor only acquires the light to it as part of his periodical. He cannot, without the author's consent, publish it in any separate form[6], and after the lapse of
- ↑ Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 68), s. 1.
- ↑ Hildesheimer v. Dunn (1891), 64 L. T. 452; Walter v. Lane, [1900] A.C. 539; Sweet v. Benning (1855). 16 C. B. 459; James Nisbet & Co., Ltd. v. The Golf Agency (1907), 23 T. L. R. 370.
- ↑ Lawrence and Bidlen v. Aftalo, [1904] A. C. 17; Lamb v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218; Walter v. Howe[ (1881), 17 Ch. D. 708; Johnson v. Newnes, [1894] 3 Ch. 663; Coote v. Judd' (1883), 23 Ch. D. 727.
- ↑ Trade Auxiliary v. Middle-borough (1889), 40 Ch. D. 425; Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch. 140; Richardson v. Gilbert (1851), 1 Sim. (N. S.) 336; Collingridge v. Emmott (1888), 57 L. T. (N. S.) 864; Trade Auxiliary v. Jackson (1887), 4 T. L. R. 130.
- ↑ Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D. 425.
- ↑ Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. & H. 312; Smith v. Johnson (1863), 4 Giff. 632.
- ↑ Johnson v. Newnes, [1894] 3 Ch. 663.