Rights. 63
is ]iiade in the first instance, then there is no liability § 5 (2).
to pay royalties on copies made and sold by the assignee
of the copyright {n}.
Copyright is j)er6onal property and passes on the death Copyright of the owner to his personal representatives (o) . A be- ^'^'*f^^j[|!^ quest of " all my books " has been held to include valuable owner's manuscript notes left by a physician (p). Where an personal author by his will directed his trustee to pay the " free P^°P®*y- annual income " of his estate to his niece, it was "held that all the proceeds from literary works published in the testator's lifetime should be paid as income, but that all proceeds from works posthumously published should be invested as capital {q).
Copyright comes within the vesting section of the Bankruptcj\ Bankruptcy Act, and passes to the trustee of a bankrupt owner {r).
A licence must be distinguished from a partial assign- Licence ment. A licence passes no part of the legal property in distinguished the copyright, but is merely a contractual relation between assignment, the parties. If there is any doubt as to whether a written instrument is to be construed as a licence or an assignment, the answer will, as a rule, depend upon whether or not there are terms in the contract which show a reliance on the part of the grantor on the personal skill or reputa,- tion of the grantee. If they do, then a licence is to be presumed rather than an assignment (§) . For instance, a grant of the "sole and exclusive right of printing and publishing" is in itself an ambiguous expression, but if the agreement bears the personal imprint, it will be con- strued as a licence only, and not as a total or partial assignment of the copyright (f).
A licence differs from an assignment in that it does Licensee
cannot sue alone.
��(w) Nichols V. Amalgamnted Fress (1908), Cop. Cas. 1905-10. p. 166.
{o) Latoury. Bland (1818), 2 Stark. 382.
{p) Willis V. Curtois (1838), 1 Beav. 189.
[q) Davidson's Trustees y. Ogilric, [1910] S. C. 294.
(r) Maicman v. Tegg (1826)", 2 Russ. 385, 392.
(s) Holey. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D. 886; Stevens y. Banning (1854), 1 K. & J. 168 ; Reade v. Bentlcy (1857), 3 K. & J. 271 ; 4 K. & J. 656 ; Cooper \. Stephens, [1895] 1 Ch. 567 ; Bastoic, Ex parte (1854), 14 C. B. 631 ; Black v. Imperial Book Co. (1904), 8 Ont. L. R. 9.
(;:) Tht' Liedertafel Series, In re, [1907] 1 Ch. 651 ; Clinical Obstetrics, In re (1908), Cop. Cas. 1905-10, p. 176; Booth v. Richards (ISIO), The Times, July 14, Cop. Cas. 1905-10, p. 284.
�� �
