Commentary on:
Sieyès' report (1790)

Back | Commentary info | Commentary
Printer friendly version
Creative Commons License
This work by www.copyrighthistory.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)

www.copyrighthistory.org

Identifier: f_1790

 

Commentary on Sieyès' report

Frédéric Rideau

Faculty of Law, University of Poitiers, France

 

Please cite as:

Rideau, F. (2010) ‘Commentary on Sieyès' Report (1790)', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

 

 

1. Full title

2. Abstract

3. References

 

1. Full title

Report of M. the Abbé Sieyès on the freedom of the press, and the bill against offences which can be committed by means of printing, and by the publication of writings and engravings

 

2. Abstract

A draft law for the organisation and regulation of the book market - the first such bill in France to invoke author's rights - was presented to the Constitutional Committee in January 1790 by the Abbé Sieyès, the famous statesman and deputy of the Third Estate. Literary property, which seems to have been relegated to a secondary place in this draft, was only guaranteed for very short terms of protection, since it had to be subordinated to the crucial consideration of public interest in this revolutionary period. Although the bill was not passed, it has nevertheless been interpreted as reflecting - along the same lines as Condorcet (f_1776a), albeit in the context of the Revolution - a truly liberal current in French copyright discourse at the expense of Romantic notions of the author and his work. In a way it was also a further defence of the provincial booksellers' cause, which had been bolstered by the initial revolutionary debates. In reality, Sieyès's draft law, as its very title suggested, was above all concerned with "the offences which can be committed by means of printing". Furthermore, the proposed law was officially intended to be in force for a period of just two years, in contrast to François Hell's bill (f_1791a), which would be submitted a few months later.

 

3. References

full commentary in preparation


Our Partners


Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (www.copyrighthistory.org).

You may not publish these documents for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.


Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK