Commentary on:
Report of François Hell to the National Assembly (1791)

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_1791a

 

Commentary on François Hell's report

Frédéric Rideau

Faculty of Law, University of Poitiers, France

 

Please cite as:

Rideau, F. (2010) ‘Commentary on François Hell's report (1791)', 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 to the National Assembly, by Mr. Hell, Deputy of the Bas-Rhin, on the property of scientific and literary productions

 

2. Abstract

François Hell's bill, submitted to the Constitutional Committee in September 1791, can be seen as a counter-weight to that of Sieyès (f_1790). Indeed, it enshrined literary property in such terms with which neither Linguet, nor Pluquet, nor obviously the Parisian booksellers, would have been able to find any fault. Especially since the former was to be guaranteed by perpetual protection, to the benefit of the author, as well as his assignees. In short, the bill's purpose was to confirm the recognition of literary property that had been achieved with the 1777 decrees (f_1777a), but without the restrictions imposed back then on the transfer of such property. Moreover, in contrast to Sieyès's draft, Hell treated the question of press control and that of regulating the author's right as quite distinct issues. The new tentative law was also intended not to be provisional but permanent. However, this radical proposal was ultimately rejected by the National Assembly.

 

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