Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Amsterdam District Court on the exclusive right to translate a foreign literary work, Amsterdam (1843)
Source: Het letterkundig eigendomsregt in Nederland: wetten, traktaten, regtspraak: benevens de wetgeving op de drukpers in Nederland en Nederlandsch Indië Vereeniging ter bevordering van de belangen des boekhandels, ’s Gravenhage : Belinfante 1865-1867, I (1865), pp. 135-139; Bijzondere Collecties, Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam, UBM KVB 6730:1
Citation:
Amsterdam District Court on the exclusive right to translate a foreign literary work, Amsterdam (1843), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
5 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
(135)
VII. INFRINGEMENT OF THE EXCLUSIVE TRANSLATION RIGHTS OF THE WORK OF CH. DICKENS, entitled American Notes.
DISTRICT COURT IN AMSTERDAM
Hearing of 27 December 1843.
President, Mr. M.C. VAN HALL.
Does the Netherlands, since the Act of 15 January 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 5), have an exclusive translation right for the purposes of those who, in accordance with the Decree of 24th January 1814 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 17), have first announced that they intend to make a translation, or is the right limited to the right to copy the actually completed translation? Decided in the latter sense.
Case of C. F. Stemler versus H. Frijlink.
The Court etc.,
Having heard the advisory opinion of the Public Prosecution Department in this Court etc.;
Considering with regard to the facts:
that the plaintiff claims, as is not denied by the defendant, on 21st November 1842, at 10 o'clock in the morning, to have presented for translation into Low German, a copy of the English work, entitled American Notes for general circulation, by Ch. Dickens, to the lords mayor and aldermen of the city of Amsterdam, and further to have observed all the formalities set out both in the Decrees of 24th January 1814 (GG No. 17) and 24th Jan. 1815 (GG No. 6), and the Act of 25th Jan. 1817 (GG No. 25), in order to reserve himself the property of his translation;
Chapter 1 Page 2
(136)
That factually, on the 1st of the month of December 1842, at least during the course of that month, was published a translation by the plaintiff, as a bookseller, of the reported work, under the title of: Uitstapje naar Noord-Amerika van Ch. Dickens (Trip to North America by Ch. Dickens);
That in the No. 12 of the magazine published monthly by the defendant, as a bookseller, issued on the first of December of that year 1842: Het Leeskabinet (miscellaneous works for the pleasant entertainment of civilized circles), from p. 193 till 246, under the heading: Charles Dickens in America, is entered a Low German translation of a very large and significant part of the already reported English work: American Notes;
That it is demonstrated clearly from an only superficial comparison of both translations that they are two different translations of the same work, and that therefore the one translation is not a copy of the other;
That the plaintiff therefore does not claim that the defendant has copied the translation of this here plaintiff, but that the defendant has infringed his right of property to the exclusive translation of the already reported work of Ch. Dickens;
That the plaintiff consequently, under Art. 4 of the Act of 25th Jan. 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decreed No. 5), has claimed, besides the seizure of all unsold copies available within this Kingdom of the mentioned translation of the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff: -- that the defendant would be ordered to pay this here plaintiff a sum of NLG 7600, being the value of 2000 copies of the translation of this here plaintiff, calculated according to the booksellers price, and finally is fined a sum of no less than NLG 100 and not exceeding NLG 1000 for the benefit of the common poor of
Chapter 1 Page 3
(137)
the city of Amsterdam, and ordered to pay the costs, as further specified in the statement of this here plaintiff;
That the defendant, on grounds stated in his statement of defence, has asked for this claim to be declared inadmissible, in fact to deny it with order to pay the costs ;
And now considering the law:
That in the preamble of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 5), is expressly indicated that the rights which can be exercised in this Kingdom with regard to the printing and publication of literary and artistic works ought to have been provided on an equal footing, for which this Act should serve;
That during the adoption of this Act by the competent power, differing ordinances existed on this matter for the northern and southern provinces of the former kingdom;
That then still in the northern provinces were in force the Decrees of 24 Jan. 1814 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 17) and 24 Jan. 1815 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 6), while the subject in the South was governed by the Decree of 23 Sept. 1814 (Official Gazette No. 54);
That in art. 9 of the Decree of 24 Jan. 1814 was prohibited the copying, in any way, of the translation in Low German of a work published outside these countries, or the selling of another translation in Low German of the same work, within the first three years after the publication of the first translation, while in the Decree of 24 Jan. 1815, the formalities, which one ought to observe to reserve the right of property to publish a translation of a foreign tome, were expanded;
That thus in the northern provinces existed both a right to copy translations, and an exclusive translation right, and the last one for the term of three years;
Chapter 1 Page 4
(138)
That, by contrast, in art. 11 of the Decree of 23 Sept. 1814, for the southern provinces was provided that, when a work was translated, the translator only obtained a right of property on his publication;
That thus in the southern provinces only existed a right to copy translations, but not an exclusive translation right.
That therefore, in order to comply with the preamble of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817, that is to bring the rights in the former kingdom, regarding this subject, on an equal footing, either, by that Act, the exclusive translation right ought to have been introduced in the southern provinces, or that this exclusive translation right must be deemed to have been abolished in the northern provinces;
That, as the Act of Jan 25. 181, is silent on exclusive translation rights, these rights have thus also not been introduced by that Act in the southern provinces, and therefore must be deemed to have been repealed in the north;
That, although in art. 2 of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817, right to copy translations on an original literary work published outside the Kingdom is maintained, this right in that article is defined as an exclusive right of translators and assignees to publish, sell and to cause to be sold their translations, but that the words: their translations most clearly show that here is spoken only of the right to copy and translations for the benefit of translators, and by no means of an exclusive right to translate a foreign literary work;
That thus, by the introduction of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817, the exclusive translation right which used to exist here in this country has been abolished;
That the defendant therefore, by placing his translation of
Chapter 1 Page 5
(139)
the work of Ch. Dickens in No. 12 of the Leeskabinet, has not infringed upon the rights of the plaintiff;
Given the already reported Decrees of 24th Jan. and 23rd Sept. 1814, 24th Jan. 1815, and 26th Jan. 1817, as well as art. 56 Civ. Proc. Code.;
Rendering judgment etc.;
Denies the plaintiff his delivered claim and statement against the defendant, and
Orders him to pay the costs of these proceedings.
[...]
Translation by: Miluska Kooij
Source: Het letterkundig eigendomsregt in Nederland: wetten, traktaten, regtspraak: benevens de wetgeving op de drukpers in Nederland en Nederlandsch Indië Vereeniging ter bevordering van de belangen des boekhandels, ’s Gravenhage : Belinfante 1865-1867, I (1865), pp. 135-139; Bijzondere Collecties, Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam, UBM KVB 6730:1
Citation:
Amsterdam District Court on the exclusive right to translate a foreign literary work, Amsterdam (1843), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
5 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
(135)
VII. INFRINGEMENT OF THE EXCLUSIVE TRANSLATION RIGHTS OF THE WORK OF CH. DICKENS, entitled American Notes.
DISTRICT COURT IN AMSTERDAM
Hearing of 27 December 1843.
President, Mr. M.C. VAN HALL.
Does the Netherlands, since the Act of 15 January 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 5), have an exclusive translation right for the purposes of those who, in accordance with the Decree of 24th January 1814 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 17), have first announced that they intend to make a translation, or is the right limited to the right to copy the actually completed translation? Decided in the latter sense.
Case of C. F. Stemler versus H. Frijlink.
The Court etc.,
Having heard the advisory opinion of the Public Prosecution Department in this Court etc.;
Considering with regard to the facts:
that the plaintiff claims, as is not denied by the defendant, on 21st November 1842, at 10 o'clock in the morning, to have presented for translation into Low German, a copy of the English work, entitled American Notes for general circulation, by Ch. Dickens, to the lords mayor and aldermen of the city of Amsterdam, and further to have observed all the formalities set out both in the Decrees of 24th January 1814 (GG No. 17) and 24th Jan. 1815 (GG No. 6), and the Act of 25th Jan. 1817 (GG No. 25), in order to reserve himself the property of his translation;
Chapter 1 Page 2
(136)
That factually, on the 1st of the month of December 1842, at least during the course of that month, was published a translation by the plaintiff, as a bookseller, of the reported work, under the title of: Uitstapje naar Noord-Amerika van Ch. Dickens (Trip to North America by Ch. Dickens);
That in the No. 12 of the magazine published monthly by the defendant, as a bookseller, issued on the first of December of that year 1842: Het Leeskabinet (miscellaneous works for the pleasant entertainment of civilized circles), from p. 193 till 246, under the heading: Charles Dickens in America, is entered a Low German translation of a very large and significant part of the already reported English work: American Notes;
That it is demonstrated clearly from an only superficial comparison of both translations that they are two different translations of the same work, and that therefore the one translation is not a copy of the other;
That the plaintiff therefore does not claim that the defendant has copied the translation of this here plaintiff, but that the defendant has infringed his right of property to the exclusive translation of the already reported work of Ch. Dickens;
That the plaintiff consequently, under Art. 4 of the Act of 25th Jan. 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decreed No. 5), has claimed, besides the seizure of all unsold copies available within this Kingdom of the mentioned translation of the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff: -- that the defendant would be ordered to pay this here plaintiff a sum of NLG 7600, being the value of 2000 copies of the translation of this here plaintiff, calculated according to the booksellers price, and finally is fined a sum of no less than NLG 100 and not exceeding NLG 1000 for the benefit of the common poor of
Chapter 1 Page 3
(137)
the city of Amsterdam, and ordered to pay the costs, as further specified in the statement of this here plaintiff;
That the defendant, on grounds stated in his statement of defence, has asked for this claim to be declared inadmissible, in fact to deny it with order to pay the costs ;
And now considering the law:
That in the preamble of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 5), is expressly indicated that the rights which can be exercised in this Kingdom with regard to the printing and publication of literary and artistic works ought to have been provided on an equal footing, for which this Act should serve;
That during the adoption of this Act by the competent power, differing ordinances existed on this matter for the northern and southern provinces of the former kingdom;
That then still in the northern provinces were in force the Decrees of 24 Jan. 1814 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 17) and 24 Jan. 1815 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees No. 6), while the subject in the South was governed by the Decree of 23 Sept. 1814 (Official Gazette No. 54);
That in art. 9 of the Decree of 24 Jan. 1814 was prohibited the copying, in any way, of the translation in Low German of a work published outside these countries, or the selling of another translation in Low German of the same work, within the first three years after the publication of the first translation, while in the Decree of 24 Jan. 1815, the formalities, which one ought to observe to reserve the right of property to publish a translation of a foreign tome, were expanded;
That thus in the northern provinces existed both a right to copy translations, and an exclusive translation right, and the last one for the term of three years;
Chapter 1 Page 4
(138)
That, by contrast, in art. 11 of the Decree of 23 Sept. 1814, for the southern provinces was provided that, when a work was translated, the translator only obtained a right of property on his publication;
That thus in the southern provinces only existed a right to copy translations, but not an exclusive translation right.
That therefore, in order to comply with the preamble of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817, that is to bring the rights in the former kingdom, regarding this subject, on an equal footing, either, by that Act, the exclusive translation right ought to have been introduced in the southern provinces, or that this exclusive translation right must be deemed to have been abolished in the northern provinces;
That, as the Act of Jan 25. 181, is silent on exclusive translation rights, these rights have thus also not been introduced by that Act in the southern provinces, and therefore must be deemed to have been repealed in the north;
That, although in art. 2 of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817, right to copy translations on an original literary work published outside the Kingdom is maintained, this right in that article is defined as an exclusive right of translators and assignees to publish, sell and to cause to be sold their translations, but that the words: their translations most clearly show that here is spoken only of the right to copy and translations for the benefit of translators, and by no means of an exclusive right to translate a foreign literary work;
That thus, by the introduction of the Act of 25 Jan. 1817, the exclusive translation right which used to exist here in this country has been abolished;
That the defendant therefore, by placing his translation of
Chapter 1 Page 5
(139)
the work of Ch. Dickens in No. 12 of the Leeskabinet, has not infringed upon the rights of the plaintiff;
Given the already reported Decrees of 24th Jan. and 23rd Sept. 1814, 24th Jan. 1815, and 26th Jan. 1817, as well as art. 56 Civ. Proc. Code.;
Rendering judgment etc.;
Denies the plaintiff his delivered claim and statement against the defendant, and
Orders him to pay the costs of these proceedings.
[...]
Translation by: Miluska Kooij