Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Encyclopaedia Article on 'The Reprinting of Books', Leipzig and Halle (1740)
Source: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen 34 A 398 [Reprint Edition of 1995]
Citation:
Encyclopaedia Article on 'The Reprinting of Books', Leipzig and Halle (1740), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | Commentaries: [1]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
Estate of the Empire is entitled to annul a privilege which
his Imperial Majesty has granted to a given book publisher,
unless he had grounds to fear that his own subjects would
suffer a significant loss as a result of the privilege. For if
these had need of a particular book and couldn't obtain it
for a reasonable price from that publisher, there could be no
doubt that any sovereign prince would be entitled to grant
someone in his lands the permission to reprint this book for
the use and benefit of his subjects. Now, since the Estates
are entitled to take measures here and there against the
general Imperial laws, one might ask why they shouldn't
have the power to do so where only the benefit of a
particular individual is concerned? However, as Stryck
argues, such power must be limited to the territory or area
over which the prince is sovereign. Otherwise, if, say, the
seller of that book tried to sell it outside this specific
territory, he would have to expect to be punished in
accordance with the Imperial privilege. Thus, it will be of
little or no avail to unauthorised reprinters to insist on
privileges which they had merely obtained in a deceitful
and surreptitious manner. And legitimate publishers will
have not the least cause for paying heed to the warnings
these reprinters may issue or for fearing the damages that
these may threaten them with. Thank God! the law still
holds in the country, and there are still wise and just people
who are responsible for its application. Honest publishers,
as loyal subjects, can rest fully assured that the supreme
authorities will most graciously know how to protect them
in their rights and privileges. Even permission by the author
of a work cannot give unauthorised publishers the right to
deprive the legitimate publishers of the benefit of
subsequent re-editions. He who wants to grant someone
else a right concerning a specific thing must himself still
have some kind of right to it. But where one has voluntarily
renounced all rights to it, there one has also divested
oneself of this privilege [of giving others a right to it]. All
granting of permission takes place through settlements or
contracts. To grant someone else by means of a new
contract a right to a thing which fully revokes the free use
of it that one had conceded to a particular person in an
earlier contract, is a completely invalid undertaking.
Therefore, how can a permission which itself is illegal serve
as the foundation for a right which one seeks to acquire?
Certainly, a scholar does retain the right of ownership to his
learned work, but the book itself, as a physical object, he
has sold for a specific sum of money to a publisher and has
indeed handed it over to him. He has simultaneously ceded
to the latter the right, to which he would himself otherwise
be entitled, of having it published, printed, and re-
published, as was already ¦
No Transcription available.
Source: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen 34 A 398 [Reprint Edition of 1995]
Citation:
Encyclopaedia Article on 'The Reprinting of Books', Leipzig and Halle (1740), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | Commentaries: [1]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
Estate of the Empire is entitled to annul a privilege which
his Imperial Majesty has granted to a given book publisher,
unless he had grounds to fear that his own subjects would
suffer a significant loss as a result of the privilege. For if
these had need of a particular book and couldn't obtain it
for a reasonable price from that publisher, there could be no
doubt that any sovereign prince would be entitled to grant
someone in his lands the permission to reprint this book for
the use and benefit of his subjects. Now, since the Estates
are entitled to take measures here and there against the
general Imperial laws, one might ask why they shouldn't
have the power to do so where only the benefit of a
particular individual is concerned? However, as Stryck
argues, such power must be limited to the territory or area
over which the prince is sovereign. Otherwise, if, say, the
seller of that book tried to sell it outside this specific
territory, he would have to expect to be punished in
accordance with the Imperial privilege. Thus, it will be of
little or no avail to unauthorised reprinters to insist on
privileges which they had merely obtained in a deceitful
and surreptitious manner. And legitimate publishers will
have not the least cause for paying heed to the warnings
these reprinters may issue or for fearing the damages that
these may threaten them with. Thank God! the law still
holds in the country, and there are still wise and just people
who are responsible for its application. Honest publishers,
as loyal subjects, can rest fully assured that the supreme
authorities will most graciously know how to protect them
in their rights and privileges. Even permission by the author
of a work cannot give unauthorised publishers the right to
deprive the legitimate publishers of the benefit of
subsequent re-editions. He who wants to grant someone
else a right concerning a specific thing must himself still
have some kind of right to it. But where one has voluntarily
renounced all rights to it, there one has also divested
oneself of this privilege [of giving others a right to it]. All
granting of permission takes place through settlements or
contracts. To grant someone else by means of a new
contract a right to a thing which fully revokes the free use
of it that one had conceded to a particular person in an
earlier contract, is a completely invalid undertaking.
Therefore, how can a permission which itself is illegal serve
as the foundation for a right which one seeks to acquire?
Certainly, a scholar does retain the right of ownership to his
learned work, but the book itself, as a physical object, he
has sold for a specific sum of money to a publisher and has
indeed handed it over to him. He has simultaneously ceded
to the latter the right, to which he would himself otherwise
be entitled, of having it published, printed, and re-
published, as was already ¦
No Transcription available.