244:, an action that would have given Wilcox and Nutt the right to publish their book, and the lawsuit brought against a second, unique book. Therefore, the only question before the court was whether the second book differentiated sufficiently from the first. Further, the attorneys for the defendants argued that the book was not a direct transcription, but that several chapters had been omitted, while other, original sections had been added to the Wilcox and Nutt publication. They further pointed to the fact that the Gyles' publication consisted of 275 sheets, whereas the abridgement contained only 35 sheets.
31:
253:
164:
doctrine of fair abridgement, which was cited in other cases, ultimately building up to the idea of fair use. The opinion also recognised the author's right to a work through the nature of the labour it took to produce it, shifting copyright away from publishing rights and towards the idea of serving
286:
The case established the doctrine of fair abridgement, which allowed that abridgements displaying a fair amount of labour on the part of the editor, and that differed from the original published work in a significant way, could not be copyright violations. This in effect raised the abridger to the
239:
As
Hardwicke had decided to interpret the Statute of Anne as for the public good, the main question of the case became which "any such book or books" the act referred to and protected. The defendants argued that his abridgement must be considered separate from the original work published by Gyles.
277:
In his decision, Hartwicke went counter to the prevailing view that the
Statute of Anne should be interpreted very strictly, proclaiming, "I am quite of a different opinion, and that it ought to receive a liberal construction, for it is far from being a monopoly, as it is intended to secure the
307:
establishing that
British copyright would be based on labour and not on originality. The opinion advanced the position that copyright law should serve the public interest by promoting the creation of new educational and useful works, rather than focusing on publishing rights. The case played a
144:
The main issues in the case were whether or not abridgements of a work inherently constituted copyright infringement, or whether they could qualify as a separate, new work. Lord
Hartwicke ruled that abridgements fell under two categories: "true abridgements" and "coloured shortenings". True
273:
was indeed a fair abridgement, or to force a judge and jury to sit and hear both books read, instead opting to have two legal experts and a literary master read the books and report the findings to the court. The parties were allowed to choose these examiners, in a way leaving the case to
274:
arbitration. After a week in which the parties were given a chance to make amends outside of court, the book in question was ruled a colourable shortening, created only to circumvent the law, and thus was an infringement of Gyles' printing rights.
732:
A Treatise on the Law of
Copyright in Books, Dramatic and Musical Compositions, Letters and Other Manuscripts, Engravings and Sculpture: As Enacted and Administered by England and America: With Some Notices of the History of Literary
268:
of the author or bookseller who owned the publishing rights. However, Lord
Hardwicke drew a distinction between works "fairly made" and those "colourably shortened". Hardwicke refused to compare the books himself to determine whether
213:, particularly the section stating that an author, or purchaser of an author's copyrights as Gyles was, "shall have the sole Liberty of Printing and Reprinting such Book and Books for the Term of four-teen years."
303:, into the current concept of fair use. Hardwicke's decision also added the exercise of personal judgement to the list of admissible defences against the charge of copyright infringement, adding to the growing
287:
level of an author. The decision did not define the exact parameters that would qualify a work as a valid abridgement. This distinction came with a later case involving an abridgement of
Hawksworth's
264:
of a published book may be considered an entirely separate, new work, as the abridgement showed the labour, originality, education, and judgement of the editor. This new book did not run the risk of
181:, for which he had purchased the exclusive publishing rights. Around the same time, publishers Wilcox and Nutt paid a writer named Barrow to abridge the book, circulating it under the title
619:
278:
property of books in the authors themselves, or the purchasers of the copy, as some recompense for their pains and labour in such works as may be of use to the learned world."
594:
1110:"What's This I See, She's Walking Back to Me... Oh, Pretty Woman: 2 Live Crew Leads Us Back Toward Greater Clarity and Predictability in the Doctrine of Copyright Fair Use".
228:
by including all three volumes in one and cutting several pages. Hardwicke rejected the argument, however, declaring that the former case had been decided merely on a
1099:
Katrina MAXTONE-GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James
Tunstead BURTCHAELL, Andrews & McMeel, Inc., and Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
236:' assertion that the Statute of Anne provided a publishing monopoly, instead interpreting the act as one meant to promote public education and the public good.
763:
201:
and cutting old, obsolete laws. Seeking to protect his printing rights, Gyles sued both Wilcox and Nutt, along with Barrow, for a stay on the publication.
232:, and that he had given his decision and statements without the thought he would have given a normal hearing. Hardwicke further took contention with the
958:
Parker, Joel (June 1853). "Chancery
Jurisdiction. An Inquiry into the Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to Restrain the Publication of Letters".
145:
abridgements presented a true effort on the part of the editor, and by this effort, constituted a new work which did not infringe upon the
133:. Soon after the initial publication, the publishers Wilcox and Nutt hired a writer named Barrow to abridge the book, and repackaged it as
1144:
627:
602:
936:
A Treatise upon the Law of
Copyright: In the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the Crown, and in the United States of America
233:
985:
973:
960:
672:
644:
1088:
1053:
904:
784:
730:
214:
120:
82:
682:
1067:
1035:
1003:
914:
794:
745:
690:
654:
292:
786:
On the Origin of the Right to Copy: Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteenth-Century Britain (1695–1775)
767:
1154:
240:
The defendant's lawyers furthered pushed the court to try the case as if the abridgement had been recorded in the
900:
1159:
209:
The case involved whether Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt had violated Gyles' publishing rights as defined under the
1103:
129:
811:
309:
674:
Archives of Instruction: Nineteenth-Century Rhetorics, Readers, and Composition Books in the United States
1021:
995:
1149:
189:
was a near verbatim copy of his publication, with only minor alterations, including the translation of
814:(January 1980). "Jury Trial of Complex Cases: English Practice at the Time of the Seventh Amendment".
1139:
1027:
867:
940:
882:
241:
1084:
265:
726:
124:
991:
709:
678:
646:
The Dearest Birth Right of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law
220:
Browning, Gyles' attorney, cited a case which had also appeared before Hardwicke, that of
149:
of the original. Leaving it to literary and legal experts to decide, Hartwicke ruled that
8:
1059:
981:
829:
816:
934:
876:
858:
841:
718:
1102: (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 15 October 1986),
252:
153:
was not a true abridgement, but merely a duplication intending to circumvent the law.
1119:
1063:
1031:
999:
853:
790:
741:
737:
686:
650:
108:
41:
875:
Gresley, Richard Newcombe; Christopher Alderson (1847). Christopher Calvert (ed.).
833:
198:
210:
194:
138:
224:. In that case, a publisher attempted to circumvent the rights of the author of
137:. Gyles sued for a stay on the book's publishing, claiming his rights under the
229:
190:
1133:
825:
157:
918:
30:
969:
764:"Commentary on: Gyles v. Wilcox (Atkyn's Reports), United Kingdom (1741)"
261:
123:, and concerned Fletcher Gyles, a bookseller who had published a copy of
112:
845:
296:
161:
165:
the greater good by encouraging the production of new, useful works.
146:
837:
304:
116:
94:
308:
significant role in the development of English copyright law. The
174:
670:
623:
295:. This concept of fair abridgement eventually evolved through
579:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1986).
16:
1740 English court case which set the groundwork for fair use
881:(2nd ed.). I.G. M'Kinley & J.M.G. Lescure. p.
874:
671:
Carr, Jean Ferguson; Stephen Carr; Lucille Schultz (2005).
878:
A Treatise on the Law of Evidence in the Courts of Equity
595:"Gyles Versus Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt, March 6th, 1740"
256:
Lord Hardwicke, the jurist who presided over the case.
856:(June 1988). "Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine".
260:
The opinion, written by Hardwicke, found that a true
177:
bookseller, had previously published a book entitled
335:
333:
642:
1131:
913:
330:
156:The case set a legal precedent which has shaped
119:. The case was heard and the opinion written by
115:, which would later evolve into the concept of
1023:Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright
566:
564:
562:
312:have cited the case as recently as the 1980s.
932:
617:
111:of England that established the doctrine of
559:
29:
980:
649:(illustrated ed.). Hart Publishing.
1083:
1051:
379:
377:
375:
251:
782:
761:
160:to the present day. It established the
107:(1740) 26 ER 489 was a decision of the
1132:
957:
899:
852:
810:
725:
592:
393:
391:
389:
347:
345:
234:Attorney General for England and Wales
974:University of Pennsylvania Law School
870:: The Harvard Law Review Association.
414:
412:
372:
1019:
906:A Treatise on the Law of Injunctions
620:"Gyles v. Wilcox (1741) Barn C. 368"
529:Carr, Carr, and Schultz (2005), 215.
421:
217:presided over and decided the case.
1093:(3rd ed.). W. Clowes and Sons.
987:Copyright in Historical Perspective
643:Cairns, John; Grant McLeod (2002).
386:
342:
215:Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke
121:Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke
83:Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke
13:
683:Southern Illinois University Press
409:
363:
14:
1171:
1145:United Kingdom copyright case law
933:MacGillivray, Evan James (1902).
472:Gresley and Alderson (1847), 455.
179:Matthew Hale's Pleas of the Crown
52:Gyles v Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt
707:"Curiosities of Copyright Law".
573:
550:
541:
532:
523:
511:
502:
493:
484:
475:
466:
457:
448:
439:
430:
281:
909:. J. Butterworth and J. Cooke.
481:Cairns and McLeod (2002), 148.
400:
360:Loyola Law Review (1994), 928.
354:
321:
1:
585:
518:Curiosities of Copyright Law
310:United States federal courts
204:
7:
996:Vanderbilt University Press
369:House of Commons (1710), 1.
291:, in a decision written by
247:
69:(1740) 3 Atk 143; 26 ER 489
10:
1176:
919:"Anno Octavo Annæ Reginæ"
490:Barnardiston (1741), 370.
427:Barnardiston (1741), 369.
418:Barnardiston (1741), 368.
93:
88:
78:
73:
65:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
1055:Authorship and Copyright
1052:Saunders, David (1992).
1028:Harvard University Press
1026:(illustrated ed.).
868:Cambridge, Massachusetts
740:: The Lawbook Exchange.
677:(illustrated ed.).
599:Chancery Reports, vol. 3
463:MacGillivray (1902), 25.
315:
168:
1155:Court of Chancery cases
1085:Scrutton, Thomas Edward
783:Deazley, Ronan (2004).
762:Deazley, Ronan (2008).
854:Fisher, William W. III
727:Curtis, George Ticknor
508:Patterson (1968), 162.
293:Lord Chancellor Apsley
257:
1160:1740 in Great Britain
961:American Law Register
939:. J. Murray. p.
618:Barnardiston (1741).
593:Atkyns, J.T. (1794).
445:Scrutton (1896), 130.
266:infringing the rights
255:
185:. Gyles alleged that
1090:The Law of Copyright
1060:Taylor & Francis
992:Nashville, Tennessee
982:Patterson, Lyman Ray
710:Law Quarterly Review
679:Carbondale, Illinois
556:Fisher (1988), 1663.
339:Saunders (1992), 29.
242:Stationers' Register
226:Czar Peter the Great
141:had been infringed.
1020:Rose, Mark (1995).
830:Columbia Law School
817:Columbia Law Review
789:. Hart Publishing.
719:Sweet & Maxwell
547:Curtis (2005), 267.
499:Henley (1821), 280.
454:Henley (1821), 281.
436:Deazley (2004), 82.
406:Parker (1853), 456.
397:Atkyns (1740), 143.
383:Curtis (2005), 265.
351:Atkyns (1740), 142.
173:Fletcher Gyles, an
859:Harvard Law Review
327:Devlin (1980), 73.
258:
130:Pleas of the Crown
1150:Fair use case law
1120:Loyola Law School
1112:Loyola Law Review
894:modern crown law.
738:Clark, New Jersey
299:, initiated from
109:Court of Chancery
100:
99:
42:Court of Chancery
1167:
1140:1740 in case law
1123:
1101:
1094:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1048:
1046:
1044:
1016:
1014:
1012:
977:
954:
949:
947:
929:
927:
925:
915:House of Commons
910:
896:
891:
889:
871:
849:
807:
805:
803:
779:
777:
775:
766:. Archived from
758:
756:
754:
722:
703:
701:
699:
667:
665:
663:
639:
637:
635:
626:. Archived from
614:
612:
610:
601:. Archived from
580:
577:
571:
568:
557:
554:
548:
545:
539:
538:Rose (1995), 51.
536:
530:
527:
521:
515:
509:
506:
500:
497:
491:
488:
482:
479:
473:
470:
464:
461:
455:
452:
446:
443:
437:
434:
428:
425:
419:
416:
407:
404:
398:
395:
384:
381:
370:
367:
361:
358:
352:
349:
340:
337:
328:
325:
271:Modern Crown Law
187:Modern Crown Law
183:Modern Crown Law
151:Modern Crown Law
135:Modern Crown Law
113:fair abridgement
74:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1109:
1097:
1074:
1072:
1070:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1010:
1008:
1006:
952:gyles v wilcox.
945:
943:
923:
921:
887:
885:
838:10.2307/1122013
812:Devlin, Partick
801:
799:
797:
773:
771:
770:on 25 July 2011
752:
750:
748:
706:
697:
695:
693:
661:
659:
657:
633:
631:
630:on 25 July 2011
608:
606:
605:on 25 July 2011
588:
583:
578:
574:
570:Deazley (2008).
569:
560:
555:
551:
546:
542:
537:
533:
528:
524:
516:
512:
507:
503:
498:
494:
489:
485:
480:
476:
471:
467:
462:
458:
453:
449:
444:
440:
435:
431:
426:
422:
417:
410:
405:
401:
396:
387:
382:
373:
368:
364:
359:
355:
350:
343:
338:
331:
326:
322:
318:
284:
250:
211:Statute of Anne
207:
171:
139:Statute of Anne
17:
12:
11:
5:
1173:
1163:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1125:
1124:
1107:
1095:
1081:
1068:
1049:
1036:
1017:
1004:
978:
955:
930:
911:
901:Henley, Robert
897:
872:
850:
808:
795:
780:
759:
746:
723:
704:
691:
668:
655:
640:
615:
589:
587:
584:
582:
581:
572:
558:
549:
540:
531:
522:
510:
501:
492:
483:
474:
465:
456:
447:
438:
429:
420:
408:
399:
385:
371:
362:
353:
341:
329:
319:
317:
314:
301:Gyles v Wilcox
283:
280:
249:
246:
206:
203:
197:passages into
170:
167:
104:Gyles v Wilcox
98:
97:
91:
90:
86:
85:
80:
76:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
24:Gyles v Wilcox
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1172:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1135:
1128:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1091:
1086:
1082:
1071:
1069:0-415-04158-9
1065:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1050:
1039:
1037:0-674-05309-5
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1018:
1007:
1005:0-8265-1373-5
1001:
997:
993:
989:
988:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
956:
953:
942:
938:
937:
931:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
902:
898:
895:
884:
880:
879:
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
818:
813:
809:
798:
796:1-84113-375-2
792:
788:
787:
781:
769:
765:
760:
749:
747:1-58477-565-3
743:
739:
735:
734:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
705:
694:
692:0-8093-2611-6
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
669:
658:
656:1-84113-325-6
652:
648:
647:
641:
629:
625:
621:
616:
604:
600:
596:
591:
590:
576:
567:
565:
563:
553:
544:
535:
526:
519:
514:
505:
496:
487:
478:
469:
460:
451:
442:
433:
424:
415:
413:
403:
394:
392:
390:
380:
378:
376:
366:
357:
348:
346:
336:
334:
324:
320:
313:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
279:
275:
272:
267:
263:
254:
245:
243:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:Read v Hodges
218:
216:
212:
202:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
166:
163:
159:
158:copyright law
154:
152:
148:
142:
140:
136:
132:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
96:
92:
87:
84:
81:
79:Judge sitting
77:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1127:
1115:
1111:
1098:
1089:
1075:24 September
1073:. Retrieved
1054:
1043:24 September
1041:. Retrieved
1022:
1011:24 September
1009:. Retrieved
986:
970:Philadelphia
965:
959:
951:
946:24 September
944:. Retrieved
935:
924:24 September
922:. Retrieved
905:
893:
888:24 September
886:. Retrieved
877:
863:
857:
821:
815:
802:24 September
800:. Retrieved
785:
774:23 September
772:. Retrieved
768:the original
753:24 September
751:. Retrieved
731:
714:
708:
698:24 September
696:. Retrieved
673:
662:24 September
660:. Retrieved
645:
634:24 September
632:. Retrieved
628:the original
609:24 September
607:. Retrieved
603:the original
598:
575:
552:
543:
534:
525:
520:(1888), 172.
517:
513:
504:
495:
486:
477:
468:
459:
450:
441:
432:
423:
402:
365:
356:
323:
300:
288:
285:
282:Consequences
276:
270:
259:
238:
225:
221:
219:
208:
186:
182:
178:
172:
155:
150:
143:
134:
128:
125:Matthew Hale
103:
102:
101:
61:6 March 1740
51:
18:
262:abridgement
1134:Categories
832:: 43–107.
586:References
297:common law
162:common law
729:(2005) .
205:Arguments
147:copyright
1087:(1896).
984:(1968).
917:(1709).
903:(1821).
826:New York
733:Property
305:case law
248:Judgment
117:fair use
95:Fair use
89:Keywords
66:Citation
1122:. 1994.
846:1122013
721:. 1888.
289:Voyages
199:English
175:English
58:Decided
1066:
1034:
1002:
844:
793:
744:
689:
653:
624:London
230:motion
195:French
968:(8).
866:(8).
842:JSTOR
824:(1).
316:Notes
191:Latin
169:Facts
38:Court
1104:Text
1077:2009
1064:ISBN
1045:2009
1032:ISBN
1013:2009
1000:ISBN
948:2009
926:2009
890:2009
804:2009
791:ISBN
776:2009
755:2009
742:ISBN
700:2009
687:ISBN
664:2009
651:ISBN
636:2009
611:2009
193:and
941:115
883:454
864:101
834:doi
127:'s
1136::
1118:.
1116:40
1114:.
1062:.
1058:.
1030:.
998:.
994::
990:.
972::
964:.
950:.
892:.
862:.
840:.
828::
822:80
820:.
736:.
717:.
713:.
685:.
681::
622:.
597:.
561:^
411:^
388:^
374:^
344:^
332:^
1106:.
1079:.
1047:.
1015:.
976:.
966:1
928:.
848:.
836::
806:.
778:.
757:.
715:4
702:.
666:.
638:.
613:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
