GORRESPONDING SOCIETIES. 51 
right Act of 1842 nor the clauses of the Copyright Bill of 1900, affect- 
ing ‘collective works,’ could be held to apply. It had been suggested 
that Scientific Societies should endeavour to procure some special legis- 
lation when the Bill of 1900 was proceeded with ; but Mr. Colles expressed 
it as his opinion that it would be found impracticable to obtain any addi- 
tions to the Bill of 1900 that would meet the case, and believed it would 
still be found necessary to deal with this question as a matter of special 
contract outside the Statutes. The temper of Parliament towards the 
Copyright Question was such that it was always peculiarly difficult to 
obtain exceptional rights, nor were such rights capable of being easily 
defined or made generally applicable. 
Mr. Harold Hardy dealt with the position of the author of a paper 
which might be read at a meeting of a Scientific Society. This, he 
said, was partly affected by the law of copyright in books and _ partly 
by the law relating to copyright in lectures. While the paper was unread 
or unpublished the author was entitled to copyright in his literary com- 
position, and could restrain anyone from publishing it: he was in the 
same position as the author of a book in manuscript. Again, when the 
paper was read before the Society, if the audience consisted merely of 
members of the Society, or a limited number of persons invited and 
admitted by ticket, that was not regarded in law as publication, and the 
author would still be entitled to copyright, as in an unpublished manu- 
script. If, however, a paper was read before a meeting to which the 
public generally were admitted, the author could only protect his copy- 
right by adopting one of two methods recognised by the law. He could, 
of course, print and publish his paper before oral delivery and register it 
asa book at Stationers’ Hall. In that case he would enjoy the same 
copyright as attaches to a published book. Another method was a very 
curious provision of the law, and one which was unreasonable at the pre- 
sent day. The law provided that if the author gave two days’ notice to 
two magistrates living within five miles of the place where the paper was 
to be read, he would have protection for his copyright in the work for 
twenty-eight years. That was a provision which was generally unknown 
and consequently ignored. It was a senseless provision, because it 
imposed no duty upon the magistrates to take any steps with regard to 
the notice. They might lock it up in the pigeon-holes of their desks, and, 
instead of being a warning to the public that the author’s rights were 
preserved, the public generally knew nothing at all about it. This 
notice to the magistrates, therefore, ought to. be abolished, and he was 
glad to find that the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners with 
regard to it had been adopted-in the new Copyright Bill. Another 
amendment he suggested was that the law should give protection for the 
oral delivery of lectures. A lecture might be described as a literary com- 
position adapted for communication to the public either by printing or by 
oral delivery. Both those qualities had a commercial value and ought to 
be protected ; but at the present time there was no protection for the right 
of publishing’a lecture by oral delivery as distinct from the copyright. 
The law relating to lectures should be made somewhat analogous to the 
law in respect of dramatic compositions. The author of a play had copy- 
right and the right of representation in public. The right of representa- 
tion of a play might be compared to the publication of a lecture by an 
oral delivery, or the ‘ lecturing right,’ as it was called in the Copyright 
Bill of 1900. 
B 2 
