{"title":"作者版权的交易起源","authors":"Rebecca Curtin","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V40I2.2057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the paradoxes of copyright history is that the Statute of Anne, which nominally recognized authors’ copyright for the first time, did not much change the day-to-day business of the Stationers who had previously enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the legal right to copy and who had also lobbied in support of the statute. This Article posits that commercial practice continued as it had because the concept of authors’ copyright had already begun to form in the contracts between authors and their publishers prior to the Statute’s enactment. These transactions, in some cases, gave authors greater rights in their work than the legal default required. Experience in the marketplace helped to assure both authors and booksellers that licensing transactions could support the creation and distribution of books in a world in which, going forward at least, authors would hold copyright in their new works. Commercial practice informed legal theory at this critical juncture in history and helped to change the legal and social norms associated with copyright. This Article draws on the records of the Stationer’s Company, parliamentary journals, and rarely seen, unpublished contracts from the eighteenth century and before to uncover the practical, transactional origins of authors’ copyright in England.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Transactional Origins of Authors’ Copyright\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Curtin\",\"doi\":\"10.7916/JLA.V40I2.2057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the paradoxes of copyright history is that the Statute of Anne, which nominally recognized authors’ copyright for the first time, did not much change the day-to-day business of the Stationers who had previously enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the legal right to copy and who had also lobbied in support of the statute. This Article posits that commercial practice continued as it had because the concept of authors’ copyright had already begun to form in the contracts between authors and their publishers prior to the Statute’s enactment. These transactions, in some cases, gave authors greater rights in their work than the legal default required. Experience in the marketplace helped to assure both authors and booksellers that licensing transactions could support the creation and distribution of books in a world in which, going forward at least, authors would hold copyright in their new works. Commercial practice informed legal theory at this critical juncture in history and helped to change the legal and social norms associated with copyright. This Article draws on the records of the Stationer’s Company, parliamentary journals, and rarely seen, unpublished contracts from the eighteenth century and before to uncover the practical, transactional origins of authors’ copyright in England.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V40I2.2057\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V40I2.2057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
版权史上的一个悖论是,《安妮法令》(Statute of Anne)首次在名义上承认了作者的版权,但它并没有改变文具商的日常业务,这些文具商此前在合法的复制权利上享有实际上的垄断,他们也曾游说支持该法令。本文认为,商业实践之所以得以继续,是因为在《规约》颁布之前,作者与出版商之间的合同中就已经开始形成作者版权的概念。在某些情况下,这些交易给了作者比法律默认要求的更大的权利。市场上的经验让作者和书商确信,在这样一个世界里,许可交易可以支持图书的创作和发行,至少在未来,作者将拥有自己新作品的版权。在这个历史的关键时刻,商业实践为法律理论提供了信息,并帮助改变了与版权相关的法律和社会规范。本文借鉴了文具公司的记录,议会期刊,以及罕见的,从18世纪和以前未发表的合同,以揭示英国作者版权的实际,交易起源。
One of the paradoxes of copyright history is that the Statute of Anne, which nominally recognized authors’ copyright for the first time, did not much change the day-to-day business of the Stationers who had previously enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the legal right to copy and who had also lobbied in support of the statute. This Article posits that commercial practice continued as it had because the concept of authors’ copyright had already begun to form in the contracts between authors and their publishers prior to the Statute’s enactment. These transactions, in some cases, gave authors greater rights in their work than the legal default required. Experience in the marketplace helped to assure both authors and booksellers that licensing transactions could support the creation and distribution of books in a world in which, going forward at least, authors would hold copyright in their new works. Commercial practice informed legal theory at this critical juncture in history and helped to change the legal and social norms associated with copyright. This Article draws on the records of the Stationer’s Company, parliamentary journals, and rarely seen, unpublished contracts from the eighteenth century and before to uncover the practical, transactional origins of authors’ copyright in England.