[1] For descriptions of the growth and nature of the printing prerogative, and references to decided cases, see Copinger and Skone James Copyright, 8th ed. 1948, Chapter VI; 13th ed., 1991, paras. 1-21 to 1-29, 13-1 to 13-5; Fox, H., Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs 1967, pp.9-24, 264-283; Gilchrist J., An analysis of rights vesting in the Crown under Statute and Common Law and their interrelationship, thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 1983 (in course of publication in expanded and updated form); Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 2nd ed. 1995, paras. 22.22-22.25; Monotti, A., "Nature and basis of Crown Copyright in official publications" ([1992] EIPR 305); Ricketson, S., Law of Intellectual Property 1984, paras. 13-51 to 13-57; Tapper, C., "Copyright in primary legal materials", Monash Law Review, Vol.11, 79 (1985); Torno, B., Crown Copyright in Canada, a legacy of confusion, 1981, pp.3-4. See also the passages concerning the prerogative in judgments in Millar v. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303, e.g Lord Mansfield at 2404 "Acts of Parliament are the works of the Legislature and the publication of them has always belonged to the King, as the executive part, and as the head and Sovereign" (dictum not overruled in Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) 4 Burr. 2408). The Crown's prerogative regarding the printing of the Authorised Version has been recognised in modern times: see Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v. Eyre and Spottiswoode Ltd. [1964] Ch.763; [1963] All ER 289 (prerogative recognised, but did not extend to unauthorised printing of copyright material (i.e. new translation of Bible)).

[2] See Copinger and Skone James, op. cit., 8th ed., at 244. For details of the copyright Acts in force before 1 July 1912 (when the 1911 Act came into force), see Sterling and Carpenter Copyright Law in the United Kingdom 1986, para.2A02.

[3] (1938) 38 N.S.W. SR 195.

[4] 38 N.S.W. SR at 259.

[5] See Copinger and Skone James, op. cit., 8th ed., p.245.

[6] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Sched.1, para.42.

[7] Report of the Committee to consider the law on copyright and designs, March 1977, Cmnd 6732, paras. 592-600.

[8] Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, op. cit. para.22.4, express the view that "officer or servant of the Crown" refers to "persons who are engaged in the service of the executive branch of government".

[9] COM (92) 33 final - SYN 395, para.16.

[10] Cf Wood v. Boosey (1866) L.R. 2 Q.B. 340; (1867) L.R. 3 Q.B. 223, and Copinger and Skone James, op. cit., 13th ed., paras.3-44 to 3-47.

[11] The responsible department is the Copyright Unit, HMSO, St. Crispins, Duke Street, Norfolk NR3 1PD, tel. 01603 695559, fax 01603 696869. Crown copyright in Ordnance Survey material is administered by Ordnance Survey, Romsey Road, Maybush, Southampton SO9 4DH, tel. 01703 792302, fax 01703 792535.

[12] A copy of the latest version of the "Dear Publisher" letter, dated 10 March 1995, is annexed to this paper, and is so reproduced by permission of HMSO. The author is grateful to Mr. Gordon G. Robbie, Head of Copyright, HMSO, for the provision of this information.

[13] There are other categories of decision or judicial pronouncement which are not considered here, including (1) speeches of members of the House of Lords and the Privy Council, (2) decisions by magistrates, (3) decisions of tribunals.

[14] See Stationers v. Patentees re the printing of Rolls Abridgment Carter 89, 124 ER 842; Roper v. Streeter 6 Bac. Abr. 507 and Monotti, A., op. cit. at 309.

[15] See Monotti, op. cit at 311; Ricketson, op. cit. at 13.53-13.55. See also Bannon, L., "Copyright in reasons for judgments and law reporting" 56 Australian Law Journal 59; Snow, G., "Who owns copyright in law reports?" (1982) 64 C.P.R. (2d) 49.

[16] See Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, op cit., para.22.35; Taggart, M., "Copyright in written reasons for judgment", (1984) 10 Sydney Law Review 319; Tapper, op. cit., Monash Law Review.

[17] See Cornish, W., Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights, 2nd. ed., para.13-039.

[18] See Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, op. cit., para.22.37.

[19] The author is grateful to Professor Gerald Dworkin for drawing his attention to the implications of this provision, which has not so far been the subject of extensive comment by the text writers.

[20] Cf. Monotti, op. cit at 313; see Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, op. cit. at para.22.36.

[21] Sched.1, para.22(1); see also para.23.

[22] An analogy of the presence of two copyrights in the one copy may be seen in the right of the author of a work to authorise the making of sound recordings of the work, and of copies of that recording, and the right of the maker of the sound recording to authorise the making of copies of the recording (ss.16(1)(a), 17; cf. Canadian Copyright Act ss.3(1)(d), 5(3)(4)).

[23] See Copinger and Skone James, op. cit., 13th ed., paras.2-6, 3-26, 3-34. Note, however, that opinion is not unanimous on this point: see the various propositions in Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, op. cit, at para.23.36.

[24] In Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers [1938] Ch. 106, Farwell J. said (at pp.109-110), "A mere amanuensis does not, by taking down word for word the language of an author, become in any sense the owner of the copyright. That is the property of the author". It is submitted that the learned Judge was referring in this passage to the copyright in the literary work composed by the person dictating, not to any copyright which might subsist in the report itself as distinct from that work.

[25] For further details of the applicable legislation in each of the Commonwealth countries, see the Synopsis of Laws (para.21.80 ff.) in Sterling, J.A.L., Intellectual Property Rights in sound Recordings, Film and Video 1992 (Supplement 1994).

[26] For text of the notice, see Lahore, J., Intellectual Property in Australia: Copyright, at 50,002 (Service 23).

[27] See Lucas A., Lucas H.-J., Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique, 1994, para.106. For an extensive study of the protection of "administrative" material in France, see Kerever, A., "Le droit d'auteur français et l'Etat" RIDA, 110, 3 (1981).

[28] Masouyé, C., Guide de la Convention de Berne, 1978, at 22; English version by William Wallace at 20.

[29] For an example concerning the identity of the author of the cinematographic work, see Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston, France, Cour Cass. 28 May 1991.

[30] Cf. Phil Collins v. IMTRAT (ECJ) [1993] 3 CMLR 773; [1994] FSR 168; French text RIDA 158, 304.

[31] Nimmer on Copyright, para.5.06 [A] Rel. 36,12/94.

[32] See Nimmer, op. cit. para. 17.06 [B] Re.24, 7/89, and Ringer, B. and Flacks, L., "Applicability of the Universal Copyright Convention to certain works in the public domain in their country of origin" 27 Bull. Copr. Soc'y 157 (1980).

[33] SI 1993, No.942, para.2, Sched.1.

[34] The material in this section includes some of the propositions incorporated in the British Copyright Council's Submission to the Commission of the European Communities concerning the issues raised by digital technology in the field of copyright and related rights, February 1995.

[35] France: Paris, Cour d'Appel, 19 December 1989. Austria: OGH, 28 May 1991; 16 June 1992. For description of the two theories and their application, with case summaries, see Sterling, op cit, paras. 4.63, 7.26.

[36] Sweet v. Benning (1855) 16 C.B. 459; 139 ER 838, and see Copinger and Skone James, op. cit. 13th ed., para.3.41. There may also be copyright in the original selection or arrangement of reports: cf. the U.S. case West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central Inc. 799 F. 2d 1291 (8th Cir. 1986, cert. denied 107 S. Ct. 962 (1987)); for extensive analysis see Tapper, C., "An aspect of copyright in databases", Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol.14/2, 169 (1987).

[37] France: Cour Cass., 28 May, 1991; Germany: Author's Right Law 1965, art.121(6); United States: Copyright Act 1976, s.104(a).