FACTS

In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that the executor of the alleged author of the anonymous book entitled Oscar Wilde: Three Times Tried, had assigned the copyright in that book to them.

But, the defendants contended, in reliance on this presumption, that the publishers of the book must be presumed to have been the owners of any copyright therein at the time of publication, and that the author’s executor would have had no copyright to assign.

JUDGMENT

Plowman J. said that it was common ground – that this was an action brought by virtue of “this Part of this Act” with respect to literary work;that subsection (2) of section 20 did not apply;   that the book was first published in the United Kingdom;

 that it was so published within the period of fifty years ending with the beginning of the calendar year in which the action was brought; and that a name purporting to be that of the publisher appeared on copies of the work as first published.

The learned judge said it therefore followed, unless the contrary was shown, that copyright must be presumed to have been the owner of that copyright at the time of publication. It followed from this that the plaintiffs, to succeed, must either accept the benefit of the presumption and trace title through the publishers, or else establish that the person named was not the owner of the copyright at the time of publication.

They had not attempted to do the former and, in his judgment, they had not succeeded in doing the latter. In order to establish that the publisher of a book was not the owner of the copyright at the date of publication it was not enough to show that he was not the author.

The statutory presumption could not be based on any inherent probability. Moreover, if the publisher was to be presumed to have been the owner of the copyright at the time of publication, it must follow that the author is to be presumed not to have owned the copyright at that time. The onus was on the plaintiffs to prove affirmatiIn order to establish that the publisher of a book was not the owner of the copyright at the date of publication it was not enough to show that he was not the author.

vely, not that the alleged author was the author, but that the person named did not own the copyright when the book was published, and they had failed to do so.

He also held that it was not legitimate to speculate on what facts might have existed which would render the statutory presumption true as a matter of fact. The plaintiffs had argued that, if the alleged author had assigned the copyright to the person named then, as a matter of law, the copyright would have automatically reverted to his estate in 1953 or 1954, thus enabling his executor to ell it to the plaintiff.