The Chancery bill would be written by a lawyer (usually a barrister) on
behalf of his client, the plaintiff. I think they must mean that copyright
is vested in the plaintiff. And copyright of the answer would be vested in
the defendant. The copyright will have passed as part of his estate to his
executors and so to the surviving executor's executor and so on.
However I think some one is being excessively pedantic. Various learned
societies have published transcripts or abstracts of Chancery bills and I
doubt they sought to trace and obtain permission form copyright holders.
Furthermore I think I am right in saying that copyright was an 18th century
invention and it may be questionable whether any copyright subsists in
earlier literary works. The problem the PRO have in mind may however be
that these are unpublished literary works and that copyright does not arise
until they are published.
You might consider producing a summary of the document in your own words and
hope that would get around the problem, since you would be the author.
Alternatively it is a case of 'publish and be damned'. If any claimants to
the copyright do emerge, you could always insist on them formally proving
their title as executor of the author. I suspect the expense of doing so
would come to more than any damages they might recover from you. The PRO
really ought to be satisfied with your giving them an indemnity to the
effect that if any claim was made against them you would indemnify them.
In dealing with things so long ago, the risk should be fairly minimal, in
contrast to 20th century documents there the risk might be considerable.
Finally I must disclaim taking any legal responsibility for the views
expressed. If you want to 'publish and be damned', you should take
professional advice from some one qualified to give it and not rely on what
I have said.
Peter King
----- Original Message -----
From: Brockett <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 23 April 2001 14:23
Subject: copyright on PRO documents
> I recently asked the PRO about reproducing pre 17th century PRO
> documents on a website in scanned version, transliteration and/or
> translation. They replied that if the document is Crown copyright, I
> would be free to reproduce it. They said that Crown copyright includes
> most court records (e.g. IPMs), but added that most Chancery Bills
> aren't Crown copyright. For non-Crown copyright documents I would have
> to get permission from the copyright owner and they could not advise on
> the identity of any such owner. Does anyone know who are/were the owners
> of copyright in Chancery Bills and would not any owner of pre 17th
> century Chancery Bills long be dead, i.e. well before 1951, the 50 years
> limit? Thanks for your attention.
>
|