This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This Act was the first time that a visual artist's right to control copies of prints made from engravings was addressed but this Act does not use the term copy[rite] as the United States' term [sic]"copyright" since this deceptive word was coined by Noah_Webster in 1789/1790 when copying the Statute_of_Anne. This term intentionally failed to address individual rights that were included in (8 Geo. II. cap. 13). This was done to create clients for lawyers and allow elementary colonial school textbook standardization and Americanized establishment of a new language, like where color replaced colour. This Act was NEVER titled as is done here in egregious error. Please examine the full textand point out what justifies use herein of a word coined 40+ years later when Noah_Webster and Benjamin_Huntington copied the Statute_of_Anne in the United States' [sic] " Copyright_Act_of_1790". I suggest Engraver's Act or Hogarth's Act. The usage of dates in titles often attempts to be or spur content debate within the title and is superfluous. CurtisNeeley ( talk) 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Added a link to the complete law text from 1734-1850 for review. The United States' UNIQUE new term was first recorded in Great Britain in [5 & 6 Vict., cap. 100] [August 10,1842.] This can be seen on p12 of the text searchable PDF linked. Noah_Webster wanted the US to use "tung" instead of "tongue" but should now be cited as the person who coined the term copy[rite] but spelled the term [sic]"copyright". Mr Webster is responsible for the economic rite of the United States that recognizes no individual "right" yet uses the words "copy" and "right" as if [sic]"copyright" were a valid compound word instead of misuse of the literal "copy" and "rite" that [sic]"copyright" should always have been. CurtisNeeley ( talk) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. I get over 800 gbooks for the 1734 form and 8 for the 1735 form; 1734 seems to be the common name. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Engraving Copyright Act 1734 → Engraving Copyright Act 1735 – The article name reflects a major factual error, as the act was actually put into effect in 1735, see here: http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/record/uk_1735. In fact the first footnote cited also mentions the right date. 217.246.114.195 ( talk) 08:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Support Seems sensible. Dalliance ( talk) 22:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this discussion. Here is some additional information. Most printed sources say that the Engravers' Copyright Act (not "Engraving Copyright Act") was passed in 1735. Before 1752, the year in England began on 25 March (not on 1 January). That’s why you regularly find publication dates with double years such as 1705/6 or 1723/24 for dates within the period 1 January through 24 March for years before 1752. It is a fact that on 5 February 1734/35, William Hogarth and fellow graphic artists George Lambert, Gerard Vandergucht, John Pine, Isaac Ware, George Virtue and Joseph Goupy signed a petition presented to the House of Commons in favor of the legislation. The first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1734/35, the second on 2 April 1735, the third on 11 April 1735. Eventually, the bill was passed on 25 June 1735 (not 1734). See Ronald Paulson, Hogarth, volume 2 (1992), pp. 39-41. For more details, see David Hunter, "Copyright Protection for Engravings and Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain", The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, volume 9, number 2 (1987), pp. 128-47. See also
Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be entitled, "Engravers' Copyright Act 1735". Eighteenthcenturyart ( talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hogarth himself says that the bill was passed in 1735. See p. 39 of this eighteenth-century source. Eighteenthcenturyart ( talk) 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This Act was the first time that a visual artist's right to control copies of prints made from engravings was addressed but this Act does not use the term copy[rite] as the United States' term [sic]"copyright" since this deceptive word was coined by Noah_Webster in 1789/1790 when copying the Statute_of_Anne. This term intentionally failed to address individual rights that were included in (8 Geo. II. cap. 13). This was done to create clients for lawyers and allow elementary colonial school textbook standardization and Americanized establishment of a new language, like where color replaced colour. This Act was NEVER titled as is done here in egregious error. Please examine the full textand point out what justifies use herein of a word coined 40+ years later when Noah_Webster and Benjamin_Huntington copied the Statute_of_Anne in the United States' [sic] " Copyright_Act_of_1790". I suggest Engraver's Act or Hogarth's Act. The usage of dates in titles often attempts to be or spur content debate within the title and is superfluous. CurtisNeeley ( talk) 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Added a link to the complete law text from 1734-1850 for review. The United States' UNIQUE new term was first recorded in Great Britain in [5 & 6 Vict., cap. 100] [August 10,1842.] This can be seen on p12 of the text searchable PDF linked. Noah_Webster wanted the US to use "tung" instead of "tongue" but should now be cited as the person who coined the term copy[rite] but spelled the term [sic]"copyright". Mr Webster is responsible for the economic rite of the United States that recognizes no individual "right" yet uses the words "copy" and "right" as if [sic]"copyright" were a valid compound word instead of misuse of the literal "copy" and "rite" that [sic]"copyright" should always have been. CurtisNeeley ( talk) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. I get over 800 gbooks for the 1734 form and 8 for the 1735 form; 1734 seems to be the common name. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Engraving Copyright Act 1734 → Engraving Copyright Act 1735 – The article name reflects a major factual error, as the act was actually put into effect in 1735, see here: http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/record/uk_1735. In fact the first footnote cited also mentions the right date. 217.246.114.195 ( talk) 08:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Support Seems sensible. Dalliance ( talk) 22:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this discussion. Here is some additional information. Most printed sources say that the Engravers' Copyright Act (not "Engraving Copyright Act") was passed in 1735. Before 1752, the year in England began on 25 March (not on 1 January). That’s why you regularly find publication dates with double years such as 1705/6 or 1723/24 for dates within the period 1 January through 24 March for years before 1752. It is a fact that on 5 February 1734/35, William Hogarth and fellow graphic artists George Lambert, Gerard Vandergucht, John Pine, Isaac Ware, George Virtue and Joseph Goupy signed a petition presented to the House of Commons in favor of the legislation. The first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1734/35, the second on 2 April 1735, the third on 11 April 1735. Eventually, the bill was passed on 25 June 1735 (not 1734). See Ronald Paulson, Hogarth, volume 2 (1992), pp. 39-41. For more details, see David Hunter, "Copyright Protection for Engravings and Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain", The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, volume 9, number 2 (1987), pp. 128-47. See also
Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be entitled, "Engravers' Copyright Act 1735". Eighteenthcenturyart ( talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hogarth himself says that the bill was passed in 1735. See p. 39 of this eighteenth-century source. Eighteenthcenturyart ( talk) 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)