Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested correction of CLEAR factual error

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the talk page for the Statute of Anne I've noted that Blackstone refers to "copyright" before 1790 in Great Britain. I haven't seen any evidence that copyright as a term was invented by Webster. You'd need to find a citation for that. It is correct to say that the 1734 Act does not use the term "copyright" (I think) and there is some controversy as to whether it should properly be considered a copyright act. Nevertheless that is how it is later described. In particular by short titles legislation which is definitive as to short titles (so it can't be "in error" - although it could be anachronistic). I am afraid I don't really follow the rest of what you say. It is certainly worth discussing these things before jumping in. Francis Davey (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose I don't know about the UK, but it's common practice in the US for a bill to be referred to by the year of its passing, even if it doesn't come into effect until later. See, for example, Credit CARD Act of 2009, which wasn't implemented until 2010. This is literally an act of 1734; the fact that it didn't take effect until the next year doesn't change that. The first footnote mentions the date of implementation, but that doesn't mean anything about the year of the act. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move discussion

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

http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_uk_1735
http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/commentary/uk_1798a/uk_1798a_com_107200712278.html
http://www.armeconomist.com/lecture/wto/08trips/International_Copyright.pdf
Karl Maria Michael de Leeuw, Jan Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (2007), p. 96.

Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be entitled, "Engravers' Copyright Act 1735". Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested in response to this comment on my talk page, we could also discuss moving to Engraving Copyright Act, Engravers Copyright Act, or Engravers' Copyright Act. These would dodge the question of the year, which could be better explained in prose. The statistics DrKiernan found above would make me hesitate to move this to a title including 1735, but I think a title without a date could be a fine compromise. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan says on his talk page:

I'm happy with my close. You may be interested in the arguments of USer:Richard75 at Talk:Safety of the Queen, etc. Act 1584#Page move. DrKiernan (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am not happy with it. The Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 (33 Geo. 3 c. 13) provided that Acts of Parliament would come into force on the date on which they received royal assent, unless they specified some other date, instead of the first day of the session in which they were passed. Previously, Acts of Parliament came into force on the first day of the session in which they were passed, because of the legal fiction that a session lasted one day. From our modern point of view, the first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1735, and the Engravers’ Copyright Act was passed on 25 June 1735. Most sources cited on the article's page agree with this date. However, First Engraving Copyright Act or First Engravers' Copyright Act may be alternatives. The Britannica Online Encyclopedia says, "Hogarth was a printmaker of the people, whose work was so popular that to protect it from imitators he instigated the first engraving copyright act of 1735." Furthermore, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article should read: "The First Engraving (Engravers') Copyright Act (8 Geo.2 c.13) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain first read on 4 March 1734/35 and eventually passed on 25 June 1735 to give protections to producers of engravings." Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]