Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)
Identifier: d_1809
Commentary on the copyright provisions in the Baden Statute Book of 1809
Friedemann Kawohl
Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University, UK
Please cite as:
Kawohl, F. (2008) ‘Commentary on the copyright provisions in the Baden Statute Book (1809)', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
1. Full title
2. Abstract
3. The adaptation of the Code Civil in the German lands and the advancement of the Grand Duchy of Baden under Napoleon's rule
4. Baden as a haven for pirate editions in the late eighteenth century; Reich v. Schmieder; and the decline of the Imperial privilege system
5. Details of the Baden printing provisions of 1806 and 1809
6. References
1. Full title
Copyright provisions implemented in sections 577 577da-577dh of the Baden Statute Book of 1809.
2. Abstract
The Baden Statute Book, first published in 1809, was in force for the Grand Duchy of Baden from 1 January 1810 onwards until the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) was enacted on 1 January 1900. The Duchy's legislation was based on the French Napoleonic Code (Code Civil) of 1804 and on a separate 1806 copyright provision for Baden. The Code Civil did not contain copyright provisions, since in French law copyright was covered by separate codifications. In the Baden Statute Book copyright provisions were added to the chapter on property. The Baden copyright provision of 1806 and the Baden Statute Book of 1808 were the first copyright provisions within the German lands to calculate a copyright term from the life of the author.
This commentary focuses on the Baden provisions of 1806 and 1809 and on the Margrave of Baden's tacit connivance in the biggest reprinting enterprise of late-eighteenth-century Germany.
3. The adaptation of the Code Civil in the German lands and the advancement of the Grand Duchy of Baden under Napoleon's rule
Early nineteenth-century French codifications, the Code Civil of 1804, the Code de procédure civile of 1806, and the Code de commerce of 1807 had a substantial bearing on German statutes, mainly in the western territories of the former Holy Roman Empire. In 1804, the Code Civil was immediately introduced in the occupied lands on the left bank of the Rhine.
In Baden and other territories that made up the Confederation of the Rhine (1806-1813) French law was more or less freely adapted. Compared to other translations of the Code Civil (also referred to as Code Napoléon), the Baden Statute Book was a rather free adaptation, covering the 2,281 sections of the Code Civil, plus around 500 extra sections which took into account the peculiarities of Baden's feudal tradition and added subject matter that was regulated separately in French law. Among these extra sections in the Baden Statute Book were copyright and trademark provisions, which came under sections 577da-577dh and the appendix 109a.[1] The addenda are marked as "Zusätze" (German for addenda) immediately after the respective sections and appear in different type. Amended in 1814, 1836, 1840, 1846, 1874 and 1899, the Baden Statute Book remained effective until 1 January 1900, when the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) came into force.[2]
Baden under the Margrave (after 1806 Grand Duke) Karl Friedrich (1728-1811) was one of the German states which benefited most from the rearrangement of Europe's borders during the Napoleonic Wars. Thanks to significant territorial gains between 1803 and 1806 the former Margravate, a small territory centred on Karlsruhe and Baden-Baden, was enlarged fivefold. It was compensated for losses on the left bank of the Rhine by the Principal Conclusion of the Extraordinary Imperial Delegation (Reichsdeputationshauptschluss) of 1803, the last significant law to be enacted by the Holy Roman Empire before it was dissolved three years later. By the Peace of Bratislava of 1805, the former Austrian territories around Freiburg and Konstanz were allocated to Baden, and the following year, after the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine, the Margravate also received the Fürstenberg territories and was upgraded to the newly created Grand Duchy of Baden. As a member of the Confederation of the Rhine, Baden was obliged to send soldiers to Napoleon's Grande Armée for the Russian campaign of 1812. Although Baden troops were still fighting on Napoleon's side in the Battle of Leipzig (the so-called Battle of the Nations) in 1813, the Grand Duke managed to retain the acquired territories after the Congress of Vienna. As a result of the liberal constitution granted by Grand Duke Karl I in 1818 and modelled after the French Charte Constitutionelle of 1814, Baden became a constitutional monarchy with two chambers.
The Baden Statute Book of 1809 was edited by Johann Niklas Friedrich Brauer (1754-1813), a trained lawyer who had studied in Göttingen under Pütter (see d_1774) in the 1770s and had been in the service of the Margrave of Baden since 1774.[3] He was appointed Government Councillor (wirklicher Hof- und Regierungsrat) in 1777 and Privy Councillor (Geheimer Hofrat) in 1788. Following a reshuffling of the government, he became Minister of the Interior in 1807 and Assistant Minister of Justice in 1808. The adaptation of the French Code Civil into the Baden Statute Book of 1809 is regarded as his greatest achievement as an editor of statutes. He also authored the six-volume commentary on the new legislation and thus came to have a formative influence on the adaptation of French law within the Grand Duchy.
4. Baden as a haven for pirate editions in the late eighteenth century; Reich v. Schmieder; and the decline of the Imperial privilege system
The old Margravate of Baden had neither a university nor any important original publishers within its borders before the expansion that it experienced as a result of the Napoleonic Wars. Baden's most important publishing house in the late eighteenth century was the workshop of Christian Gottlieb Schmieder (1750-1827), based in the capital Karlsruhe.[4] Schmieder became famous for his series of reprints of all the celebrated late eighteenth-century German authors under the title Collection of the Best German Prose Writers and Poets,[5] for which he managed to get an Imperial privilege on 21 September 1774.[6]
The Austrian authorities were generous in granting privileges and did not ban domestic reprints of mainly Saxon and Prussian original publications. However, the privilege for Schmieder seems to have been granted on the grounds of a false statement. The application has not been preserved, but according to the archives in Vienna,[7] it was thought to have been requested for an anthology in "one" book rather than the actual edition of 180 (!) volumes which came out between 1774 and 1787.[8] On 26 September 1774, just a few days after the privilege was granted, Phillip Erasmus Reich (1717-1787)[9] filed a claim against Schmieder before the Aulic Council (Reichshofrat). Reich, the original publisher of Christian Fürchtegott Gellert (1715-1769), accused Schmieder and his business associate Johann Georg Fleischhauer (1737-1815), the mayor of the Württemberg city of Reutlingen, of having publicly announced an edition of Gellert's works with an Imperial privilege which, so he argued, must have been obtained surreptitiously by Schmieder. On 29 September 1774, the Aulic Council decided to call the two respondents to account and confirmed the ban on the reprint edition already imposed by the Frankfurt Books Commission.[10] A statement by Schmieder's lawyer from 17 November 1774 claims that his client's intention had merely been to acquire the Gellert edition as part of the collection, and that the privileges for Reich and Schmieder covered completely different subject matters and could thus exist in parallel without one excluding the other.[11] As can be seen on the title page (d_1774d), the main title of Schmieder's 1774 volume containing Gellert's Fables was announced as "Collection of the Best German Prose Writers and Poets. Part One",[12] and only the subtitle "Gellert's Fables" referred to the author and the title of his work.
On 10 February 1775, Reich was informed about Schmieder's statement and a similar one by his partner Fleischhauer. The Aulic Council, following a common practice, suggested that a settlement be negotiated by two of the councillors. However, before the appropriate commission could convene, Reich again accused Schmieder on 24 April 1775 of having advertised a continuation of his Gellert edition in a Stuttgart journal. Reich requested the Aulic Council to stop the printing and to confiscate the already printed copies. By and large in response to Reich's request, the Aulic Council on16 May 1775 issued an injunction to Schmieder, threatening to confiscate any copies if he carried on reprinting Gellert's works.
Reich seems to have been pleased by this outcome. From that point on he procrastinated in the appointment of his lawyer, and made repeated requests for a time deferral, whereas Schmieder was interested in a rapid decision. "My hands are tied in the sale of Gellert's works," he wrote to the Margrave on 7 October 1775, "since Reich has repeatedly refused to appear before the Aulic Council at the appointed sessions".[13] In this letter Schmieder attempted to no avail to obtain the Margrave's permission to at least sell his Gellert edition within Baden. Soon after commencing his reprinting enterprise, in fact, Schmieder had made a number of applications for a privilege from the Margrave, but his request had always been turned down. On 11 November 1775, the Vienna councillor Stockmair wrote
"it goes without saying that the Imperial privilege for Schmieder cannot curtail older existing privileges, and so what the matter comes down to is that the continuation of Schmieder's Collection should be arranged in such a way that the best writers, for which other publishers are already furnished with privileges, do not start being published one after the other in the first volumes."[14]
Stockmair here clearly expresses the permissive approach towards anthologies which prevailed in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Austria.[15] But despite Stockmair's clarification of the Austrian privilege's scope, Schmieder continued his reprinting project. As can be seen from No. 30 of the "Collection", published in 1776, still refers to the Imperial privilege, even though the original publisher Voß from Berlin had obtained an Imperial privilege for his edition.
Reich v. Schmieder dragged on for a few more years. After Reich claimed a compensation of 2,000 thaler, Schmieder's Viennese lawyer, Johann Fischer Edler von Ehrenbach (1720-1785), replied on 24 February 1778, blaming Schmieder's cousin for the reprints. At that very time, however, on 12 February 1778, Schmieder, together with Fleischhauer, applied for a new privilege to cover a collection of French books,[16] and this was granted without any restrictions on 24 March,[17] after Fischer von Ehrenbach affirmed that his client "was not aware of even a single one of the works included in the application having already been issued with a printing privilege by Your Imperial Majesty".[18]
At yet another meeting of the arbitration commission on 7 May 1782 it was proposed that Reich had to receive 500 thaler in compensation from Schmieder and 200 thaler from his partner Fleischhauer. On 13 February 1783, Schmieder reported to the Aulic Council that he had come to an agreement with Reich on the basis of this proposal. It is noteworthy that Schmieder was not accused and condemned for having included his reprint of Reich's privileged edition of Gellert's works in his Collection of the Best German Prose Writers and Poets, but just for other reprint editions which did not claim to be privileged. These were obviously intended to be sold independently rather than as part of the series.
Some aggrieved parties advanced claims directly to the Margrave rather than to the Emperor. The Weimar-based author and publisher Friedrich Justin Bertuch (1747-1822) requested the Margrave on 19 August 1776 to order Schmieder "under a specified penalty to refrain completely from reprinting my translation of Don Quixote, which has been published by Caspar Fritsch in Leipzig".[19] The Baden councillor Carl Friedrich Gerstlacher (1732-1795), whose juridical writings were published by Schmieder, gave an opinion in this case, conceding that Schmieder's invocation of freedom of commerce could not serve as a sufficient reason, since such freedom should not be entail causing detriment to someone else. On 11 November 1776, however, Gerstlacher proposed an agreement, binding Schmieder "to only sell his reprint in those places [...] where the Bertuch edition would not have been available anyway".[20] Bertuch seems not to have answered to this. At any rate, Schmieder's edition was duly published in 1776-1778.
Another complaint was lodged in 1780 by the Privy Council of Prussia, at that time already the most powerful state within the Empire. The Berlin publishers had voiced the numerous grievances caused by Schmieder's reprints, and the Privy Council had requested the Baden councillors to "check this reprinting nuisance in the most effective way, and for this purpose to command that all reprinted copies be removed and confiscated."[21] At the following hearing, Gerstlacher was assured by Schmieder that
"hitherto he had taken care as far as possible to avoid reprinting titles belonging to publishers from the Kingdom of Prussia, and would continue to do so in future; but that with regard to works which formed part of his Collection and were necessary for its completion, he was determined to assert his Imperial privilege and to not allow his hands to be tied."[22]
The request from Berlin was taken seriously by the government in Baden. Schmieder was instructed to refrain from future reprints of works brought out by Prussian publishers, and the Privy Council in Berlin was informed about this instruction. However, whilst the Privy Council had envisaged the cessation of all of Schmieder's reprinting activities, the latter interpreted the restriction as applying only to independent publications. Furthermore, as far as his Collection was concerned, he claimed to be protected by his Imperial privilege. In fact, he continued to reprint Berlin editions of Moses Mendelssohn's Philosophical Writings (Philosophische Schriften, 1780) as No. 98 of the Collection in 1780, as well as the same author's Phaedon and an edition of poems by Karl Wilhelm Ramler (1725-1798). Earlier reprints of Berlin editions included Goethe, Lessing, Ewald von Kleist and Ferdiner von Dusch.
The many claims that were raised against Schmieder's Imperial privilege reflect the weakness of the institution of the Imperial printing privilege in the late eighteenth century. The governments of powerful states like Prussia and influential publishers like Reich disputed the validity of the Emperor's right to authorise privilege-holders to sell reprints .[23] The Margrave of Baden's position was explained retrospectively by his councillor Griesbach in 1788 with the following arguments:
"Schmieder is not to be given the requested privilege here, so that we can be secure against claims from abroad. [...] Thereafter, however, his enterprise is to be condoned, since His Highness is not willing to tolerate a monopoly within his realm which the Saxon booksellers have adroitly used against the rest of the Empire. [...] since, furthermore, Schmieder had been a resident [of Baden] long before he started his reprinting enterprise, and there is no reason to expel him, as, by virtue of his privilege, he can carry on his reprinting in any Free Imperial Town where he will certainly be most welcome."[24]
Griesbach, and probably also his sovereign, regarded reprinting as a "definitely useful industry, both for the country as such and the reading public which is keen to extend its knowledge".[25] The Margrave's indecisive position nevertheless differed from that of the Austrian Emperor Joseph II, who actively promoted the notorious reprinting activities of the Viennese publisher Trattner.[26] Margrave Karl Friedrich, the ruler of a territory which was territorially quite insignificant for such a long time, wanted to avoid getting into trouble with the Leipzig publishers, the Prussian government, and the Imperial court at Vienna. Besides that, his position illustrates a dilemma which was typical of enlightened sovereigns in late-eighteenth-century Germany. On the one hand, their sense of justice may well have caused them to realise that there was something wrong in reprinting other publishers' editions, offered within the common market for German books. But on the other hand, connivance in, and/or tacit sponsorship of, the domestic reprinting industry was a legitimate and legal means both to avoid the drain of capital to other German lands (first and foremost to Saxony), and to promote education and thus economic development. This becomes all the more clear in the light of Griesbach's last argument above: that, if the Margrave had chosen not to put up with it, Schmieder could have relocated his reprinting enterprise to another part of the Empire where he would have been readily welcomed.
Schmieder's reprinting business declined sharply in the last decade of the century. No Schmieder reprints have been identified for the period between 1793 and 1798, and his assortment concentrated more and more on cheap literature. In each of the years 1805, 1806 and 1808 only one new book was published and none in 1807. The last book title bearing Schmieder's name dates from 1809, the year in which the Baden Statute Book with its strict ban on reprints was issued.
5. Details of the Baden printing provisions of 1806 and 1809
Before the Baden Statute Book of 1809, a printing provision for the Duchy had been decreed in 1806, immediately after the Margravate's expansion and promotion courtesy of Napoleon. The detailed commentary which accompanied the 1806 provision was based on the assumption that
"according to the natural relations of human co-existence, whosoever has once expressed his thoughts, regardless of the intention thereby pursued, had them printed or displayed in print, cannot legally prevent any other person from making use of a legitimately acquired copy as it suits his interests."[27]
and that consequently only the "sovereign's will could decide what was to be deemed valid and right with regard to the publishing industry". This was therefore a case of a strong government refusing any claims by authors or publishers to a natural right to any kind of property in their works. It was explicitly stated that any such provision had to seek to achieve "the greatest possible increase in the circulation of beneficial ideas" and not just "the encouragement of authors and publishers".[28]
The 1806 provision clearly distinguished between a high-level protection for authors and a lower-level one for publishers. Every work published by a writer resident in Baden under his name was protected during the author's lifetime, plus for one year after his death. Domestic publishers of works by anonymous or foreign authors, however, could be protected only by privileges.
The commentary on the Baden Statute Book of 1809 was written by its main editor Johann Niklas Friedrich Brauer, who derived the respective sections 577da-577dh from underlying concepts of property and moral rights. According to Brauer, traditional privilege systems had hitherto provided the only possible means of protecting authors and publishers. Privileges, however, were always defective,
"since every governmental ban which cannot be deduced from the nature of the subject, i.e. which does not appear as a consequence of a property, in whose sacredness everyone believes - even those who do not always honour it - and which causes the ban to be perceived by the majority of people as a special favour granted by the sovereign to a single citizen, arises envy and disfavour, and thus its result can never be honoured in the way that a property right invariably is."[29]
The idea of the "sacredness of property" was influenced by French revolutionary writings, and, indeed, it is the French state whom Brauer explicitly pays tribute to for "having been the first to incorporate the idea of a property right in literary works into its legislation"[30] - something that was emulated by the Baden provision of 1806. According to Brauer, however, these provisions had not fully achieved their purpose, since they resembled a kind of "letters of consignment" rather than a proper civil statute, all the more so given that the Code Civil did not take up the French reprinting provisions of 1793. Now, though, these provisions were to be included in the Baden Statute Book,
"in order to mark them out as a pure consequence of the property right and of civil standards, and so as to accustom the citizens to this point of view."[31]
The Baden provision of 1806 was the first copyright provision within the German lands to base the term of protection on the author's lifetime. In provision 577dh of the 1809 Statute Book the one-year post mortem autoris term was removed, protection being granted for the lifespan of the author exactly and no more. This amendment was justified by Brauer as following from a strict concept of copyright as a right which emanated from the author's personality:
"Literary property [...] has to take into account the property in thoughts rather than the property in the medium on which those thoughts are printed, and can thus be founded only on a concept which treats this internal and intellectual subject-matter like an external and sensual one, and accepts every print/trace [the German "Abdruck" covers both meanings - FK] of thoughts as a representative of the author. Once the decision to adopt such a concept has been taken, it has to be modelled [...] on nature. And just as in the realm of nature the human body becomes a corpse as soon as the personality animating it has stepped out of the mesh of human and worldly interrelations, so must the literary property lose its vivid and effective quality within the civil constitution as soon as the person through whom alone it had become effective ceases to exist."[32]
Here Brauer sets a precedent for the German nineteenth-century tradition of strictly legitimising author's rights on the basis of the author's personality. Brauer's point of view is unique in its refusal of any natural law premises for literary property, and equally noteworthy is the fact of his claiming a literary property as such without any of the circuitous deliberations that jurists tended to make when faced with the dilemma of squaring the strictly physical property concept of Roman law with the abstract notion of literary property.
6. References
Books and articles [in alphabetical order]
Amedick, Sigrid. "Die digitale Sammlung Privatrecht Literatur zum Privat- und Prozessrecht des 19. Jahrhunderts im Internet", in Fundus. Forum für Geschichte und ihre Quellen, ed. by Manfred Thaller, 159-173. Online at: <http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/p/fundus>
Brauer, Johann Nikolaus Friedrich. Erläuterungen über den Code Napoleon und die Großherzogliche Badische bürgerliche Gesetzgebung, vol. 1 (Karlsruhe: Christian Friedrich Müller, 1809). Online at:
<http://dlib-pr.mpier.mpg.de/> Scans from the copy are held at MPI Frankfurt (Signatur: Dt 15 Ak 13 [1])
Breitenbruch, Bernd. "Der Karlsruher Buchhändler Christian Gottlieb Schmieder und der Nachdruck in Südwestdeutschland im letzten Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts", Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, 9 (1969): 643-732
Gieseke, Ludwig. Vom Privileg zum Urheberrecht: Die Entwicklung des Urheberrechts in Deutschland bis 1845 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1995)
Gross, Norbert J. Der Code Civil in Baden. Eine deutsch-französische Rechtsbegegnung und ihr Erbe (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1993)
Gross, Norbert J. Der Code Napoleon in Baden und sein Verleger C. F. Müller: Eine deutsch-französische Rechtsbegegnung. Ein Beitrag zur Verlagsgeschichte (Heidelberg: Müller, 1997)
Wadle, Elmar. Fabrikzeichenschutz und Markenrecht: Geschichte und Gestalt des deutschen Markenschutzes im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1977)
[1] For details on the adaptation of French trademark law see Elmar Wadle, Fabrikzeichenschutz und Markenrecht. Geschichte und Gestalt des deutschen Markenschutzes im 19. Jahrhundert., vol. 1 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1977)
[2] See Sigrid Amedick, "Die digitale Sammlung Privatrecht Literatur zum Privat- und Prozessrecht des 19. Jahrhunderts im Internet", in Fundus. Forum für Geschichte und ihre Quellen, ed. by Manfred Thaller, 159-173. Online at: <http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/p/fundus>
[3] For biographic details on Brauer see Christian Würtz, art. "Brauer", in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 27, ed. by Traugott Bautz (Nordhausen: Bautz, 2006), 179-186. Online at: <www.bautz.de>. See also Christian Würtz, Johann Niklas Friedrich Brauer (1754 - 1813): Badischer Reformer in napoleonischer Zeit (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005).
[4] Bernd Breitenbruch, "Der Karlsruher Buchhändler Christian Gottlieb Schmieder und der Nachdruck in Südwestdeutschland im letzten Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts", Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, 9 (1969): 643-732. For Schmieder's position see his book in d_1790.
[5] Sammlung der besten deutschen prosaischen Schriftsteller und Dichter. Georg Joachim Göschen (1752-1828) from Leipzig, the original publisher of Goethe, Schiller and Wieland, claimed to have sold just 1,500 copies of his edition of Schiller's Don Carlos (1787), whereas illegal reprinters like Schmieder had sold 20,000 copies of pirated editions of this play. Don Carlos was one of the works reprinted within Schmieder's Collection.
[6] Breitenbruch (1969), 653. The application to the Aulic Council in Vienna was received on 30 September 1773. For the Viennese reprinting industry and the legal situation in Austria see d_1781.
[7] Breitenbruch (1969), 670.
[8] The number of volumes is indicated by Breitenbruch (1969), 665. The appendix to Breitenbruch's article also gives a bibliography of Schmieder's publishing output.
[9] For details on Reich see d_1781.
[10] For the Frankfurt Books Commission see the commentary on d_1608.
[11] Breitenbruch (1969), 670, from a study of the archive of the Aulic Council in Vienna.
[12] Sammlung der besten deutschen Schriftsteller und Dichter. Erster Theil.
[13] Quoted in Breitenbruch (1969), 672.
[14] "daß es sich von selbsten verstehe, daß es das Kayserliche Privilegium für Schmieder nicht zum Nachtheil älterer Privilegien gereichen könne und es also hauptsächlich darauf ankommen dürfte, daß die Fortsetzung der Schmiederschen Sammlung also engerichtet werde, daß nicht die besten Schriftsteller, wörüber andere Buchhändler mit älteren Privilegien versehen sind [...] einzeln nacheinander erscheinen". Quoted by Breitenbruch (1969), 674, from the archive of the Aulic Council in Vienna.
[15] Cf. the Austrian Statute of 1846 allowing musical works to be reprinted within periodicals.
[16] Recueil des oeuvres choisis des beaux Esprits de la France tant Prosaiques que Poetiques.
[17] Breitenbruch (1969), 675. At least three titles from this series can be identified: La Fontaine, Contes et Nouvelles en vers (1779) ; La Fontaine, Fables choisis (1779) ; and Voltaire, La Henriade (1780).
[18] "auch nicht von einem einzigen der in ihrer Allerhöchst Derselben übergebenen Consignation enthaltenen Werke bekannt ist, daß es von Euer Kayserlicher Majestät bereits zum Drucke privilegiert wäre". Quoted in Breitenbruch (1969), 676.
[19] "bey nahmhafter Strafe anbefehlen zu lassen, daß er [...] sich [...] des Nachdrucks des von mir übersetzten und von dem Buchhändler Caspar Fritsch zu Leipzig verlegten Don Quixote gänzlich enthalte". Quoted in Breitenbruch (1969), 678.
[20] Quoted in Breitenbruch (1969), 678.
[21] "dem Unfug des Nachdrucks zu steuern, und zu dem Ende die Verfügung gefälligst zu treffen, daß alle Exemplarien weggenommen und conficiert werden mögen". Quoted in Breitenbruch (1969), 677.
[22] Report by Gerstlacher of 14 July 1780: "daß er sich bisher von selbst, so viel möglich, in Acht genommen habe und auch künftig in Acht nehmen werde, Königlich-Preussischer Buchhändler Verlagswerke nachzudrucken; doch in Ansehung solcher Schriften, die in seine Sammlung gehörten, und zu deren Vollständigkeit nöthig seyen, gedenke er sich an sein Kayserl. Privilegium zu halten, und könne sich also die Hände nicht binden lassen." Quoted in Breitenbruch (1969), 678.
[23] The Viennese position on reprinting is explained in detail in d_1781.
[24] "Dem Schmieder diesseitiges Privilegium nicht zu geben, um sich gegen auswärtige Klagen sicher zu stellen [...] Demmnach aber dem Unternehmen zu conveniren, weil S[erenissi]mus kein Monoplium in Ihren Landen gestatten, das die Sachsen im Bücherhandel meisterlich gegen den übrigen Theil des Reichs ausgeübt haben. [...] Weil Schmieder lange vor seinem angefangenen Nachdruck hier bürgerlich war und kein Beweggrund obwaltet ihn zu verstoßen, da er seinen Nachdruck kraft seines Privilegiums in jeder Reichs-Stadt, der er sehr willkommen sein wird, treiben kann." - J. Chr Griesbach, "Privat-Gedanken über den Schmiederschen Nachdruck" (23 November 1788). From the records in the Karlsruhe archive, quoted by Breitenbruch (1969), 673.
[25] "dem Land - sowie dem Publikum, das seine Kenntnisse erweitern will, gewiß nützich Gewerb" - J. Chr. Griesbach, "Privat-Gedanken über den Schmiederschen Nachdruck" (23 November 1788). From the Karlsruhe records, quoted by Breitenbruch (1969), 673.
[26] For Trattner see the commentary on d_1781.
[27] "Großherzoglich Badische Verordnung vom 8 September 1806", Regierungsblatt (Karlsruhe 1806): 65. Quoted from Ludwig Gieseke, Vom Privileg zum Urheberrecht: Die Entwicklung des Urheberrechts in Deutschland bis 1845 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1995), 191.
[28] "die möglichste Förderung des Umlaufs nützlicher Ideen" - "die Aufmunterung der Schriftsteller". Ibid., 191.
[29] Johann Niklas Friedrich Brauer, Erläuterungen über den Code Napoleon und die Großherzogliche Badische bürgerliche Gesetzgebung, vol. 1 (Karlsruhe: Christian Friedrich Müller, 1809). Available online at:
<http://dlib-pr.mpier.mpg.de> (466).
[30] Ibid., 466.
[31] Ibid., 467.
[32] Ibid., 470.