Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Supreme Court on Originality , Madrid (1861)
Source: Archivo del Tribunal Supremo. id. Cendoj: 28079110011861100099
Citation:
Supreme Court on Originality , Madrid (1861), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
although the decision was based on the fact that
the Cartilla (Primer) had already been
published by the Sala y Armella brothers, when this concept
is otherwise.
Verified by Minister Gabriel Ceruelo de Velasco
who was the Reporting Judge:
Considering that, according to Art. 1 of the law
of 10 June 1847 and for its effects, literary property
means the exclusive right of the authors of original writings
to reproduce them or to authorize their reproduction by means
of manuscript, printed, lithographed copies, or by any other
similar means,and that Art. 10 prohibits reproducing someone
else’s work without permission from its author, under the pretext
of annotating, commenting on it, adding it or improving its edition.
Considering that Mr. Tomás Hurtado, when he published his
Nuevo método de lectura (New reading method) did not
reproduce the original writing, that is, the same
work that Mr. Vicente Pujals issued for the same purpose,
as he clearly recognizes in his documents, he confined himself to claiming
that Hurtado had taken and reproduced as his own, the idea or method adopted
by him in his cartilla (Primer),
ley sobre propiedad literaria y uno de los axiomas
que rigen en todo procedimiento, toda vez que la senten-
cia se funda en que antes que el recurrente habian publi
cado su Cartilla los hermanos Sala y Armella, cuando
en su concepto resulta lo contrario.
Vistos, siendo Ponente el Ministro D. Gabriel Ce-
ruelo de Velasco:
Considerando que según el artículo primero de
la ley de diez de junio de mil ochocientos cuarenta y siete;
y para los efectos de ella, por propiedad literaria se en-
tiende el derecho exclusivo que compete á los autores de es-
critos originales para reproducirlos ó autorizar su re-
produccion por medio de copias manuscritas, impresas,
litografiadas ó por cualquier otro semejante, y que
por el 10 se prohibe reproducir una obra agena con
pretesto de anotarla, comentarla, adicionarla ó mejorar
la edicion, sin permiso de su autor.
Considerando que D. Tomás Hurtado publi-
cando su Nuevo método de lectura no reprodujo el escri-
to original ó sea la misma obra que con igual objeto
habia dado antes á la luz D. Vicente Pujals, como lo re-
conoce este terminante en sus escritos, limitándose á
sostener que Hurtado habia tomado y reproducido, co
mo suya, la idea ó metodo adoptado por él en su car-
Source: Archivo del Tribunal Supremo. id. Cendoj: 28079110011861100099
Citation:
Supreme Court on Originality , Madrid (1861), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
although the decision was based on the fact that
the Cartilla (Primer) had already been
published by the Sala y Armella brothers, when this concept
is otherwise.
Verified by Minister Gabriel Ceruelo de Velasco
who was the Reporting Judge:
Considering that, according to Art. 1 of the law
of 10 June 1847 and for its effects, literary property
means the exclusive right of the authors of original writings
to reproduce them or to authorize their reproduction by means
of manuscript, printed, lithographed copies, or by any other
similar means,and that Art. 10 prohibits reproducing someone
else’s work without permission from its author, under the pretext
of annotating, commenting on it, adding it or improving its edition.
Considering that Mr. Tomás Hurtado, when he published his
Nuevo método de lectura (New reading method) did not
reproduce the original writing, that is, the same
work that Mr. Vicente Pujals issued for the same purpose,
as he clearly recognizes in his documents, he confined himself to claiming
that Hurtado had taken and reproduced as his own, the idea or method adopted
by him in his cartilla (Primer),
ley sobre propiedad literaria y uno de los axiomas
que rigen en todo procedimiento, toda vez que la senten-
cia se funda en que antes que el recurrente habian publi
cado su Cartilla los hermanos Sala y Armella, cuando
en su concepto resulta lo contrario.
Vistos, siendo Ponente el Ministro D. Gabriel Ce-
ruelo de Velasco:
Considerando que según el artículo primero de
la ley de diez de junio de mil ochocientos cuarenta y siete;
y para los efectos de ella, por propiedad literaria se en-
tiende el derecho exclusivo que compete á los autores de es-
critos originales para reproducirlos ó autorizar su re-
produccion por medio de copias manuscritas, impresas,
litografiadas ó por cualquier otro semejante, y que
por el 10 se prohibe reproducir una obra agena con
pretesto de anotarla, comentarla, adicionarla ó mejorar
la edicion, sin permiso de su autor.
Considerando que D. Tomás Hurtado publi-
cando su Nuevo método de lectura no reprodujo el escri-
to original ó sea la misma obra que con igual objeto
habia dado antes á la luz D. Vicente Pujals, como lo re-
conoce este terminante en sus escritos, limitándose á
sostener que Hurtado habia tomado y reproducido, co
mo suya, la idea ó metodo adoptado por él en su car-