he criterion as to the latter qualification being, in
the last resort, whether (see _Trade Auxiliary Co._ v. _Middlesborough
Association_, 1889, 40 Ch.D. 425) the author or compiler has really put
his own brain-work into it.

Newspapers.

6. The most marked and certain progress has been in the application of
the law of copyright to the periodical press, in order to protect within
reasonable limits the labour and expenditure of newspapers that obtain
for the public the earliest news and arrange it for publication. It is
settled law since 1881 (_Walter_ v. _Howe_, 17 Ch.D. 708, overruling
_Cox_ v. _Land & Water Journal Co._, 1869), that a newspaper is a book
within the meaning of the act, and can claim all rights that a book has
under the Copyright Act. Thus, leading articles, special articles, and
even news items are protected (_Walter_ v. _Steinkopff_, 1892, 3 Ch.
489; _Exchange Telegraph Co._ v. _Gregory and Co._, 1896, 1 Q.B. 147).
Current prices of stocks and shares, translations, the compilation of a
directory, summaries of legal proceedings, and other similar literary
work, so far as the literary form, the labour and money are concerned,
are equally protected. In short, the test may now be broadly stated to
be, whether labour of the brain and expenditure of money have been given
for the production; whilst the old requirement of original matter is
very broadly interpreted. The leading case on the subject is _Walter_ v.
_Lane_ (decided in the House of Lords, 6th August 1900). The question
there raised was, whether or not copyright applied under the act of 1842
in respect of _verbatim_ reports of speeches. Four law lords, viz. Lord
Chancellor Halsbury, Lord Davey, Lord James of Hereford and Lord
Brampton upheld the claim to copyright in such cases, whilst Lord
Robertson was the sole dissentient.

Apart from newspapers, protection has been extended to publications
having no literary character; Messrs Maple's furniture catalogue, and
the Stock Exchange prices on the "tape" have been awarded the same
protection as directories. The courts have declined to protect works
which are mere copies of railway time-tables, or the "tips" of a
sporting prophet, or mechanical devices with no independent literary
matter, such as patterns for cutting ladies' sleeves.

Lectures.

7. The publication of lectures without consent of the authors or their
assignees is prohibited by the Lecture Copyright Act 1835, which
reinforce