Otro texto que no sirve porque solamente habla de esto en un par de p
Gallagher, Catherine. “Fiction, Gender, Property, Charlotte Lennox.” Nobody’s Stories: The Vanishing Acts of Women Writers in the Marketplae 1670-1820. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. 145-202.
157. When one looks at the decisions handed down under the Statute of Anne in early copyright disputes, one is struck by the emphasis the courts placed on “invention” or “originality” as the definite characteristic of authorship. […] For example, in 1720, the bookseller who owned the copyright of Dr. Thomas Burnet’s Latin work Archaeologiae Philiosophicae tried to stop the publication of an English translation, but the court of Chancery ruled that a translation “may be called a different book, and the translator may be said to be the author” because he had invented a new form for the ideas. To question whether the plaintiff’s rights had been infringed, therefore, was to question whether a translator was an author and, in turn, to ask whether the translator had originated or invented something. In this case, it was decided that the translator was an author even though he had not originated the ideas, for he had conceived a new form, and “forma dat esse rei.” Invention was also found to be the crucial criterion of authorship in cases involving abridgement; books that were only superficially changed or “colourably shortened” were judged to be piracies, but “a fair abridgement… may with great propriety be called a new book, because not only the paper and print, but the invention, learning, and judgement of the author [abridger] is shown in them.
[158 inmediatamente despu