Libel and Copyright in the Satire of Peter Pindar

Notes and Queries (2017), 64(3): 497-499

3 Pages Posted: 28 Jun 2017 Last revised: 7 Oct 2019

See all articles by James R. Alexander

James R. Alexander

University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown

Date Written: October 28, 2017


In 1802, the English Chancery Court denied the satirical poet John Wolcot (‘Peter Pindar’) injunctive relief for copyright infringement claimed against his publisher John Walker. While the original agreement between the parties was ambiguous, the ruling was more procedural rather than interpretive. As Wolcot’s verse was always scandalous and arguably libelous, Eldon ruled that Wolcot should first establish his property in the contested works at law before seeking equitable relief, to thereby clear away any question of their criminality. This was arguably the first application to copyright of an eighteenth-century maxim that there could be no property in criminally-libelous literary works. Almost immediately and for over the next century in equity cases and both English and American legal treatises, Eldon’s ruling was interpreted as establishing the Court as censor morum, authorized under common law to rule exceptions to copyright protection based on a determination of illicit or illegal content, regardless of whether copyright statutes specified content-based exceptions. However, a careful review of the Chancery records reveals the ruling warrants a more tempered reading, and that the long-assumed legal precedent may have followed a hoped-for rather than established principle.

Keywords: libel, copyright law, satire, literary

Suggested Citation

Alexander, James R., Libel and Copyright in the Satire of Peter Pindar (October 28, 2017). Notes and Queries (2017), 64(3): 497-499. Available at SSRN: or

James R. Alexander (Contact Author)

University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown ( email )

Johnstown, PA 15904
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics