giving two days' notice of the intended delivery to two justices of the peace living within five miles from the place where the lecture is to be delivered, unless the lecture is delivered in any university, public school, or college, or on any public foundation, or by any person in virtue of or according to any gift, endowment, or foundation, in which cases no copyright is given on any condition. If any person obtains a copy of a protected lecture by taking it down, and publishes it without the leave of the author, or sells copies, he is to forfeit the copies, and 1d. for every sheet found in his custody. This law is designed merely to prevent unauthorised publication of lectures by printing, but as has been observed it does not prohibit unauthorised re-delivery. 84. We think that the author's copyright should extend to prevent re-delivery of a lecture without leave as well as publication by printing, though this prohibition, as to re-delivery, should not extend to lectures which have been printed and published. We also recommend that the term of copyright in lectures should be the same as in books, namely, the life of the author and 30 years after his death. 85. In the course of our inquiry it has been remarked that, in the case of popular lectures, it is the practice of newspaper proprietors to send reporters to take notes of the lectures for publication in their newspapers, and that, unless this practice is protected, it will be become unlawful. It does not seem to us desirable that this practice should be prevented, but on the other hand the author's copyright should not in any way be prejudiced by his lectures being reported in a newspaper. The author should have some sort of control so as to prevent such publication if he wishes to do so; and we therefore suggest that though the author should have the sole right of publication, he should be presumed to give permission to newspaper proprietors to take notes and report his lecture, unless, before or at the time when the lecture is delivered, he gives notice that he prohibits reporting. 86. By the present law, as above stated, a condition is imposed of giving notice to two justices. Without entering into the origin of this provision we find that it is little known and probably never or very seldom acted upon; so that the statutory copyright is practically never or seldom acquired. We therefore suggest, that this provision should be omitted from any future law. 87. We do not suggest any interference with the exception made in the Act as to lectures delivered in universities and elsewhere, wherein no statutory copyright can be acquired. Newspapers. 88. Much doubt appears to exist in consequence of several conflicting legal decisions whether there is any copyright in newspapers. We think it right to draw Your Majesty's attention to the defect, and to suggest that in any future legislation, it may be remedied by defining what parts of a newspaper may be considered copyright, by distinguishing between announcements of facts and communications of a literary character. Fine Arts. 89. The next subjects for our consideration were the various branches of the fine arts, consisting of engravings and works of that class, paintings, drawings, and photographs, and lastly, sculpture. 90. It might be supposed that the law relating to engravings, etchings, prints, lithographs, paintings, drawings, and photographs would be the same so far as those matters are capable of being regulated by the same law; but such is not the case. Until the 25th and 26th years of Your Majesty's reign there was no Act of Parliament by which copyright was given for paintings, drawings, and photographs, while engravings, etchings, and prints were protected so long ago as the eighth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George II. Though engravings, etchings, and prints were thus provided for, a doubt arose in process of time whether the Acts then in force would apply to lithographs and other recently invented modes of printing pictures, and it was therefore declared, by an Act passed in the 15th and 16th years of Your Majesty's reign, that the earlier Acts were intended to include prints taken by lithography or any other mechanical process by which prints or impressions of drawings or designs are capable of being multiplied indefinitely. It might be questioned whether the language of this Act would not embrace photography, but it seems to have been assumed that it would not, for in the 25th and 26th years of Your Majesty's reign an Act was passed to give copyright in paintings, drawings, and photographs, and the right thus given was placed on an entirely different footing and made subject to different conditions from those to which engravings, etchings, lithographs, and prints are subject. 91. There is at present great diversity in the law as to the duration of copyright in works of fine art. For engravings and similar works the term is 28 years from publication; for paintings, drawings, and photographs, the life of the artist and seven years; and for sculpture 14 years from the first putting forth or publication of the work, and if the sculptor is living at the end of that time, for a second term of 14 years. We do not think it desirable that these distinctions should continue. 92. We understand that the reason for making the term in the case of paintings the life of the artist and seven years, was to avoid the necessity of proving the date of publication, which is, it is said, in the case of a painting frequently impossible. There would be equal difficulty, it is reasonable to suppose, in proving the date of publication of sculpture, and we have already shown that it exists, to a minor degree, in the case of all literary works. We think it desirable as far as possible to get rid of this difficulty. By adopting as the term the life of the artist and a certain time after death, the result will be attained. 93. Sculpture, though a branch of the fine arts, is essentially different in many points from paintings, engravings, and works of that class; nevertheless we purpose to deal with them concurrently, so far as the subjects permit. 94. It will have been observed that wherever it is possible to place on the same footing the various subjects of copyright of which we have treated in the earlier part of this Report, we have recommended that the law should be assimilated; we propose that all the subjects of fine art shall be dealt with on the same principle so far as they are capable of that treatment. 95. We therefore propose that the term of copyright for all works of fine art, other than photographs, shall be the same as for books, music, and the drama, namely, the life of the artist and 30 years after his death. 96. We further recommend that it should be open equally to subjects of Your Majesty and aliens to obtain copyright in works of fine art, but aliens, unless domiciled in Your Majesty's dominions, should only be entiled to copyright for works first published in those dominions. Sculpture.* 97. As to sculpture we have had to consider by what acts the sculptor's copyright ought to be deemed to have been infringed. Sculpture may be copied in various ways, not only by sculpture and casting, but by engraving, drawing, and photography; and since the rise of photography the copying of sculpture by that means has become a considerable business. The question has therefore been brought before us whether copying by other means than sculpture or casting ought not to be considered piracy. 98. A material item in the consideration of this question is the injury likely to be inflicted on the sculptor. The principal witness on this point, Mr. Woolner, R.A., though he thought that the photographing of sculpture would probably operate rather as an advertisement in the sculptor's favour than to his detriment, expressed a wish that the law should give a sculptor protection against copying by means of drawing or engraving; and he was of opinion that incorrect copying by drawing or engraving might * Sir James Stephen disapproved of copyright in pictures or statues. be very prejudicial to the sculptor's reputation. But besides this there is the question whether a sculptor ought not to be entitled to any profit to be made by allowing his works to be photographed or otherwise copied. 99. Upon the whole we are disposed to think that every form of copy, whether by sculpture, modelling, photography, drawing, engraving, or otherwise, should be included in the protection of copyright. It might be provided that the copying of a scene in which a piece of sculpture happened to form an object should not be deemed an infringement, unless the sculpture should be the principal object, or unless the chief purpose of the picture should be to exhibit the sculpture. 100. It was also suggested that copyists of antique works ought to be protected by copyright so far as their own copies are concerned. Many persons spend months in copying ancient statues, and the copies become as valuable to the sculptors as if they were original works. It may be doubted whether the case does not already fall within the Sculpture Act, but we recommend that such doubts should be removed, and, that sculptors who copy from statues in which no copyright exists should have copyright in their own copies. Such copyright should not, of course, extend to prevent other persons making copies of the original work. Paintings.*-Assignment of Copyright on Sale of Pictures. 101. The most difficult question with relation to fine arts which we have had to consider, is to whom the copyright should belong on sale of a painting; whether to the artist or to the purchaser of the picture. 102. The present law † on the subject is as follows:—' -The author of every original painting, drawing, and photograph, and his assigns, have the sole right of copying, engraving, and reproducing it, unless it be sold or made for a good or valuable consideration, in which case the artist cannot retain the copyright, unless it be expressly reserved to him by agreement in writing, signed by the vendee, or by the person for whom the work was executed; but the copyright, in the absence of such agreement, belongs to the vendee or such other person; but it is also provided that a vendee or assignee cannot get the copyright unless at the time of the sale an agreement in writing signed by the artist or person selling is made to that effect. The result is, that if an artist sells a picture without having the copyright reserved to him by written agreement he loses it, but it does not vest in the purchaser unless there is an agreement signed in his favour. If, therefore, there is no agree * Sir James Stephen disapproved of copyright in pictures or statues. ment in writing-a very frequent occurrence- -the copyright is altogether lost on a sale, but if the picture is painted on commission, instead of being sold after being painted, the copyright in the absence of any agreement vests in the person for whom the picture is painted. 103. We have taken a good deal of evidence with regard to this matter. It appears that the provision as to pictures painted on commission was made to prevent the unauthorised copying of portraits. Some difficulty, however, is said to have arisen in determining whether an order or a purchase is a commission, so as to bring the picture within such provision. 104. With regard to the general question whether the copyright in a picture should in every case remain with the artist unless expressly sold, or whether it should follow the picture unless expressly retained, the artists as a body are unanimous in their desire to have the copyright reserved to them by law. 105. It is true that if under the present law an artist wishes to retain the copyright he can do so by an express stipulation embodied in an agreement signed by the purchaser. Artists, however, say that this is practically useless, since the purchaser would look upon a proposal for such an agreement as intended to deprive him of part of the value of his purchase. They therefore seldom ask for agreements, preferring that the copyright shall drop. In that case any person who can gain access to a valuable picture may make and sell copies of it in defiance of both artist and owner. 106. It is clearly undesirable that copyrights, which are in many cases of great value, should be in this way left free to piracy. The law, therefore, should distinctly define to whom, in the absence of an agreement, the copyright should belong. 107. In dealing with these questions we have had regard not only to the artist's claims, which have been strongly advocated before us, but also to the interests of the public, and to the consideration whether any distinction should be made between pictures sold after being painted and pictures painted on commission, or between portraits and other pictures. 108. First, as to portraits as distinguished from other pictures. Although artists contend that the copyright in pictures should belong to them notwithstanding a sale, it is admitted by some that an exception to the general rule might be made in the case of portraits, and that copyright in them might properly belong to the purchaser or person giving a commission. The evidence appears to us to prove, first, that the reasons why the copyright in portraits should belong to the person ordering the painting apply equally to other pictures; and, secondly, that it is by no means easy to say what a portrait is. Thus it is open to question whether the word would include the portrait of an animal, a dog for instance, |