DEFINITE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. Sec. 20. Albert H. Walker-Continued. tion or translation thereof has been produced within that period by his consent or that of his assigns or legal representatives, and in the case of translations shall be confined to the language of any translation so produced." (Copyright Hearings, December, 1906, p. 140.) Sec. 21. Edward S. Rogers. Omit the word "copyrightable" following the word "unpublished," to read: "SEC. 21. That every person who, without the consent of the author or proprietor first obtained, shall publish or reproduce in any manner whatsoever any unpublished work shall be liable to the author or proprietor for all damages occasioned by such injury, and to an injunction restraining such unauthorized publication, as hereinafter provided." Sec. 21. Print Publishers' Association of America (Wm. A. Livingstone, president). Secs. 21 and 22. In the first line of each section, before the word "consent," insert the word "written," and in the second line of each section cut out the words "author or," to read: "SEC. 21. That every person who, without the written consent of the proprietor first obtained, shall publish or reproduce in any manner whatsoever any unpublished copyrightable work shall be liable to the author or proprietor for all damages occasioned by such injury, and to an injunction restraining such unauthorized publication, as hereinafter provided." "SEC. 22. That any reproduction, without the written consent of the copyright proprietor, of any work or any material part of any work in which copyright is subsisting shall be illegal and is hereby prohibited. The provisions of section thirty-eight hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes prohibiting the use of the mails in certain cases, and also the provision of section thirty-eight hundred and ninety-five of the Revised Statutes shall apply, and the importation into the United States of any such fraudulent copies or reproductions is hereby prohibited." (Copyright Hearings, December, 1906, p. 110.) SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISMS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFINITE PROPOSALS FOR PHRASEOLOGY. Sec. 20. American (Authors') Copyright League (Robert Underwood Johnson, secretary). One other matter, and that is the proposed omission from section 20 of everything relating to dramatization. This section provides for the limitation of the right of dramatization and translation to ten years. We respectfully submit that that section should be eliminated. (Copyright Hearings, December, 1906, p. 95.) Sec. 21. Edward S. Rogers. Section 21, omit the word "copyrightable," line 4. The appearance of that word in this section would, I think, give rise to debate, and it seems to me that it would tend to simplify matters to leave it out. Under the common law the unauthorized publication of matter, whether copyrightable or not, may be enjoined at the suit of the owner of the work. If the statute contained the word "copyrightable" in this connection, it would at least be debatable whether it deprived the proprietor of unpublished uncopyrightable matter of the right he now has to restrain unauthorized publication of it. DEFINITE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. Sec. 22. Geo. W. Ogilvie,-Change to read: "SEC. 22. That any reproduction, without the consent of the author or copyright proprietor, of any work or any material part of any work in which copyright is subsisting shall be illegal and is hereby prohibited, except as provided for in section fifteen. The provisions of section thirty-eight hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes prohibiting the use of the mails in certain cases, and also the provision of section thirty-eight hundred and ninety-five of the Revised Statutes shall apply, and the importation into the United States of any such fraudulent copies or reproductions is hereby prohibited." SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISMS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFINITE PROPOSALS FOR PHRASEOLOGY. Sec. 22. C. P. Montgomery of the Treasury Department. With regard to section 22, permit me to suggest that the provisions therein applying sections 3893 and 3895 of the Revised Statutes appear to be vague and indefinite, and I can not perceive their proper application in this connection. Moreover, section 3893 was amended July 12, 1876, and September 26, 1888. If it was intended by the insertion of these two statutes to prohibit the use of the domestic mails for the transmission of fraudulent copyright reproductions, then it seems to me that it would be proper to place in the bill a separate section embodying that idea. If this were done, section 22 would read: "That any reproduction, without the consent of the author or copyright proprietor, of any work or any material part of any work in which copyright is subsisting shall be illegal and is hereby prohibited; and the importation into the United States of any such fraudulent copies or reproductions is hereby prohibited." The language of the section would then be clear. (Copyright Hearings, December, 1906, p. 392.) In Sec. 22 you allow a reproduction with the consent of the author or proprietor, but in Sec. 23, in the fourth line, you give that consent to the proprietor alone. As you first put it, the author may give the consent although the proprietor is unwilling. The provisions of Sec. 22 seem to be extraordinary. On the mere complaint of infringement, without any proof in court, you give the postal authorities the right to exclude the alleged infringing publication from the mails, and give the same authority to the customs officers. I agree that after the fact of infringement has been judicially determined this provision will be wise, but it is going pretty far to allow the postal authorities to exclude a periodical from the mails because somebody turns up and claims that some article in it is an infringement of his rights. DEFINITE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. Sec. 23 (b). Ansley Wilcox. Sec. 23 (b), line 12 and following: Change as follows: "Or, in lieu of such damages and profits, the plaintiff may elect to claim and thereupon may recover as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, an amount to be assessed as hereinafter stated, but such damages shall not in any case be less than $250 nor more than $5,000, except that where a wilful or intentional infringement is found the court may, in its discretion, double or treble the liquidated damages, even though this may raise the amount above $5,000." And after that make the amounts fixed and strike out the words "not less than." (Copyright Hearings, December, 1906, p. 144.) |