« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
same thing included in our laws exactly as it is in the fine arts copyright acts of every leading country of the world? I think not.
Are we going to permit the fine arts in this country to be debased, driven from the field by inferior and obvious imitations and infringements and the minds of our people dwarfed instead of uplifted ?
As reported in 1916 (p. 22), entrance of the United States into the International Copyright Union, “This step forward can not be taken without antecedent copyright legislation by Congress.” It has taken another 10 years to bring it to this point. Are you going to let this session of Congress adjourn before acting on the Vestal bill and running a chance of losing this splendid opportunity to accomplish much, even if not all which must be done in the course of time? I hope not. During these 10 years it became universally known that not to mitigate all the protection of copyright laws, the laws themselves must be so broad and so drawn that everything is not left to the courts; if that attitude is to prevail we may as well quit now. You have heard a few of the effects; you know the causes, now apply the remedy.
Mr. Bloom. What is your impression of the standards as between the artists of the United States and the artists of England ?
Mr. NEWMAN. I might say that 20 years ago when I went over there, they told me there was no such thing as American art and that we had to go to Europe for art. Ten years ago they admitted there was American art.
Mr. Bloom. We had artists then?
Mr. Bloom. In comparison with the artists of England, how do we stand to-day?
Mr. NEWMAN. Very, very favorably in all of the recognized art centers of the world.
Mr. Bloom. Are we not far, far ahead of them?
Mr. NEWMAN. In remote instances; not as a class. Our artists among the illustrators are among the most wonderful in the world.
Mr. Bloom. How about our regular artists; are we not far ahead of the artists of England-of Great Britain? Whom have they to compare with the artists that we produce?
Mr. NEWMAN. They have a great many, if you are speaking of contemporary art. But there is no question about it that there is an American style and class of art which is equal to that produced in any country of the world.
Mr. Bloom. Right. I just wanted to get it in the record.
Mr. NEWMAN. If that were not the case I would not be here talking to you and trying to maintain my American class of publications and an American class of competitors in my own line. We do a good deal of missionary work in spreading all over the United States highly technical examples and faithful reproductions of the work of every American artist that looks as though it might give promise of producing good results and making a proper impression on the minds of art authorities in any part of the world,
Mr. Bloom. The art institutions and the art schools of this country are as fine as the art schools of any country in the world to-day, are they not?
Nr. NEWMAN. They are; partly due to the efforts of Pennell and others.
Mr. Bloom. Then you believe if we would give them the protection that they so justly deserve, in the next 10 or 20 years we would produce the greatest artists in the world?
Mr. NEWMAN. There is no question about it. We have a spirit, a virility, an atmosphere, that is expressed in their work.
Mr. Bloom. We have the raw material in the United States, but we have not the protection; is that the idea ?
Mr. NEWMAN. Yes; and the only reason that we are not at that point to-day is because of the lack of protection.
Mr. Bloom. All right.
Mr. NEWMAN. So far as I know the omission of the fine-arts section in the printed copy of Mr. Vestal's bill was an oversight; if through misunderstanding I hope, in the interest of the millions in population and money and all that is refined and beautiful, that you will not permit to be presented or passed any copyright bill without this new fine-arts section to protect the fine arts using any phraseology that may be preferred, but which can only be interpreted the right way-it may be difficult, but others have done it.
If the United States, through this bill, does join the International Copyright Union without our fine-arts section being included and clearly drawn as before mentioned, then one of two things must be undertaken-endeavor to tack it on as a rider at the last minute or publish in a foreign country where none are so spineless as to fear to define imitation and infringement and where practice has proven that such a fine-arts section does not affect any other interests.
Every interest concerned in a fine-arts section has been called into our group, including all the organizations-American Art Bureau; Picture Publishers' Association; Artists, Art Dealers, and Art Publishers; and the American Homes Bureau—and there has not been a dissenting voice. We can report unanimity after very little discussion took place, and our reports are from every State in the Union. You have probably received communications from all parts of the country, particularly the American Art Bureau of Chicago, which on April 10 wrote that it “speaks in behalf of a $40,000,000 industry and representing 200 manufacturers and wholesale distributors, more than 5,000 art dealers, and millions of buyers of art products to beautify their homes and for use in the schools," and in regard to inferior imitations of popular color prints mentions, “ These weak imitations lessen the quality of the public taste and war against appreciation of real beauty—the very attitude of mind of an imitator-a purloiner of ideas is such as to lessen the artistic value of his work.'
We are in absolute accord; you are, I'm sure, sympathetic and willing to abate the great injustices of the past, and as everybody has an open mind on the subject and Congress a free hand in the phraseology, there should be nothing difficult, and we are glad to support Mr. Vestal's bill and strain every point to assist in having it enacted during this session and go into effect the coming January 1.
In passing through New Jersey this was noticed on a stone in an old cemetery:
Here lies Samantha Snow; she had to go
Praised by the Lord, from whom all blessings flow. And I go. In the language of the broadcaster, “ Thank you, good-by, and God bless you.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one question. I think I understood you to read in to the record section 17 of the British law—the English law.
Mr. NEWMAN. No; I referred to a new fine-arts section to follow section 8 and a substitute for two paragraphs, all of which have been submited to your committee. (Informal discussion followed, not reported.)
Mr. Bloom. Have you that section before you, Mr. Chairman? I would like to know how it fits in.
Mr. NEWMAN. The new fine arts section is to follow section 8, and on page 14, section 16, of H. R. 10434, two paragraphs are to be substituted.
The CHAIRMAN. Where do you suggest that this new section and the proposed amendment shall be included in the bill?
Mr. NEWMAN. On page 14, line 17. What we want is to replace the first and second paragraphs, and the new fine arts section is to follow section 8 on page 7 under a heading, “Fine arts section some similar heading.
Mr. Bloom. I think I understand what you want.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly read again the proposed substituto and the new fine arts section?
Mr. Bloom. You want to strike out lines 17 to 24 on page 14 and insert in lieu thereof this, and you want to insert under a separate fine arts heading the new section to follow section 8 on page 7. Is that what you want?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not think that is it. Let us ask Mr. Newman to read all of the clauses.
Mr. NEWMAN. On page 7, following section 8 [reading] :
FINE ARTS SECTION
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYTHING IN THIS ACT CONTAINED
The proprietor of a copyright of a work of art (drawing, painting, or sculp ture) and of a reproduction of a work of art shall be entitled to the exclusive right to copy or reproduce the whole or any essential part of the copyright work as provided by this act, and also the right to restrain any simulation or imitation of subject and appearance of such work, and to obtain damages under the provisions of this act, from the person, firm, or corporation producing or publishing such simulation or imitation and from any person who, after notice, shall produce or sell or exhibit or publish any such simulation or imitation.
The Century dictionary definition of " simulation” reads as follows:
Simulation: Act of simulating, or feigning, or counterfeiting; the false assumption of a certain appearance or character; pretense, usually for the purpose of deceiving.
We will now turn to page 14, as a substitute for lines 17 to 24, inclusive, as follows:
First. In the case of a painting, statue, or sculpture, $10 for every infringing copy made or sold or exhibited by or found in the possession of any person, firm, or corporation.
Second. In the case of a reproduction, simulation, or imitation of a print, etching, engraving, photograph, or other pictoral illustration or decorative or educational picture, $1 for every copy made or sold or exhibited by or found in the possession of any person, firm, or corporation;
In the case of any other work enumerated in section 38 of this act, except a motion picture, painting, statue, or sculpture, $1 for every infringing copy made or sold or found in the possession of the infringer or his agents or employees;
The clause in which mention is made of " section 38 of this act” is inserted merely to distinguish between what may be termed as reproductions of works of art or prints intended for distribution through the art trade and any other work mentioned in section 38 but is only a suggestion to provide what is evidently desired by other interests and could be phrased differently or omitted entirely so far as artists and art publishers are concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is the intention of Mr. Newman that this language shall be replaced some place in this bill. That is the whole proposition with you, wherever it is supposed to apply?
Mr. NEWMAN. As applying to fine arts.
Mr. Bloom. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Would you call the reproduction in a moving picture, of a painting that is taken on a film, an infringement of the copyright?
Mr. NEWMAN. A motion picture of a painting?
Mr. Bloom. No. Suppose they would take the picture of this room, and on the wall there was a copyrighted picture or photograph. They would have it in their film, and they would show that on the screen. Would that be an infringement of your copyright?
Mr. NEWMAN. It would not be our idea of an infringement at all, because we are having that happen all the time. We furnish pictures for motion-picture « sets" and for theatrical scenes, and they reproduce these pictures, naturally, in their setting, as a part of the setting
Mr. Bloom. Would that be, according to your opinion and according to your provisions here, an infringing copy or a colorable imitation?
Mr. NEWMAN. No, sir.
Mr. NEWMAN. No; it is not put out for the purpose of marketing it as such.
Mr. Bloom. Yes; it certainly is.
Mr. NEWMAN. It merely happens to be there as a part of a general setting which has been photographed or “filmed ”
as you might say.
Mr. Bloom. It is for sale. But you do not mean that in your amendment ?
Mr. NEWMAN. Absolutely not. We do not include motion pictures in the fine arts, nor anything in the way of artistic literature.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lucas desires to be heard, and we will hear him at this time.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE C. LUCAS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
NATIONAL PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lucas. The National Publishers' Association is an organization covering periodical publications, which covers the general magazine field, trade publications, fashion publications, and agricultural publications.
During the consideration of the Perkins bill last year the members of our association had not make a particular study of the bill as it might affect them, and it was not until a special copyright committee of our organization was formed for that purpose that we found that there were features in the Perkins bill that would adversely affect periodical publications.
That committee was instructed then to cooperate, as far as possible, with this general copyright revision committee that has been referred to by Mr. Osborn, that was formulated at a suggestion of, I think, Mr. Bloom at the last session.
We did meet with that general committee in several general meetings, and we had one special conference of the representatives of the employing printers' association and organized labor, at which we secured a modification of the manufacturing clause that removed the objections we had to that.
We had two other meetings with representatives of the Author's League, and at those meetings we pointed out some other features in the Perkins bill, and those were referred to by Mr. Kirschway in his testimony here—that is, part of these were referred to—in which we had eliminated four sections out of the Perkins bill that were especially objectionable. Since that time the Authors' League were carrying on negotiations with other interests, and finally completed a bill that seemed to meet their requirements.
But prior to the introduction of that bill, which is the bill before you now, H. R. 10434, we did not have full opportunity to analyze the bill as written to see how it would affect us. We have now found that there are several features in there that we feel must be changed in some way.
I want to first state that the attitude of the periodical publishers toward the authors and artists is one of full cooperation. We have no desire to restrict in any way their rights, or prevent them from getting what rights they should have. We do not desire to secure any rights to ourselves that we do not pay for, if they have any value whatever. Therefore the objections that we have here are merely in the way of removing difficulties that we feel were not intended to be imposed on us by the Authors' League or the compilers of this bill.
In our examination we found that the different provisions of this bill affect different kinds of publishers in different ways.
Publishers of general magazines are more or less similar to publishers of books; that is, it mostly covers the literary field, except the other component parts that are added in the way of advertisements and things of that kind.
Trade publications are in an entirely different situation, as they deal with specific subjects.