This requirement, too, that the affidavit must be filed within 30 days after publication would prove fatal in a large number of cases; and would be a trap for the unwary, as the records of the copyright office will disclose.

Whether American printers should seek their protection under the tariff or by restrictive measures in a copyright bill is an old and always recurring question. This matter may be left here with brief quotations from the opinions of a statesman, a leading publisher, and a public-spirited citizen. In the early eighties, Secretary Frelinghuysen said: "I would leave to the mutual convenience of the holder of the copyright and the publisher the adjustment of their contract, and leave to the tariff the task of protecting the paper makers, type founders, printers, and other artisans who join in producing the book as a marketable article."

The head of one of our foremost publishing houses has recently written:

The book manufacturing trades have a direct interest in furthering the extension of American publishing undertakings. I trust that the representatives of these trades will decide that they are quite able, under conditions now obtaining, to hold their own against any trans-Atlantic competition, and that they have a business interest, as well as a citizen's interest, in the removal of all restrictions on American publishing undertakings.

The chairman of the committee on copyright of the New York Patent Law Association in a recent report wrote:

Under the existing copyright law of the United States the fundamental. rights of an author granted under the Constitution are seriously invaded by the requirement under our present law that all books in the English language subject to United States copyright must be printed and bound within the limits of the United States and that importation of books printed in the English language be prohibited with certain exceptions.

It has never been publicly demonstrated that the requirement of compulsory printing in the United States has actually been of any great advantage to our printers in securing them business. Under the 1891 act which required the deposit of the registration copies "not later than the day of publication," which meant that the foreign author must actually have arranged for his American edition in advance of publication, there was compliance only in exceptional cases. The proposal was altogether too unbusiness like. This was recognized and an attempt was made to encourage American manufacture by allowing in the act of 1909 a period of 30 days after publication abroad for depositing a copy of the English book, and a further 30 days protection (a total of not over 60 days) during which period, if an American edition was printed and published, the copyright was extended for the full first term of 28 years. Again. there was comparative failure. From one month to possibly two months was not long enough for any but exceptionally noted English authors to cross the ocean and arrange for the reprinting and publication of their books. On December 18, 1919, a therefore further amendment was approved allowing 60 days for making the deposit. and protection for 4 months after such deposit, or a possible protection altogether of 6 months. The result has been a largely increased deposit for ad interim copyright and apparently an increase in the number of English books actually reprinted-that is an increase of business for American printers. It seems quite possible

1

to the unbiased observer that if this matter were left to the operation of the normal laws of trade, the compulsion removed there would be a steady increase in the quantity of English books for which American editions would be arranged. It is surely obvious that the trend of business would be for English authors-at least the larger contingent of new or comparatively unknown authors to put themselves into the hands of an intelligent American publisher well established and familiar with our book-selling methods, who could surely sell a greater number of copies of their bookand the author's profit is directly in accordance to the copies of his book sold.

As has already been stated, the prohibition of importation of copies of the author's authorized edition of his book hinges entirely upon the manufacturing requirements. If these last should be abrogated, as proposed in the Perkins bill, no necessity would exist for the provisions barring authorized copies, hence such provisions do not appear in the Perkins bill. On the other hand, the prohibition of importation of pirated, unauthorized copies is essential to copyright protection, and all copyright legislation contains provisions to that effect. Our present copyright law, the act of March 4, 1909, enacts. as follows:

*

*

That during the existence of the American copyright in any book the importation into the United States of any piratical copies thereof shall be, and is hereby, prohibited.

The Perkins bill provides that—

The copyright in any work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person. who knowingly imports for sale or hire or otherwise distributes in the United States copies of any piratical reprint of a work in which copyright subsists in the United States, and the importation into the United States of piratical copies of any work copyrighted in the United States shall be, and is hereby, prohibited. (Sec. 41.)

The corresponding section in the Vestal bill (sec. 31) reads as follows:

The importation of any copies or substantial reproductions, in whole or in part, of any work in which copyright exists into the United States and which, if made, published, distributed, exhibited, or performed in the United States, would infringe such copyright is hereby prohibited.

This is an enlargement of the corresponding provision in the British copyright act of 1911, which reads:

* *

*

Copies made out of the United Kingdom of any work in which copyright sub-sists which, if made in the United Kingdom, would infringe copyright shall not be so imported.

Just why this language was imported from the English act into the Vestal bill is not clear and has not been explained. But it is well known that copyright counsel in England have construed the provision in the English statute as supporting the contention that under it importation is prohibited of copies of authorized reprints when there is agreement between the parties that such copies shall not be imported and proper notification is made to the customs department.. The publishers' proposal (section 30 of the Vestal bill) goes further and contends for affirmative provision of law to automatically carry out contractual agreements as to prohibition of importation."

The matter of prohibition of importation may be made somewhat more clear by reference to actual examples.

This book entitled "German Memories," by the English author Sidney Whitman, is protected by copyright in England, and that protection includes (1) the absolute and automatic exclusion of pirated copies; that is, copies produced without the authorization of the author or other copyright owner; that is, the publisher; and (2) copies of an authorized reprint when the agreement under which such copies are produced stipulates that copies are not to be introduced into any part of Great Britain. Here is an example of such an authorized reprint of the same book. It is a specimen of the well known Tauchnitz series of reprints of English or American books in the English language for sale throughout the Continent, mainly to English-reading travelers. The series has been published for a long time. It now contains more than 4,000 separate books. The volumes are uniform as to size, paper, and print; they are required to bear on title page or cover this or a similar notice:

The copyright of this collection is purchased for continental circulation, and the volumes may therefore be introduced into Great Britain or her colonies.

Here is another example, this time an American book, "The New Freedom," by Woodrow Wilson. This is the Tauchnitz reprint of the same book. These two books are fair examples of the much referred to Tauchnitz reprints. This last book is an actual copy of a book which would come within the provisions of section 41 of the Perkins bill, reading:

Such prohibition of importation shall extend also to any authorized foreign reprint of an American author's work or of a work by an alien author domiciled or resident in the United States whenever an agreement authorizing such reprint shall stipulate that copies of such reprint shall not be brought into the United States.

It is understanderable that the American author and his publisher in such case should desire and wish to be authorized to prevent the flooding of the United States with copies of the cheap reprint to compete within the United States with the sale of copies of the original American edition. But the operation of exclusion from England, it must also be noted, is not the automatic operation of a statute of direct prohibition of copies of the author's authorized edition. There is no such statute in force in Great Britain. Here is the text of the essential parts of the English act of 1911, relating to this matter under the heading "Importation of copies":

Copies made out of the United Kingdom of any work in which copyright subsists which if made in the United Kingdom would infringe copyright shall not be so imported.

It is obviously absurd to suggest that copies printed under the authority of the author or copyright owner would infringe his own copyright. But the importation of such copies might very well be an infraction of a contract, and the law therefore provides that when such contract exists and the exclusion to the reprint is desired the effective machinery may be put into action when" the owner of the copyright gives notice in writing by himself or his agents to

the commissioner of customs and excise that he is desirous that such copies should not be imported into the United Kingdom." But the British act further provides that even after receiving such notice

Before detaining any such copies or taking any further proceedings with a view to the forfeiture thereof under the law relating to the customs, the commissioner of customs and excise may require the regulations under this section, whether as to information, conditions, or other matters, to be complied with and may satisfy themselves in accordance with those regulations that the copies are such as are prohibited by this section to be imported.

It should be noted and clearly understood: (1) In the case of the English book, that the prohibition arranged for and enforced is only that of the importation of the reprint into Great Britain and her colonies, under provisions of British law to be presently commented on; as would be the case of the American book under the proposed provisions in the Perkins bill, and (2) that there are no provisions of German law that automatically bar the importation of copies of the authorized edition of either the English or the American book into Germany, and for that matter, this is equally true as regards every continental country.

It should also be emphasized and clearly understood that the whole discussion has been on that kind of proposal, namely, legislation to automatically exclude the copies of the original English book when American reprints have been made, and the arguments have been (1) that this is reasonable and desirable for the protection of American publishers of authorized reprints, and (2) that it is necessary and required in order to do justice to British authors, because the provisions in section 41 of the Perkins bill apply only to the importation of foreign reprints of books by American authors.

The response to the first argument is, as already stated, that that is a question of policy which Congress must determine. As concerns the second complaint, it could very readily be met either by eliminating from section 41 of the Perkins bill lines 13 to 25 of page 23 and lines 1 to 6 of page 24, or by extending the prohibition of importation in that section of the Perkins bill to include "any work by a foreign author when such work has been published and manufactured within the limits of the United States or its dependencies, under an assignment covering stated rights for the United States, recorded in the Copyright Office," making the whole section read:

PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION

SEC. 41. The copyright in any work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who knowingly imports for sale or hire or otherwise distributes in the United States copies of any piratical reprint of a work in which copyright subsists in the United States, and the importation into the United States of piratical copies of any work copyrighted in the United States, shall be, and is hereby, prohibited; and such prohibition of importation shall extend also to any authorized foreign reprint of an American author's work or of a work by an alien author domiciled or resident in the United States, or to any work by a foreign author when such work has been published and manufactured within the limits of the United States or its dependencies, under an assignment covering stated rights for the United States, recorded in the Copyright Office, whenever the agreement authorizing such reprint in either case shall stipulate that copies of such foreign reprint of the American author's work or copies of the authorized edition of the foreign author's work shall not be brought into the United States: Provided, That such agreement shall have been recorded in the

Copyright Office at Washington, and that the owner of the United States copyright shall have notified in writing the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General that the importation of copies of such work is in contravention of such agreement: And provided further, That, except as regards piratical copies, such prohibition of importation shall not apply to any foreign newspaper or magazine although containing matter copyrighted in the United States when such matter is printed or reprinted by authority of the owner of the United States copyright, unless such newspaper or magazine contains also copyright matter printed or reprinted without such authorization.

It has been suggested that the importation provisions in section 41 of the Perkins bill might be held to be a bar to entry of the United States into the International Copyright Union. This seems not at all probable; but in any case, if amended as proposed, all foundation for any such conjecture will have vanished.

Both bills are alike in abrogating registration of copyright claims as a condition for obtaining copyright; while both bills provide for optional registration. In the arguments heard by your committee urging the need for compulsory registration, it seems clear that the persons making them have lacked the courage to recognize and face the situation that will exist when the United States enters the Copyright Union (as it eventually must). Then all foreign authors will be released from the obligation either to register or to insert any notice of copyright. Such notice could only be required in the case of American works. The entire mass, therefore, of foreign works in which copyright is subsisting would be without such notice. This omission, however, would be offset by the obvious presumption of copyright in every work of a foreign author. In place of the present search to determine that in the case of any particular work copyright does not subsist the search would be directed to ascertaining the name and address of the owner of the copyright. Other requirements other methods. Foreign publishers have had to adjust themselves. As no index of copyright registrations was available for search, they have had to organize some central bureau or office of information. The matter is not particularly difficult. Authors and copyright owners do not have the habit of hiding themselves away-quite the contrary; and agencies exist which could be utilized for reaching the person entitled to negotiate for the use of the copyright work.

It is quite conceivable that when the composer, both foreign and American, after the law is amended to permit him to bargain for the price to be paid for the use of his work, will make a practice of promptly offering it for use. That would certainly seem to be the normal way of business.

There is also another angle to this registration problem, namely, the disadvantage and embarrassment arising from overregistration. You have been told here of registrations demanded for old works on very flimsy justifications; copyright being claimed, for example, on such adaptations of the works as are not contemplated in the law as a basis for new copyright protection. Under the provisions of the Vestal bill the Register of Copyrights would be allowed no discretion and would be obliged to record anything and everything, to the obvious embarrassment of the would-be user.

Any examination of the Catalogue of Copyright Entries will disclose, also, that the applications for registration are very often long delayed in reaching the Copyright Office-not months only