Lapas attēli

and binder must be given in the affidavit with city and state (but not street) address; but this means the printing and binding establishment and not the individual type-setter or binder. If the book is not bound but only issued in paper, the word "unbound" should be written into the affidavit. It is necessary to give the venue, that is, the county and state in which the affidavit is made, and to take the oath before a notary or other official authorized to take such oath in that locality (not merely a justice of the peace). The affiant's and notary's names should be signed exactly as written into the body of the affidavit, and the seal should correspond exactly with the name of the official and the venue. The signature of the affiant and of the notary and the seal are all necessary to validate the affidavit. The names and other writing should be written plainly, and the affiant should make sure to read the affidavit and

compare it with the application and with the book. Forfeiture by

In case of false affidavit, forfeiture of copyright is false affidavit provided (sec. 17) as follows:

"That any person who, for the purpose of obtaining registration of a claim to copyright, shall knowingly make a false affidavit as to his having complied with the above conditions shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, and all of his rights and privileges under said

copyright shall thereafter be forfeited.” Exact com

The affidavit clause is exact and specific. It may pliance be made either by the printer or the publisher. This necessary

exacting and drastic addition to the manufacturing clause met with strong opposition from the friends of copyright, particularly authors and book publishers, as unnecessary and unreasonable, but was successfully insisted upon by the representatives of the typo

graphical unions. The voiding of copyright because of a false affidavit by a printer or publisher, which might even be mistakenly made and of which the author would have no cognizance, was opposed as especially unjust to authors and out of keeping with the rest of the law. Under the statute as enacted, this provision must be exactly complied with, and the courts would doubtless enforce it to the letter.

The manufacturing provision of 1891 and its ex- Importation tension in the code of 1909 have raised important and questions difficult questions as to the time at which these provisions become effective in relation with copyrights previously existing. It was claimed by Benziger Brothers, as proprietors of a copyright American edi. tion of the “Key of Heaven," that an edition of sheets printed in America previous to the law of 1909 and sent abroad for binding, could be reimported notwithstanding the new provision against binding, but the decision of the appraisers at New York against this claim was upheld by the Secretary of the Treasury, under advice of the Attorney-General, and the courts have not yet had occasion to pass on the question. This ruling indicates that since July 1, 1909, copyright could not be maintained on any book unless type-set, printed and bound completely within the limits of the United States, and that any copyrighted books, partly manufactured in the United States, but bound and otherwise completed abroad since July 1, 1909, must be denied importation. It has been decided, however, by the Attorney-General, that the manufacturing requirement as to binding refers only to the original, and that copyright books rebound abroad cannot be denied importation. Also it has been held that a foreign translation of a copyright work, for which translation American copyright is not claimed, cannot be refused importation.

Foreign man. ufacturing provisions

The provisions supplementing the manufacturing clause by prohibiting importation are given in the chapter on importation.

Holland is the only country in Europe which requires that the deposit copies shall be printed within the country and thus makes manufacture a condition of copyright - an inheritance probably from the times when the printer-publishers of the Protestant Netherlands were the only ones printing the books barred in Catholic countries by the index expurgatorius, and when deposit was naturally required from them. The law covered the Dutch West Indies, and the precedent was followed in Siam; and in the Transvaal and Orange State the Dutch law continued after they had become English colonies. Otherwise than in these countries, only the British dominions of Canada and Newfoundland and the Commonwealth of Australia have manufacturing provisions. Canada made such provision as to domestic copyright in 1886 and again in the act of May 2, 1889, which last provides that a literary, scientific, musical or artistic work shall, before or simultaneously with publication or production elsewhere, be registered in the office of the Minister of Agriculture, and be printed or published or produced in Canada within one month after publication or production elsewhere. Newfoundland in its statute of 1892, following our own of 1891, provided similarly that the condition for obtaining copyright shall be that the literary, scientific or artistic work shall be printed and published or produced in this colony. Australia, under the new code of 1905, confines domestic copyright to books (inclusive of drama) "printed from type set up in Australia, or plates made therefrom, or from plates or negatives made in Australia in cases where type is not necessarily used,' and in an artistic work to those "made in Australia."

Unfortunately, the precedent of our copyright act English of 1891 has since been followed in England in the patent

proviso patent and designs act of 1907, which provides (sec. 27) that a patent may be revoked after four years on the ground that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom.” Such a provision had been a feature of the patent laws of Germany, Canada and other countries, but it is new in British law and has evoked strong protest from American patentees, notwithstanding that it is parallel with our manufacturing provision with respect to copyrights.




Dramatists' The dramatic author and the musical composer reand com ceive recompense for their creative labor not so much posers' rights from publication of their works in the printed. form

of a book as through their performance or representation, when protected as playright or performing right, as the artist receives remuneration not only for the reproduction and sale of copies, but also from the exhibition as well as sale of his original work. Dramatic and musical copyright, in the wide sense, therefore, covers copyright in the specific sense and playright, as to which latter common law rights es

pecially need statutory protection. American In the protection of dramatic and musical compoprovisions

sitions the new American code specifically provides not only for copyright, but for playright or right of performance. Under subject-matter of copyright (sec. 5) such works are classified as “(d) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; (e) Musical compositions"; and the Copyright Office Rules and Regu

lations further define these classes as follows: Copyright

"8. (d) Dramatic and dramatico-musical composiOffice tions, such as dramas, comedies, operas, operettas definitions

and similar works.

“The designation 'dramatic composition' does not include the following: Dances, ballets, or other choregraphic works; tableaux and moving picture shows; stage settings or mechanical devices by which dramatic effects are produced, or 'stage business'; animal

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »