Lapas attēli

early form of music writing above cited. The London postal telegraph system dispatches newspaper material from St. Martin's le Grand throughout the kingdom from continuous perforated ribbons made somewhat in the same way, visible and legible only to an expert, and reproductions by the medium of

this device would certainly not vitiate copyright. The law “It may be observed that the existing law gives to prior to 1909 the author or proprietor of a musical composition

the sole liberty not only of printing, but of publishing, copying, vending, performing, or representing a musical composition; that the statute does not restrict 'copying' either to a copy of 'staff notation' or from or in any particular form, but prohibits in general any copy of a musical composition; that there is no suggestion in the statute that the copy must be one to be read, e. g., a copy of a sculpture; that any sound-record is in the wide sense as truly a copy of a musical composition as a printed sheet, which is not a copy, in fact, of the author's manuscript writing; and that as the roll has for its sole purpose the performing by the aid of a mechanism useless without it, of a musical composition, just as a printed sheet of music has the sole purpose of the performing by the aid of the voice, the piano, or the orchestra, of a musical composition, the maker and vendor of the roll is in exactly the same position as the maker or vendor of a

printed sheet of music. Manuscript “But even if phonograph and perforated records and copies should not be considered, as is sculpture, to be 'writ

ings,' the arguments of the opponents of this bill do not fit the case. The Constitution explicitly provides that authors shall have exclusive rights to their writings. This cannot mean exclusive rights to their written manuscripts, for these are protected by common law and no constitutional provision was neces

sary. It meant and means evidently that authors shall have exclusive rights to the benefits of their writings, the usufruct of the property they have created, and that means practically a monopoly control over all copies or reproductions from such writings, whether the copies are in handwriting, printing, or any other form. A musical score is definitely a writing, for it is even more than a literary manuscript, originally in the personal handwriting of the composer himself, without the intervention of a stenographer or a typewriting machine. Therefore, if the narrowest meaning of the word 'writings' should be interpreted into the Constitution such as would exclude sculptures and other works which are admittedly proper and legal subjects of copyright, it would still specifically include musical and dramatic as well as literary manuscripts. There is no specification in the Constitution confining the exclusive rights over writings to copies in handwriting or print or any other stated process of reproduction; in fact, the Constitution does not use the word 'copyright' or in any way limit by specification the comprehensiveness of the exclusive rights Congress is thus authorized to secure. Indeed, Congress in the copyright laws has interpreted the Constitution to cover the several artistic or reproductive processes from time to time developed or invented; thus in the law of 1865 the provisions of the copyright laws were extended to include photographs,' which did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – which word specifically means 'light-writings' as phonograph records specifically mean 'sound-writings.'

“The position taken by the American Copyright Protection of League is that an author is literally entitled to the the inventor exclusive right, that is, the exclusive benefit, in his writings, in whatever form the writings, that is, his

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

recorded thoughts, can be reproduced for sale or gain.
If Mark Twain writes a book or Bronson Howard a
play or Sousa or Victor Herbert a musical composi-
tion or Millet makes a painting or French a statue,
each is equally entitled to whatever benefit inures
from his creative genius. Mr. Sousa has stated clearly
that although Caruso has been paid $3000 — and the
fact widely advertised — for singing into a phono-
graph record, and his own band (not under his leader-
ship) has also been paid for playing his compositions
and those of others into the phonograph horn, he has
never received as a musical composer one cent for
such use of his creations, though from twenty to a
hundred of his compositions are to be found on the

catalogues of the several manufacturers of mechaniThe counter cal instruments. Mr. J. Howlett Davis, who properly argument appeared as an inventor in defense of his own inven

tions in mechanical instruments, which he mistakenly believes would be rendered useless if the copyright protection were extended to sound-records, really asked that Congress should protect the thing which he had invented, and compel users to pay for it, but should permit him to use the thought which the musical composer had invented and expressed, without paying for it. His argument analyzed presents an even stronger argument for the proposed copyright bill than for the protection of patented inventions. When Mr. Sousa buys a patented cornet he has paid for the use of it, but Mr. Sousa makes no claim either to make another cornet like it or to play copyrighted musical compositions for profit without payment or permission. A piano, a pianola, a music roll or new form of mechanism, is patentable; a musical composition as played on a piano by hand or by mechanism, whether reproduced on a printed sheet or a mechanical roll, is copyrightable; but each should have like

protection. I speak from specific knowledge as one who has taken out patents as well as copyrights and as the active head for some years of the Edison Illuminating Company of New York and a participant in successfully defending the Edison lamp patents. Mr. Edison, both as an inventor and as a manufacturer of his own inventions, has profited much more than a million dollars from his patents, and would naturally be expected to be foremost in upholding the right of authors to payment for their brains."

The acceptance by most countries within the Inter- Complete national Copyright Union of the Berlin convention, protection without reservation on this question of mechanical music, sets an example of complete protection of the musical composer which it is hoped may be ultimately adopted by the United States as well as by other countries.



Threefold The artist-author, by the labor of his brain and hand, value in art produces three classes of property right or a threefold works

value: he receives recompense from the sale of the original work made by his hand, or from the exhibition of it, or from the reproduction and sale of copies. The new American code is perhaps in advance of legislation in any other country in the protection of the artist, for it assures to him separate values in the right to sell his work and the right to reproduce and sell copies, neither one of which rights is necessarily transferred with the other; it enables him to copyright his original work before the reproduction of copies, though it does not make absolutely clear whether the exhibition without restriction of an uncopyrighted work results in dedication; and it protects his right to control and profit from reproductions, with the simplest possible copyright notice, not including date, though as to lithographic and photo-engraving reproductions it requires manufacture in this country. The literary, dramatic or musical author produces no value in the original work itself, except as his fame may ultimately make his manuscript valuable as an autograph, and in this respect the artist-author has an advantage of practical importance in the general provision separating the copyright from the right in the material object. On the other hand, show-right or right of exhibition is not as specifically treated or as clearly defined and protected as is playright or right of performance in the case of drama or music.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »