national disgrace which faces us now but that we will be able to take our place in this matter of industrial art. Thank you.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Stone, representing the American Patent Law Association, has been waiting for a long time. I would like him heard.

STATEMENT OF J. AUSTIN STONE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. STONE. I have been asked to appear for the American Patent Law Association and to report the attitude of that association as indicated as the result of a referendum vote taken on the antecedents of this bill.

I think that the results of the vote which gave a plurality in favor of the previous measure show that the sympathy of the patent law is with the association and with Mr. Williams's bill. There should be some sort of protection given, and the association is on record to that effect.

The present measure does differ slightly from the earlier bills; and, for the sake of curiosity, I should perhaps add that the present measurs does not include the provision that the design be new. It is not just as easy to draw up these measures as one of the gentlemen advocating the bill indicated this morning-that mere mechanics are simply worked out. I dont know, and I can not report for our association, exactly what attitude the association would take on all of the details of this present bill, but on the principle of it they are in favor of it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Could you give me the date when the referendum was taken?

Mr. STONE. It was two years ago.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Miss Pennypacker wishes to be heard.

STATEMENT OF MARGARET PENNYPACKER, THREE ARTS CLUB OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Miss PENNYPACKER. I represent a group of young women artists which has been in existence for 27 years. Our president is Mrs. John Henry Hammond, who has been our president for 25 years. They have been fostering American art and protecting it, trying to protect it in every possible manner, in those number of years. We have a group of 500 active members annually in New York City, an equally important group in Chicago, a smaller group in Los Angeles, another group in London, and another in Paris-all American young women. This group continues to grow every year. I think the membership might be rated at perhaps 2,000 active members in all of these groups, annually changing from year to

year.

We have produced some outstanding artists. I think that Miss Bendalari and. I might be considered as representatives of the kind of young women who are being encouraged from that organization. Mrs. John Henry Hammond undoubtedly you know. Her influence is far-reaching in fields of culture, education, social, economic, and other lines..

I have a letter here from her to present to Mr. Vestal, which I wish to have put in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Hon. Mr. VESTAL.

FEBRUARY 12, 1930.

DEAR SIR: I am heartily in sympathy with the Vestal design copyright bill, H. R. No. 7243, and feel that it will do much for the promotion of art in this country. As I come in touch with many artists and designers I realize how unprotected they have been in the past and how many times their desings are appropriated by other people and they have no redress.

Hoping that your bill meet with the support that it deserves.
Believe me.

Yours sincerely,

EMILY VANDERBILT HAMMOND,

(Mrs. John Henry).

I have another letter from the Three Arts Club of the United States of America, which I wish to have in the record. The CHAIRMAN. It may go in the record.

THREE ARTS CLUB,
New York City.

To the Hon. Mr. VESTAL,

House of Representatives, Committee on Patents,

Washington, D. C.:

Resolved that the Three Arts Club of New York City wishes to register their approval and support of the principles in the Vestal design copyright bill. ETHEL P. MESINE, Secretary.

I am a designer. I am not only a designer-I am an artist. I was trained as an artist as you men were trained for the profession of law. I ask you to bear with me and believe that I am an intelligent and well-educated woman. I had a college education before I was given the best training available among the foremost artists of America. I am not just a student from an art school who has a superficial course on top of a high-school education. I am prepared to speak on the subject of design. I can design anything from an automobile to a piece of jewelry. I can give you specific instances of where my own designs have needed protection.

A year ago I designed a piece of jewelry to go on a gown which was being created for the market. This was to be an ornament and accessory to this gown. The jewelry manufacturing company to whom I gave the order to make this up proceeded to have it shown to Marshall Field & Co., of Chicago. It was sold to be retailed in their jewelry department at 10 times the cost of the production of the original article which was to have gone on the gown which I was to market. I could get no redress.

I have had experiences in having my designs copied. When those designs are copied I reap no profit from them. I am frequently told by my manufacturer to copy other gowns. That means that they can copy a gown more cheaply than they can originate and produce another gown. The price of creating a gown ranges from $100 to $300 for the original model; that is, the sample. From that orders are taken, and duplicates are made at a lesser price and are sold to the public. In copying a gown they are able to take off a pattern easily at a small expense and thereby cheapen the product. I think that a designer should be protected, and sometimes I am the designer to be protected.

A copy artist is similar to a stenographer. A creative artist is like yourselves. You create or originate a patent in words which your stenographer copies. A copy artist copies the original design of a creator. A creator has spent long years in learning to do that. They have spent a lot of money in training themselves; therefore they want to profit from it and they do not want others to profit

from it.

The other day I interviewed a dress manufacturer for a new job as a designer, and he said, " My dear, I had to cut out my designing department because I found I could make more money pirating, so therefore I am selling as many pirate designs as we can get on the market. When they stop pirating then I shall put in a designing department."

My gowns were sold up and down Fifth Avenue two weeks after I went into the business. They are sold all over the United States now. They are illustrated in the foremost trade papers, daily papers, magazines, and periodicals of the United States. In November of this past year one of my models was illustrated in the New Yorker, a magazine by R. H. Macy & Co., and under it was printed, A Patou Adoption. As an American girl and an American designer should I not have the privilege and right to have my name attached to that rather than to say A Patou Adoption?

All designs will not be copyrighted. Some designs are not good enough to be copyrighted. It is only those which are sufficiently unique and original, I think, which will be considered for a copyright. I think the artist himself will be able to judge in the matter of the commercial value of the design, for that is where the copyright is desired. I do not see that it will interfere with the retailers' objections. I think that when an article is good enough it will create its own demand whether it is copyrighted or not. Other copyrighted articles are not bought with hesitancy. Why should a copyrighted design be bought with hesitancy? I urge you again to consider the organization which I am representing and to bear with them and value their opinion in this matter, for they have devoted years to it. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Miss Pennypacker.

Miss Bendalari, do you wish to say something in conclusion?
Miss BENDALARI. I just want to say one word.

STATEMENT OF MARY BENDALARI

Miss BENDALARI. Mr. Chairman, six years have passed and I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that the retailers have made their own statements to-day that they are not interesed in any legislation which does not bring profit to them, and that they wish to be free to continue their right to foster piracy. These are all brilliant and successful businesses and can take care of themselves. In view of the many interests represented here in favor of this bill and the imaginary nature of the objections that the retailers have brought up, you can see the clear ethical necessity of the Vestal bill, and we ask you to report this out favorably and that you wind it up as soon as possible and bring it to success-each one of you individually-as a law.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Williams, has there been discussed before the committee the effect of leaving out the word "new" in this present bill and merely using the word "original"?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. PERKINS. That has been discussed?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. You see, the copyright law is founded on two principles. One is that the thing that is protected by copyright that the courts will protect-must be an original work,.not necessarily absolutely new but not capable of being held to be worthless because you dug it up in the ruins of Egypt or anything of that sort. In that respect the copyright law differs from the patent law. The patent law requires a thing to be both new and original. Now, the other feature of the copyright law is that the copyright law only prevents copying, but the patent law prevents the manufacture, sale, or use of any article which impedes the patented invention. That distinction between patent law and copyright law is fundamental and has been incorporated in this bill to make it a pure copyright bill, because it is the experience of centuries that work that is protected by copyright need only have the characteristic of originality. It produces many differences. It is possible for two individuals each to originate the same design. It would be possible for each of them to be protected in court, if it was original, to the extent--and that is the limit of the copyright law of anyone copying their original design. The remedy to the public when the original design is not new is very simple. Go to the same source or go to the source that you find to be the old source and copy that, and you can not be held as an infringer under copyright law. That has been evolved as fundamental in copyright law that originality shall be the only test of validity and that copying shall be the only test of infringement.

Mr. RYAN. In view of the young lady's statement concerning Macy, and being a representative of Macy, I do not think I should let that pass without some comment. That may be a very good illustration of this very point of the difficulty of determining origin. Now, if Macy makes to the world a statement, you can rest assured that Macy made that in absolute good faith and in the belief that it was a Patou design and an adoption from it. It may be that this young lady and Patou had ideas which are the same, but certainly Macy in its representation, I can assure you, did it in absolute good faith; and it may be a good illustration of the difficulty of determining original and who was the originator of the design.

Mr. PERKINS. What Miss Pennypacker wants to bring about, as I understand, is the possibility of her putting her design in the copyright office so Macy won't make another mistake like that.

Mr. RYAN. Who made the mistake in this case? That is the very point. We do not know. Patou's design, Miss Pennypacker's design-whose design is it? Who is the one that has the right to claim that as original? We would like to be let out of it. We would like to have it determined in some authoritative way and by proper investigation before any responsibility is attached to us. I think this may be a very good illustration of the point in question.

Miss PENNYPACKER. I should like as an American designer to be able to be recognized as an American designer. I do not see why it

99330-3011

should be necessary for us to flourish under a French name. I bow to Patou. He is a magnificent designer. But at the same time why should not an American designer be recognized? In order to create the sale of the garment Patou's name is put on it. I can cite other instances of going to shops in New York and asking to see original French models, and they have brought out six gowns from my house, five of which I created and the other was created by the other designer. I have had that happen repeatedly. These gowns were sold to R. H. Macy & Co. by my own firm, so I happen to know it was the original design. It was not influenced by the showing of last fall. It was created before the French models came over. I do not care who manufactures my gowns, I want a royalty on them. I don't care who manufactures my jewelry, I want a royalty on it.

The CHAIRMAN. You wanted to be protected in the design.
Miss PENNYPACKER. I want to be protected; yes.

Miss BENDALARI. Mr. Chairman, may these indorsements and names of the organizations and individuals favoring this bill be embodied in the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; just the names.

(The names are as follows:)

National Association Furniture Manufacturers (Inc.), Chicago.
Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds, attorneys, New York.

Kem Weber (Inc.), Hollywood.

The Cranbrook Foundation, Cranbrook, Mich.

Lee Simonson, New York.

Izabel M. Coles, unique jewelry, New York.

Leontine H. Sanders, New York.

Helen R. Bainbridge, New York.

Winter Institute of Art and Technology, New York.

Secession (Ltd.), Chicago.

Robert E. Locher, New York.

National Association of Manufacturers, New York.

Art Alliance of America, New York.

Langdon Textile Co., New York.

Louis F. Hall & Co., New York, textiles.

Jacob S. Bernheimer & Bros., fabrics.

Albert H. Vandam Co. (Inc.), New York, fabrics.

Philadelphia School of Design for Women, Philadelphia.
Invincible Textile Co., New York.

Klein, Messner Co. (Inc.), converters, New York.
Associated Men's Neckwear Industries, New York.
American Institute of Graphic Arts, New York.
N. Fluegelman & Co. (Inc.), New York, textiles.
Bernard Bernstein Textile Co., New York.
Menke Kaufmann & Co., New York.
Dykeman, Loeb & Co., converters, Philadelphia.
Prince Lauten Corporation, New York, fabrics.
United Seenic Artists Local Union, New York.

Nessen Studio (Inc.), New York.

The Wool Institute, New York.

Devonshire Mills Co. (Inc.). New York.

Modelers and Sculptors of America, New York.

Flamingo Advertising Co., New. York.

The Schwarzenbach Huber Co., New York.

Mrs. F. N. Bendelari, president Joplin Art League, Joplin, Mo.

Edwin E. Berliner & Co., New York, converters.

Harrison & Harrison, New York.

Footwear Designers of America (Inc.), Brooklyn, N. Y.

Robinson & Golluber, New York, fabrics.

Arthur Beir & Co. (Inc.), New York, fabrics.