Lapas attēli

I can have it done for, say, 50 per cent of what it costs me here, and then import it at a duty of 25 per cent on the cost of producing there, am I to be permitted to leave out the American copyright notice and sell it in this country simply because it was printed abroad, and thus get other publishers in trouble who may unwittingly infringe, or wittingly, if you choose? I think not.

Mr. BONYNGE. What purpose is gained by omitting the notice of copyright?

Mr. OGILVIE. It is a sop thrown to the British public, who refuse to buy American books unless they are forced down their throats. [Laughter.] Now, I speak knowingly. Mr. Scott can laugh if he chooses, but I have been in business as a publisher in Great Britain, in London, and it was essential that I, because of my American pronunciation, should sit in the back office and have an Englishman represent me in the front office. [Laughter.] Now, these gentlemen can smile if they want to. My experience is not limited to Chicago, Mr. Scott, nor is it limited to New York. [Laughter.]

Mr. JohnSON. Pardon me; I am not Mr. Scott; I am Mr. Johnson.

Mr. OGILVIE. Well, Mr. Johnson, then, or what happened to him. [Laughter.] The difficulties with which certain publishers have to contend in this country will be illustrated by the presentation to this committee of a copy of Webster's Brief İnternational Dictionary. That is published in Great Britain with a title differing from that under which it is published in this country. The Copyright Office shows no entry of copyright, and yet a court has held that there is a valid copyright on that book. The first court held that there was not.

Mr. BONYNGE. Where was this book printed ? Mr. OGILVIE. It was printed in Great Britain, from American plates.

Mr. CURRIER. Was that because that identical book, with the single exception of the title, had been copyrighted abroad?

Mr. OGILVIE. No, sir; it was because a certain portion of that book-not all of it, but a certain portion of that book—was copyrighted in this book, Webster's High School Dictionary, in the United States; and certain of the plates were shipped abroad under contract from the owner of the American copyright, one of the provisions specifically providing that the American copyright notice should be eliminated from the foreign edition.

Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Ogilvie, suppose you had unwittingly begun to reproduce that book under this bill. Could you not go right on?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir; but what is the use of having that “ unwittingly” proposition in there? Is not the man's copyright violated ?

Mr. CURRIER. Would you invalidate a copyright because the publisher failed to attach the copyright notice to a single copy?

Mr. OGILVIE. No, sir; I would not if it were unwittingly done.
Mr. CURRIER. What would you do?

Mr. OGILVIE. Why, I would do just as the courts already have done that if it were unwittingly done, or left out under a misapprehension, there should be no damages collected from the man who infringed that copyright, but that he should discontinue the infringement.

Mr. BONYNGE. What section of the bill are you referring to?
Mr. OGILVIE. I regret to say that my copy of the bill is lost.

Mr. CURRIER. The bill provides that the omission must be by inadvertence. That provision is contained in section 15.

Mr. OGILVIE. But if he knows that it was done by contract and the courts uphold the copyright on that particular book

Mr. CURRIER. I know; but you are speaking about existing law. Suppose this bill is adopted-just turn to page 12, line 14.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 15. Mr. CURRIER. Yes; section 15. Mr. OGILVIE. Which portion of it, Mr. Currier, may I ask? Mr. CURRIER. Beginning at the last word in line 13, on page 12: Its omission by inadvertence from a particular copy or copies, though preventing recourse against an innocent infringer without notice, shall not invalidate the copyright nor prevent recovery for infringement against any person who after actual notification of the copyright begins an undertaking to infringe it.

Mr. OGILVIE. I am in absolute sympathy with that portion of the bill—unqualifiedly.

Mr. CURRIER. Now, what amendment do you suggest to that provision that will give you the further protection you say you need?

Mr. OGILVIE. I say that that particular section is all right in its intent and purpose, but where such a book as this is published under different titles, even then the copyright law should require that every copy should contain that notice, unless it was omitted by inadvertence; and irrespective of the place of publication every copy should contain that notice.

Mr. CURRIER. That is what you would suggest ?
Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir.

Senator MALLORY. What would you do in the event that the provision of the law as you proposed to have it was ignored-forfeit the right? Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir; decidedly so. Senator MALLORY. Then the statute ought to say so.

Mr. OGILVIE. I think so, too. If it is done without inadvertence, the copyright should be forfeited—unqualifiedly so. It may be done for the purpose of making it public property. A man might have a book that he desired to have a very large circulation

Mr. CHANEY. There is what the point would be. What words would you change there! It is the fifteenth section, is it not? What words would you change?

Mr. OGILVIE. I should say, not where he has sought to comply with it, but where he has complied with it, and the notice has been duly affixed to each copy of the edition published, that its omission by inadvertence from a particular copy or copies should not invalidate it. The scope is entirely too wide there. The bulk of the edition published might be the bulk of the first edition, and it might be a small edition, and the next one might be very large, and you would have no notice.

Mr. CURRIER. There is very little change there, then? Mr. OGILVIE. Very little. Mr. CURRIER. You simply propose leaving out where it had been duly affixed to the bulk of the edition,” and providing that where it had been omitted by inadvertence from a particular copy or copies it should not be invalidated ?

Mr. OGILVIE. I should prefer to have it read “ duly affixed to each copy of all editions published.”

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

Mr. CURRIER. Then the words following would be absolutely inconsistent?

Mr. OGILVIE. Excepting

Mr. CURRIER. Excepting where omitted from a particular copy or copies?

Mr. OGILVIE. Inadvertently.
Mr. CURRIER. By inadvertence.
Mr. CHANEY. Yes.

Mr. OGILVIE. And that the provision should carry with it the requirement for the insertion of the copyright notice in every copy published, wherever published—here, or in South Africa, or elsewhere.

Some gentlemen have suggested that the insertion of the American copyright notice in foreign editions of American copyright books was a hardship. I do not see that it is any particular hardship. There is a copy of“ Coniston,” Winston Churchill's last work, which contains a notice that it was printed in Great Britain an English copy.

Mr. CURRIER. That contains notice of copyright?
Mr. OGILVIE. That contains the American notice of copyright.
Mr. BONYNGE. “Copyright, 1906, by the Macmillan company.'
Mr. OGILVIE. Now, some gentlemen have suggested that the word

copyright” means that it might be copyrighted in Timbuktu or elsewhere. The only countries I know anything about (and I think I am familiar with some of them) do not require the same phraseology that the United States copyright law does. There can be no question on the part of any publisher who sees a copyright notice as to what country that book is copyrighted in.

Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Johnson, what hardship would it impose upon the publishers if you were required to attach the copyright notice to your editions wherever published?

Mr. JOHNSON. None whatever, except that it is impossible to control what is done on the other side.

Mr. CURRIER. Well, you have an English copyright. You also own the English copyright, do you not?

Mr. JOHNSON. The English copyright differs, as I understand, from ours.

There is an entry at Stationers' Hall; the books are entered in Stationers' Hall.


Mr. Johnson. But there is no such copyright notice as we place upon the book. I myself minimize Mr. Ogilvie's objection; I think it is one that could be easily overcome if it were important. But in the instance which he gives, it seems to me to be making a case for the law to afford opportunities for the easy republication of books which are thoroughly well known in this country. “Lovey Mary” sold to the extent of 300,000 copies in this country. It is reprinted in England. Nobody in this country has any idea that “ Lovey Mary is of English origin; and it ought to be in the public domain as far as copyright is concerned. Most books that are reprinted in foreign countries are reprinted because they are popular in this country. There may be some exceptions to that, and I think that all the publishers would feel inclined to take extra precaution to make sure that the copyright notice was affixed. I do not see any particular hardship about it; but I hope Mr. Ogilvie does not mean to say that there

[ocr errors]

was any intentional omission of the copyright notice. It simply is not the custom of the English publishers, and it takes them a little while, under our copyright exactions, to get accustomed to it,just as the French publishers, although they know that under our copyright law, by simply announcing the fact, a French book may be copyrighted here for one year, they do not do so, and they lose their copyright here. It is a matter of custom among the publishers which, after a little while, will be adjusted. I do not consider that there is any moral question involved in it.

Mr. OGILVIE. Mr. Johnson's statement that it is not the custom to insert the notice is subject to modification, as evidenced by the production of “ Coniston” with that notice.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not want-
Mr. OGILVIE. Pardon me, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do not want to take Mr. Ogilvie's time
Mr. OGILVIE. Well, I really wish you would not, because I have an

engagement over at the Capitol in a few moments.

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly.
Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Johnson did not break in except at my request.

Mr. OGILVIE. I beg pardon, but I have an appointment at noon, and I can not miss it. I do not want to be rude about it.

Mr. CURRIER. That is all right.

Mr. OGILVIE. That the requirement for the insertion of the notice is absolutely essential is evidenced in this particular instance when the courts have maintained the copyright on this book, for the reason that the contract between the publishers of this book in America and the publishers of the same book in Great Britain specifically provides that there shall be no liability attached to the American publisher for infringement of copyrights in Great Britain because of matter contained in this particular book, showing that it is the custom of every publisher in America, the Century Company or anyone elsethey have done it along with others, Harper and everyone else to take from noncopyright books—that is, books that are published without a copyright mark—certain material for use in the compilation of encyclopedias, dictionaries, or anything else of that sort. And it is essential for the protection of an American who publishes a book of that sort that the requirement should exist. It is perfectly fair to the owner of the copyright that his material should not be used, and it is equally fair to the man who has used some of it without knowing that he was doing it not to be held up: I have pub. lished, for instance, a large dictionary, an unabridged dictionary of the English language. We used in its preparation books from all over the world. We used none without permission that had American copyright notices in them, and those that did not have we used freely.

Mr. CURRIER. But, Mr. Ogilvie, may I ask just one question?

Mr. CURRIER. Suppose that the American proprietor of the copyright has not secured any rights in England, or somebody infringes over there, and they go to publishing, being protected by copyright here, in England, of course without attaching any notice? Mr. OGILVIE. I am talking about authorized editions only. Mr. CURRIER. What would you say then?

Mr. OGILVIE. He has got to take his chances; but why make him take any more chances than necessary?

Mr. ČURRIER. But you would not tħink that you could appropriate that here?

Mr. OGILVIE. Why, certainly not. But why make him take any more chances than necessary? He has got to take enough. The pirates are not confined to America, by any manner of means. Great Britain is full of them, from Southampton to Lands End.

Mr. HINSHAW. Is it your notion that if a book copyrighted in this country is published abroad and imported here it can not be sold, or that its copyright may be void, may be forfeited here, by reason of the attempt to sell it in this country?

Mr. OGILVIE. No, sir. I say that an American copyright book can be printed abroad under the present law, and the Treasury Department has ruled that there is no prohibition of the importation of American copyright books that are printed abroad from plates made in this country. Now, then, if you take your plates abroad, and, because you print them abroad, leave out the American copyright notice, and bring your book into this country, are you entitled to a copyright? You have clearly violated the provisions of the statute; and yet the court upholds exactly that condition. I claim that it is essential that the language of this statute should be perfectly clear, for the reason that I am reading now from a decision in a copyright case—“ we do not believe that Congress intended to have their enactment interpreted to such an absurdity." Where they get an opportunity to be absurd themselves, they make Congress absurd; and it is absolutely necessary that there should be clearness of statement, and, if possible, avoid litigation, which this bill does not do. This bill as it stands to-day will be the greatest litigation producer in the way of copyrights that the country has ever seen.

I produce another book here—“ Letters from a Son to his Selfmade Father ”—published in Great Britain, with an American copyright notice.

Another book_“ Letters from a Self-made Merchant to his Son ”—printed in Great Britain, without an American copyright notice; also the same book printed in this country with an American copyright notice.

I have here two books—“My Friend, the Chauffeur,” by C. N. and A. M. Williamson, published in Great Britain, without any American copyright notice; also the Canadian edition of the same book, published in Canada, with a Canadian copyright notice and no American copyright notice. What is a man going to do? He does not know where he stands on the thing at all; he can not tell anything about it. Make the provision perfectly clear, and then let us live up to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ogilvie, I think the committee thoroughly understands your proposition.

Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Ogilvie, I take it that you would be satisfied if this bill was amended to provide that the notice should be duly affixed to every copy of every authorized edition, wherever published, except when omitted by inadvertence from a particular copy or copies?


« iepriekšējāTurpināt »