Mr. CURRIER. Then the bill, so far as you are concerned, would be satisfactory, would it not?

Mr. OGILVIE. Perfectly, with this provision: A copyright exists in this country in the name of Harper & Brothers, say. The English copyright belongs to John Smith. John Smith is the author of the book. He delegates to Harper & Brothers the right to copyright that book for him in this country and then prints that same book abroad, authorized, without a notice. The gentleman who said that it was impossible to cover those matters by contract tells you gentlemen that either because he thinks there is no publisher on this committee or because his lack of familiarity with making contracts with authors justifies him in making that remark. There is nothing in it. Mr. CURRIER. With that modification, then, you have no objection?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir; but there should also be some provision covering the point that if the foreign author does not copyright that book in his own name in this country, but delegates the undertaking to some one else, all authorized editions, whether by the American owner of the copyright or the foreign owner of the copyright, should contain that notice.

Senator LATIMER. How will you enforce that statute with the foreign author?

Mr. OGILVIE. By providing that if the foreign author does not insert the notice in his book neither he nor any other individual shall come into the courts of this country and ask for the maintenance of a copyright that does not exist according to the statute. If it is an unauthorized edition, of course there is no way to cover it.

Now, gentlemen, that it is necessary to make this bill perfectly clear is evidenced by the fact that one of the Harpers made an affidavit a short time ago in a copyright suit that they had on to the effect that he did not know of the circulation and sale in this country or the publication (now, I want to be perfectly fair about it—it was one of the two, either the circulation and sale or the publication in this country) of Blackwood's Magazine.

Senator LATIMER. I understood you to state that if the author in Great Britain, for instance, of a book should give the right to copyright in America, it can still be printed in Great Britain under another name; and that if you undertake to publish that book here, even if the copyright is not in the book, then you have infringed? Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir; the courts have so held.

Senator LATIMER. Now, what would you propose?

Mr. OGILVIE. I propose that irrespective of the title under which that book is copyrighted or printed, no matter by whom it is printed, if it is an authorized edition it should contain that notice of warning, unless you follow the English plan and leave out every notice. It is not material to me.

Gentlemen, I want to see a copyright bill passed that will protect every author in every right that he can possibly have. I own a great many copyrights myself, and I want to see them protected; but I do want to know what I am doing, so that I can not be held up.

Mr. CURRIER. Does not the modification I have suggested cover even the case you are talking about now?

Mr. OGILVIE. No, sir.

Mr. CURRIER. "Évery authorized edition, wherever published?"

66

Mr. OGILVIE. But it does not say who owns the copyright. Now, a man can come into the courts of this country and say, I Own a certain copyright. I did not authorize the publication of it." They have already said that.

Mr. CURRIER. But will not the words "wherever published, or by whom," cover your ground?

Mr. OGILVIE. No; because he will say, "The authorization applies only to me." That is what they have said, and the courts have upheld them.

Mr. CURRIER. Will you formulate an amendment and file it?
Mr. CHANEY. Yes; formulate an amendment and file it.

Mr. OGILVIE. I object to doing that offhand, for the reason that I suggested an amendment

Mr. CURRIER. Take your time. This bill is not going to be reported this week or next.

Mr. OGILVIE. I will formulate an amendment and send it to you. I hesitate about doing it now for the reason that I suggested an amendment some time ago, when I was here before, which, after consideration, I found was not sufficient to cover the point.

Mr. CURRIER. Take all the time you need.

The CHAIRMAN. How much time do you want?
Mr. OGILVIE. I have got to go very shortly.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean how much time do you want to file your amendment?

Mr. OGILVIE. Oh, I will do it within a week.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be all right.

Mr. CHANEY. That is good enough.

Mr. OGILVIE. Now, in regard to my statement that the English public objects to buying American books, or books with the American copyright notice, here is a contract, or a form of contract, prepared by Dean & Sons, of London, one of the conditions of which provides that back of the title page is to appear, in small type, Entered at Stationers' Hall; all rights reserved; copyrighted and printed in U. S. A.," leaving out the date and the name of the owner of the copyright; and that some of the American publishers have been foolish enough to do. I say "foolish enough" advisedly, because this is the "Foolish Dictionary." They did that. They left out the American copyright notice; and it has been done times without number.

There is another thing about the insertion of the notice in magazines. Judge Sanborn, of Wisconsin, recently made a decision in Chicago in which was contained this remarkably lucid statement:

If the notice of copyright is to be given in connection with each separate article published in a magazine, and not once for all contained in it, the language used to prescribe the duty of giving the notice is not well adapted to the object sought; for how is it possible to insert a notice on the title page, not of a periodical, but of an article? The latter may have a title, but hardly a title page, while the former has both.

The effect of that decision, if it were upheld, would be that if I publish a magazine

Mr. CURRIER. What section are you referring to now?

Mr. OGILVIE. The insertion of the notice.

Mr. CURRIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. OGILVIE. The effect of this particular decision on that require

ment is this: That if I publish the magazine and put the required notice on the back of my title page of the magazine, "Copyright, 1906, by George W. Ogilvie," and include in that magazine an article that was copyrighted in 1905 by John Smith, I can not legally put on the title-page of that article John Smith's copyright and have it a valid copyright. That is absolute foolishness, but that is the decision; and we are law governed, or judge governed, and not Congress governed, when it comes right down to the fine point. The enactment should be so perfectly clear that no judge should be able to twist it in that way.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman a question on this subject, as being vitally interested in the manufacturing clause of the law. I understood him to make the contention that in regard to an American copyrighted book, where the plates were made from type set within the United States, those same plates could be sent abroad to Canada or any other foreign port and an edition printed from them and allowed entry into the United States. Now, I understood that was the contention that he made; and I wish to ask him if that was the contention that he did make, and if he would feel warranted, as a publisher, in doing that, as I understood him to say?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes; you understood me correctly, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. In the case of an American copyrighted book, where the plates were made from type set within the borders of the United States, the plates could be sent over to Canada or to any other foreign port and an edition struck off from those same plates and imported in here, and they could not be prohibited entry? Mr. OGILVIE. That is correct. The Treasury Department has so ruled.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do not understand it that way.

Mr. OGILVIE. That is the Treasury Department's ruling.

Mr. SULLIVAN. If the gentleman, with the permission of the chair, will allow me to relate an incident, I think there is a representative from the Treasury Department here who will substantiate this statement. I would like to ask Mr. Ogilvie if he remembers the importation of a certain class of books into the port of San Francisco last year, imported from Japan, invoiced at 71 cents a copy-a standard series of American schoolbooks, which are now in use in our public schools? Those were printed, supposedly, from plates made within the United States and from type set within the United States.

The contention was made, I believe, that the plates were stolen and sent abroad. That edition was printed in Japan. The levelheaded collector at the port of San Francisco held the books up on account of the price at which they were invoiced. He knew that those books could not be put into the market at 74 cents per copy800 per cent cheaper than the American publisher puts them upon the market and he held them up on that ground. But as he looked the books through he found that they contained notice of American copyright. Now, this is an exact case of where you say the plates can be made from type set within the United States in the case of a copyrighted book, sent over to Canada or any other foreign port, an edition struck off and imported in here, and the Treasury can not prohibit it. They did prohibit the importation of those books,

and, so far as I have been able to learn, the books were not allowed entry here, but were sent back.

I believe that Mr. Ogilvie agrees with the spirit of the law absolutely, which seems to me to be the letter of the law, that in order to secure American copyright the work must be performed in the United States. That is the way we understand it-the typographers. Speaking officially for an organization of 50,000 people and others interested in the printing industry, we understand it absolutely in that way. Perhaps we are in the dark. I would like to ask Mr. Ogilvie if he makes that contention?

Mr. OGILVIE. I should dislike very much to set myself in opposition to 50,000 people; but I have the authority of the Treasury Department for making that statement, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. The law specifically states that in the case of an American copyright the manufacturing must be done in the United States.

Mr. OGILVIE. I beg your pardon.

Mr. SULLIVAN. If any part of that manufacturing in the case of those books is done in Japan, or in the case of a book where the plates were made in the United States from type set within the boundaries of the United States, if the plates were sent over to Canada, a part of the manufacturing was done outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.

Mr. OGILVIE. Mr. Sullivan, you are incorrect. The law does not say that the books shall be wholly made within the United States. It says they shall be printed from plates made from type set within the United States.

Mr. SULLIVAN. From plates made or from type set, or from plates made from type set?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir. Now, I say you can set your type in Niagara Falls, N. Y., and ship your type to Niagara Falls, Canada, and make a set of plates there and print your edition there and import it here, and the Treasury Department has ruled that you` could do so, even if 50,000 people are of a contrary opinion.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would like to ask, through the chair, an opinion from Mr. Montgomery, of the Treasury Department, on that point. Mr. MONTGOMERY. That statement is not altogether correct. You can have your book printed abroad from plates made or from type set in the United States; but you can not set the type over there and make the plates over there.

Mr. OGILVIE. I did not say that you could. I said you could set the type in Niagara Falls, N. Y.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The typesetting work must be done in the United States.

Mr. OGILVIE. That was my statement.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. We ruled-I wrote the letter myself that the plates might be sent over there, and the books printed abroad, but that the typesetting and the plates must be made in the United States.

Mr. OGILVIE. That was exactly what I said.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I go further than that. The point I wish to make is this: That as Mr. Ogilvie says, even where the plates are made and the type set in the United States, the manufacture or any

part of the manufacture of a book can not be done in Europe and an American copyright secured. That is our interpretation of the spirit of the law.

Mr. OGILVIE. Well, your interpretation is incorrect, Mr. Sullivan; and I will suggest this, if I may. I am not a member of a labor union. I do not know that I am altogether in sympathy with some of their desires, but I am with many of them; and I would suggest that you have incorporated into the proposed copyright law a provision making it necessary that because of the large market in the United States for foreign books no copyright should exist on any book the type for which was not set in the United States. That will help you out some.

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have tried, Mr. Chairman, to

Mr. CURRIER. I hope, Mr. Sullivan, that if there is any doubt about that you will take up this matter as to whether you will have the law so modified that not only must it be from type set within the United States, but the book must be printed in the United States. Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes; every part of the manufacturing.

The CHAIRMAN. Your fifteen minutes has expired, Mr. Ogilvie, although you have been much interrupted.

Mr. OGILVIE. I have been badly interrupted.

In regard to a contract with authors for the renewal of the copyright, the amendment that I suggested in June is impractical, for this reason: a concrete instance of it is this: Noah Webster's executor sold to the G. & C. Merriam Company the rights for an unexpired term of copyright in Webster's Dictionary. For it they paid $3,000. They had it for the balance of the term of twenty-eight years. My suggestion was that if the publisher wanted protection he should be given the privilege of continuing the publication on the payment of the same royalty during the life of the extension that he had during the original term. My suggestion will not apply, for the reason that they bought that right from the executor of Noah Webster (and it might apply in hundreds of other cases), and they paid no royalty. Therefore the author, under those circumstances, or his widow or children would be unable to secure a copyright unless the publisher joined with them, and the publisher would not be obligated to pay any royalty at all.

Mr. CURRIER. No renewals are provided for in this bill, are they? Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURRIER. In the case of a copyright of a book?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir; but the author's widow and children can only get a renewal if the publisher joins with them.

Mr. CURRIER. It gives a copyright for life and fifty years.

Mr. OGILVIE. The bill covers that point.

The REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS. Section 19 deals with the extension of existing copyright.

Mr. CURRIER. Oh, yes-extension of existing copyright. I thought you spoke about future copyrights.

Mr. OGILVIE. Another point that I want to make is about the damage system. It is purely a one-sided proposition. This law will simply result in a legalized system of blackmail-nothing more or less. There is no provision here

Mr. CURRIER. What law?

Mr. OGILVIE. The proposed law.