« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
of the book, the owner of the manuscript, desires to secure to himself the copyright granted by the statute, he must comply with the terms of the statute. That is the only possible way in which he can get copyright—by complying with the terms of the statute. The statute says he shall do so and so. If he desires to secure copyright he may secure it, but if he wants to get it he shall do so and so; he shall put a notice on his book; he shall print his book within the United States; he shall bring his copy within thirty days, or, if for any reason he can not do that, within twelve months. He must put his notice on all his copies.
Those are the conditions of copyright. Those are the conditions prescribed by the statute by which the estate of copyright may be created so that it will be protected by the courts.
These are express statutory provisions by which the estate is created; and the absence of a compliance with those things and all of them would necessarily be a good defense in any suit that may be brought for infringement of copyright.
Section 13 relates to the printing of books in the United States. Congress has seen fit to incorporate that clause and others in the present copyright law; and it is, therefore, a part of the present bill. It is not properly there from a legal standpoint. It has no proper place in the copyright bill. It is a tariff measure. Whatever virtue may lie in it, it is all right; I do not object to it as a tariff regulation; but it ought to be in a tariff bill, and it has no business in a copyright bill. It is there, however; it is in the present law; and I do not know that the committee has any desire or any intention to take it out. But from a legal standpoint it has no proper place, no logical place, in a copyright bill.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Steuart one question, realizing his eminent legal ability, that was brought up by the arguments advanced here yesterday by Mr. Ogilvie, in which he stated that in the case of an American copyrighted book, where the type had been set within the boundaries of the United States, he could then take the type over to Canada and make plates there and have the book printed from the plates. He further stated that the Treasury had passed upon that matter, and had allowed those books importation.
I would like to ask Mr. Steuart if, in his judgment, the court would construe section 13 in this bill we are considering, where it reads, starting on line 5, “ The aid of any kind of typesetting machine, or from plates made from type set within the limits of the United States”—if the court would construe that the plates, according to this language here, should be made within the limits of the United States, and if he does not believe that the court would construe from this absolute language here that the plates should be made in the United States, or that all that would be necessary would be to set the type within the boundaries of the United States and have the plates made in Canada?
Mr. CURRIER. What are you reading from, Mr. Sullivan, please? Mr. CHANEY. He is reading from section 13 of the bill.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Section 13. I wish to ask whether the addition in the sixth line, after “made," of the four words in the United States," so that it would read, “the aid of any kind of typesetting machine,
or from plates made in the United States from type set within the limits of the United States”-whether that would not preclude the possibility of the plates being made abroad, the book printed abroad and allowed entry here?
Mr. STEUART. Certainly; if those words were included, there could not be any doubt about the meaning of the section.
Mr. CURRIER. But it still could be printed abroad, could it not? Suppose it was amended as Mr. Sullivan suggests; then the type must be set and the plates must be made in the United States, but they could still take the plates abroad and print them abroad!
Mr. SULLIVAN. They could perform the other portion of the manufacture of the work abroad; that has been decided by the Treasury Department, and the books haye been allowed to come in.
Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Sullivan, you desire, do you not, in addition to having the type set and the plates made in the United States that the books should be printed in the United States—that the presswork should be done here?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the entire manufacture of these books should be done here; but I am only here officially designated to speak for 50,000 compositors—typographers. For some other interests I intend, with your permission, to bring up that matter in about five minutes this afternoon. That is all the time I desire.
Mr. STEUART. Now, with reference to the question of term, I think it is altogether with the committee. The question as to how long the copyright ought to cover is a question which the committee will decide after hearing everything and everybody. The present term of forty-two years is a good, long term. It is proposed to make it Jonger. The term in England has been made longer, and there does not seem to be any especially good reason why it should not be made longer. At the time that the English act was passed there were some proceedings before Parliament, and I would like to read for your amusement only a short letter of a few lines from Mr. Thomas Carlyle, which helped to increase the term of the English act.
Mr. BONYNGE. What is the term in England, Mr. Steuart?
Mr. GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM. It is forty-two years from the date of publication, or for the life of the author and seven years thereafter, whichever term may prove to be the longer for that particular book.
Mr. STEUART. Mr. Carlyle, in writing to Parliament on this subject, says:
Your petitioner has written certain books, being incited thereto by certain innocent and laudable considerations; but his labors have found hitherto, in money or money's worth, small compensation or none. But he thinks that if ever it is so it will be at some distant time when he, the laborer, will probiably be no longer in need of money and those dear to him will still be in need of it. Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays your honorable house to prohibit extraneous persons, entirely unconcerned in this adventure of his, to steal from him his small winnings for a space of sixty years at the shortest. After sixty years, unless your honorable house provides otherwise, they may begin to steal.
(The following papers are, by direction of the committee, printed as part of the record:)
STATEMENT OF GEORGE P. TILTON, OF THE TOWLE MANUFAC
TURING COMPANY, OF NEWBURYPORT, MASS.
Mr. Tilton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there is a vital need of some form of protection for manufactured products of an artistic character which is not afforded by the present copyright law and which it is difficult to obtain through the Patent Office (which is now the only means of such protection), and which when thus obtained is of extremely limited duration and often absurdly inadequate in its specifications.
A patent can be secured on a design by the description of that design and a description in terms of certain corelations which, apart from the accompanying drawing, convey no idea of the aspect of the structure so described. Of course this covers the vital elements of mechanical design. It does not cover nor even approach the essentials of an artistic design, in which the indescribable qualities which appeal to the eye constitute the whole value of the work.
Now, these indefinable elements are protected in the case of certain recognized works of art by copyright. A statue, painting, photograph, or print can be copyrighted and protected for a long term absolutely to the proprietor. In this there is of course no hint of verbal description, which merely confuses the impression. The cost of such a copyright is nominal; the cost of a patent is excessive.
The trouble of securing a copyright is little, the trouble of securing a patent is much, and often it is impossible to secure a patent on something which is obviously individual in effect, because the technical structural description interferes with the technical and structural description of some other thing which is entirely and indisputably different and in no way conflicts with the thing which it is later sought to patent.
If the present patent and copyright laws were based on an intent to distinguish and discriminate between products of commercial manufacture and the work of the solitary artist with limited production, the development of methods and processes has entirely confuted this principle and frustrated the intention. A photograph, for instance, is manufactured in great quantities, a printed book is manufactured in great quantities. If we have a design to imprint on silver we must patent it if we would have any protection. In one case it is run through a printing press and is produced on paper; in the other case it is put under a drop hammer or hydraulic press and imprinted on silver.
We believe that there is a very great need of a new classification in the copyright provisions that will provide adequate long-term and moderate-priced protection to articles whose distinct character is the result of visual or artistic appreciation.
As a matter of interest in connection with the present copyright law and its workings, I take the liberty personally to call your attention to what seems to me a flagrant evasion. Many articles of silverware are now and are constantly being put on the market by reputable manufacturers stamped “copyrighted.” The copyright
law prohibits, in terms, the copyrighting of such manufactured articles. The means by which this is made to seem logical to the producers is as follows: The law permits the copyrighting of photographs; it prohibits the unauthorized production in any form of a photograph so copyrighted; photographs of the article which is subsequently stamped “copyrighted are lawfully copyrighted, which therefore secures to the owner of that article protection from imitation by others. But it seems to me that he exceeds his authority when he stamps an imitation, even though produced under his own supervision, with the word “copyrighted,” because the thing manufactured is not copyrighted, and the law provides a penalty for every article which is not copyrighted and which is stamped copyrighted."
This method, so far as my knowledge goes, was devised by a certain lawyer in New York about fifteen years ago. Soon after that time, owing to his representations, a manufacturer with whom I was connected used this, but on the strength of my representations of its dishonesty it was soon discontinued. If I am right in my deductions, there is now a premium on evasion of the present law and those who would regard that law are without any protection under it. AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION,
New York, December 6, 1906. To the Senate and House Committees on Patents:
The American Newspaper Publishers' Association earnestly protests against all proposed changes in the law affecting the copyright of photographs, and especially it protests against amendments which in effect increase the already excessive penalties for the infringement, unintentional or willful, of photographic copyright.
This association respectfully represents that injustice is done (1) by giving to the mechanical maker of a kodak snap shot the same protection that is given to the author of a literary, artistic, or musical composition; (2) by treating the imperfect reproduction or imitation in a newspaper of a copyrighted photograph as causing every copy of the offending issue to become in the eyes of the law an infringing, damage-producing copy of such photograph, subject to penalty of not less than $1 for every such copy and to other punishment; and (3) by failing to recognize that newspaper reprints of photographs are not such reproductions as can be substituted in sales for the originals, and that instead of inflicting injury by reducing sales they often tend to advertise and to increase the sales of the original photographs.
THEODORE W. NOYES,
JNO. STEWART BRYAN, L. D.,
WASHINGTON, D. C., December 14, 1906. To the Senate and House Committees on Patents:
Following its protest of December 6 against proposed changes in the law of copyright affecting photographs, the American Newspaper Publishers' Association urges that if any alteration of the photographic copyright law is made, the following amendment be inserted in Senate bill 6330 either at the end of section 23 (b) fourth or other appropriate place :
“ Provided, however, That the reproduction of a photograph in any newspaper by the process known as stereotyping shall not be construed as an infringement of the copyright of such photograph.”
THEODORE W. NOYES,
JNO. STEWART BRYAN,
PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY,
New York, December 6, 1906. To the Senate and House Committees on Patents:
The Publishers' Association of New York City respectfully protests against any changes being made in the copyright law as it stands at present in so far as such proposed changes relate to increased penalties for infringement of photographs, and respectfully requests that the copyright laws relating to photographs and their infringement, as well as penalties, remain unchanged.
PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY,
FROMME BROTHERS, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW,
New York, December 6, 1906. Hon. FRANK D. CURRIER,
Chairman Committee on Patents, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As I am unable to be present at the hearing which will take place before your committee to-morrow and Saturday, I beg to call your attention to several outrageously pernicious clauses in the “ Bill to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright,” now pending before your committee.
It seems that at the conference held before this bill. was submitted to Congress only the parties in whose favor the bill was drawn were invited to the conference, and that not a single person interested adversely to the legislation was invited to attend the conference, and that they were purposely kept in ignorance of what the conference was doing. It certainly was most extraordinary that the conference which advised Mr. Putnam adopted such radical legislation as is proposed in different sections of the bill without inviting any person whose business it would affect very adversely.
I represent Fred N. Innes, musical director of Innes's Band, of Chicago, Ill., and a number of musical and vocal societies throughout the United States; and while the proposed copyright bill pending before you has many objectionable features affecting the interests of my clients, as well as other interests, I will simply point out to you a few of the objectionable features of the bill affecting the interests I represent.
For instance, on the first page, in paragraph f in the first section of the proposed copyright bill now pending before your committee, you will see the word
arrangement” used. This is a very ingenious word that has been sneaked into this paragraph, and if the act is passed with this paragraph as it stands, this word “arrangement” (which means an orchestral arrangement, or the musical parts from which an orchestra would play an accompaniment to any of the various musical pieces that any of the public might wish to sing) if allowed to stand as it is, would have the effect of penalizing a vast portion of the people of the United States, and would affect the members of the church choirs of all churches and the organists, and the members of the local orchestra and military bands, both amateur and professional, musical directors and members of all vocal societies, and their musical directors, the professors and teachers of music in the public schools throughout the United States, and school children in the various schools, all public singers, vaudeville performers, serio-comic singers, stage managers of all opera companies, orchestra leaders and the orchestra playing under them for the following reason : Paragraph f in the first section of the copyright bill now before your committee gives the sole right to the publisher of any musical composition to make any orchestral arrangement, and section 25 threatens with imprisonment any of the above mentioned who should make an orchestral arrangement of any song, duet, cantata, mass, oratorio, octavo chorus, church anthems, te Deums, hymns, and in fact anything that is sung by any of the people of the United States.
For the last six hundred years it has been the custom of church choirs throughout the world to give a special service on Christmas, Easter Sunday, and other festival days throughout the year, and in order to give effect to the religious services above mentioned, the local orchestras of the towns in which the services are given have generally been employed to perform with the organ to accompany the singers in the praise of God. Now, these orchestral arrange