Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 12

Mr. CHANEY. You are really talking against your own interests as a publisher just now?

Mr. OGILVIE. I am, absolutely, talking against my interests as a publisher.

Mr. SULZER. Do you contend that this provision would apply where the publisher had no interest in the publication beyond the ordinary time of copyright?

Mr. OGILVIE. That is all; it shall apply only to that case.

Mr. SULZER. I construe this provision in here to be just what you say.

Mr. OGILVIE. No; I read it differently from the way you do, and place a different construction upon it. We will again refer to it and see if I am wrong. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be put right, and if you are wrong, I know that you will be glad to be put right.

Mr. SULZER. It says here unless the a.s.signee or licensee shall join in the application. If a man is an a.s.signee or licensee he has an interest in the copyright.

Mr. OGILVIE. He takes it for the time limit only.

Mr. SULZER. If he is not he has no interest, and would not have to join with the widow or children in this application for an extension of the copyright.

Mr. OGILVIE. But if he is the a.s.signee or licensee then he is interested in it only during the life of the copyright.

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

Mr. HINSHAW. How could the licensee have any interest in the copyright beyond the life of it?

Mr. SULZER. He would have an interest in it so far as it could be extended.

Mr. OGILVIE. Why should he?

Mr. BONYNGE. He has not. There is no provision now for the extension, and he would not have, except as he might get it under this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL. He would provide for that in his contract.

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes. Leave it out of the law.

Mr. CAMPBELL. When the a.s.signment was made, he would provide for all extensions.

Mr. OGILVIE. That is right.

Mr. HINSHAW. Are these contracts for royalty made to include a possible extension of the copyright?

Mr. OGILVIE. Not generally; because the author may be dead when the time for the renewal comes.

Mr. CURRIER. But it can be renewed then by his widow.

Mr. OGILVIE. But they do not do it generally.

Mr. CURRIER. I should suppose that in almost all cases under the existing law they would get a renewal.

Mr. OGILVIE. They do at times, but not often.

Mr. SULZER. I think I understand what you mean, and that is this: That where there is no subsisting contract, then that the publisher shall not join----

Mr. OGILVIE. The publishers shall not be required to join.

Mr. SULZER (continuing). In the application for the renewal of the copyright?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes. As this is, it makes it impossible for the author or his widow or children to secure the extension of the copyright without the licensee joining. Then he has it in his power to diminish the royalty paid to suit his own purpose.

Mr. CAMPBELL. If the contract for the copyright does not provide as between the author and the publisher for any renewal, what position would you be in then?

Mr. OGILVIE. According to this law it is impossible to get a renewal unless the licensee joins in the request.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The license expires----

Mr. OGILVIE. But the license does not expire until after the copyright expires.

Mr. CAMPBELL. What is the length of your contract that you usually make?

Mr. OGILVIE. This is a new provision entirely.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Under the old law, I mean?

Mr. OGILVIE. Under the old law it usually lasts as long as the copyright lasts.

Mr. CHANEY. You suggest that we leave out this last proviso absolutely?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BONYNGE. Not to leave it out absolutely----

Mr. OGILVIE. I think it should be left out altogether. It is wholly unfair to an author. I can see no reason why the publisher should have any right of that kind. The Const.i.tution grants the right to an author, and if the publisher desires to secure those rights that is a matter of contract. Let him make a contract covering that point.

Mr. HINSHAW. If the copyright had been a.s.signed, the original proprietor would have lost all interest in the copyright; would he not?

Mr. OGILVIE. The party who now takes a copyright takes it with the understanding that it shall expire at a certain time; and then he is in no better position and no worse than any other publisher who has not had a contract with the author.

Mr. CHANEY. Suppose your contracts under this bill, should it become a law, should provide for the life of the copyright, together with any extensions thereof--then what would you say as to the proviso?

Mr. OGILVIE. Suppose the bill should provide for the life of the contract, together with any extension thereof?

Mr. CHANEY. Suppose under this bill, should it become a law, your contracts with the author should provide for the license and a.s.signment to extend the copyright during its life and all extensions thereof?

Mr. OGILVIE. If the author wishes to make a contract of that sort, that is the author's business; but let the author thoroughly understand what he is doing. As it is here, the author may think he is ent.i.tled to the license for a renewal term, whereas he finds the publisher has it wholly within his hands. The publisher is not ent.i.tled to it; it is not his.

Mr. SULZER. After all, it resolves itself down to a mere question of contract?

Mr. OGILVIE. Yes; but this eliminates the necessity for making a contract, because this gives certain people rights.

Mr. SULZER. Only where there is a subsisting contract, however.