Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 44

WAs.h.i.+NGTON, D.C., _June 8, 1906_.

The JOINT COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, _United States Senate and House of Representatives_.

GENTLEMEN: On behalf of the Photographers' Copyright League of America, having partic.i.p.ated in the conferences called by the Librarian of Congress upon the subject of a new copyright law, we beg to say that we give our hearty a.s.sent to the principles of the bill as proposed. Of course, there are minor matters which might have been otherwise drafted by us, but we as cheerfully surrender such particular items, as did many other interests represented at the conference.

Copyright legislation has for its basic principle the protection of the property of the copyright owner, and though remedies for damage are manifestly necessary, prevention of injury is the matter of highest importance to the copyright owner. Legislation which acts as a deterrent is the active principle of protection prescribed by the Const.i.tution. For these reasons we believe the pending bill has been framed upon logical and consistent lines which, if enacted into legislation, will doubtless form precedent for other countries.

Very respectfully,

PHOTOGRAPHERS' COPYRIGHT LEAGUE OF AMERICA.

B. T. FALK, _President_.

PIRIE MACDONALD, _Delegate_.

HORACE PETt.i.t LAW OFFICES, _Philadelphia, June 1, 1906_.

HERBERT PUTNAM, Esq., _Librarian of Congress_, _Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C._

DEAR SIR: Referring to the proposed bill to amend and consolidate the act respecting copyright, a copy of which has been handed me, with your circular letter regarding suggestions, I would say that I would propose that the following clause be added continuously to the end of section 3:

"_And provided_, That nothing herein contained shall apply to sound records made or to be pressed from dies or matrices manufactured prior to the pa.s.sage of this act."

That the following be added to section 18, paragraph (_b_), line 7, of said paragraph, between the word "composition" and the word "any," viz, "including any talking-machine record."

The amendment to section 3 is mainly designed to protect talking-machine manufacturers who have invested very large sums of money in records and in dies or matrices for pressing the same, many of which contain musical compositions the notation of which has been copyrighted, but which under existing laws these records do not in any manner infringe. To now take away the right to use these matrices and records, into which so much money has been put, would be very unjust and inequitable and work a great hards.h.i.+p upon the talking-machine manufacturers--that is, if my reading and understanding of this bill is correct. This would tie up a very large amount of capital, and place the talking-machine record manufacturers at the mercy of the owners of subsisting copyrights.

The object of the amendment to section 18, paragraph (_b_), is to relieve any doubt that records containing the characteristic articulation of the human voice, or the characteristic instrumentation by a performer, adapted for reproducing these characteristic utterances and performances to the ear are intended to be included as copyrightable matter under section 4 of this bill.

I think there will be no question but that the particular characteristic utterances of a singer, or recitationist, or of an actor, or of an orator, or the particular instrumentation of a pianist, or leader of an orchestra, etc., independent of the composition itself, whether it is copyrighted or not, should be equally ent.i.tled to protection, as a photograph or reproduction of a work of art.

It matters not whether the subject-matter of the record is otherwise copyrightable or not. If the piece played is copyrighted as a musical composition, it can not be reproduced on a sound record, in accordance with the bill, without the permission of the composer. A Paderewski, however, may play the copyrighted selection, and a record of his rendition of it, with all his personality and individuality thrown into the piece, should be ent.i.tled to a copyright on a sound record for reproducing purposes.

This is true also of the voice of a Caruso or a Melba singing either a copyrighted or uncopyrighted piece. It is true also, as a further ill.u.s.tration, of the recitation by Henry Irving of "Eugene Aramas' Dream." What is here copyrighted in these records is the individuality and personality of the rendition by the performer.

It is the picture of the voice, or of the instrumentation, as, for instance, a copyrighted photograph is a picture of a person or thing.

Should another performer play the same piece played by a Paderewski the personality of Paderewski would be absolutely wanting, and the same difference between the two performances of the same composition would be in the respective sound records as would exist at the actual performance of the respective pieces.

The same differences between Caruso's rendition of a selection from Rigoletto and a concert hall singer's rendition of the same would exist in the sound record and the reproduction therefrom as would exist in the actual singing of the selection. This is true regarding personality of every voice and instrumentation recorded.

So-called talking-machine records in this respect differ quite materially from the mechanical organ and piano, for the reason that a so-called talking-machine record is an exact record of all the modulations, and all the characteristic articulations of the voice, as well as of all the characteristics of an instrumentation. In other words, it is an exact picture of all the merits and demerits of the original, and the original is reproduced with an exactness so that frequently, at a distance, in the present perfected state of the art, the reproduction may very well be mistaken for the original.

This record of the voice and instrumentation for sound reproducing is an art which was not commercially available, or perfected, when the earlier copyright laws were pa.s.sed, and therefore were not included. It is doubtless the intention of the framers of this bill to include such sound records as copyrightable matter, but in order to relieve the bill from any doubt it may properly be expressed in this section as I suggest.

Hoping that this will meet with your approval, I remain,

Yours, very truly,

HORACE PETt.i.t.

THE PLAYWRIGHTS LEAGUE CLUB, _New York, N.Y., June 2, 1906_.

LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, _Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C._

DEAR SIR: We are in receipt of your favor of the 31st ultimo, with copy of proposed copyright law. After careful consideration the provisions of this law seem admirably suited to the purposes, and its framers deserve great commendation.

As circ.u.mstances do not permit my attendance at the hearings, I would consider it a favor if you would read this letter to the committee, if not all of it, then the portions which may not be referred to at the hearing, should anything herein referred to fail to be considered. The latter paragraphs of the letter are especially brought to your attention.

In section 1, subdivision C, provision is made for the protection of an "oral delivery" which has been prepared. Would it not be well to specifically allow a speaker to announce at the conclusion of an extemporaneous address his intention of copyrighting it, not permitting this announcement, however, to interfere with the liberty of the press in reporting portions of it?

Section 9 directs that notice of copyright shall be given at each public delivery of a lecture or similar work. Does "similar work"

include dramatic composition? Is the proposed notice to be given orally, or by publication on a programme, if there is a programme?

It would seem that in the case of a dramatic composition theatrical managers should be compelled by law to print on each programme copyright notice of the play or plays produced, being allowed, where there is no programme, to announce it orally.

It would also seem important that in the case of a dramatic composition publicly acted in foreign countries notice of copyright in the United States, together with legal t.i.tle of the work in English, be printed on the programmes, as well as on the ma.n.u.script copies of the play. This would serve as a notice against translators, who otherwise would have great difficulty in finding out whether a foreign play had been copyrighted here, since the name of the play or its English equivalent rather, would be very uncertain. Does the new law specifically require all t.i.tles to be also in English?

Does the law provide for the registration of the t.i.tle in advance of the deposit of copies as at present--a valuable privilege?

Section 20 seems calculated to work an injustice to novelists.

That the author's exclusive right to dramatize his copyrighted work should cease in the event of his being unable within ten years to induce managers to produce his dramatization would be unfair--would, in fact, encourage producers to wait until after ten years before producing a dramatization of a novel. Would it not be sufficient to state that the exclusive right terminates at the end of ten years provided the author does not file at least an unpublished dramatized version?

Does this section 20 mean that a foreign dramatist who deposits an unpublished and untranslated copy of a dramatic composition loses his rights if his play is not produced publicly in ten years, or does it allow him to deposit a translated unpublished copy any time within ten years, in order to protect his rights?

Section 45 might be profitably augmented by including the privilege of allowing an author who writes under a pen name to print the notice of copyright also under the same pen name. This would be a considerable privilege, since at present he must go through the complicated process of a.s.signing his copyright to another if he does not wish his real name to appear. In his claim for copyright he could state both his real name and his pen name in which he wished the copyright to appear. This would work injustice to no one and would be a great convenience to authors whose real names are of an uninspiring nature.

This section 45 might also contain a provision allowing an author to change the t.i.tle of an unpublished work without deposit for further copies, provided he paid a fee, since almost every unpublished play is renamed. The duplication of copies of the same work under different t.i.tles is of no service to the copyright office and is frequently an expense to authors. The production of a play under any other than its copyrighted t.i.tle should invalidate the copyright.

The requirement of section 60, raising the copyright fee from 50 cents to $1, will work a real hards.h.i.+p to many writers, particularly those who write short plays for vaudeville and have a hard time to make a living, to those who write many plays without ever securing any returns, and to the writers of words of songs, whose work is apt to be stolen unless copyrighted and who receive a very small compensation in any event, as a rule. We would strongly recommend that for unpublished works and short articles in periodicals especially copyrighted and for photographs the fee be held at 50 cents, or even reduced to 25 cents.

Upon the enactment of the new law the copyright office will receive from the dramatic writers a great many more works than are at present offered, owing to the unsatisfactory condition of the existing law. The number of dramatic compositions offered will also be greatly increased by the favorable fact of the omission on the notice of copyright of the year. At present the author of an unpublished play must state the year of his copyright on his t.i.tle-page, and as it is often ten years or more after a play is written before it secures a production, this telltale date proves a great drawback in submitting the play to managers, and therefore many authors prefer to run the risk of losing their plays rather than to affix this hall-mark of antiquity. The prospect of this increased revenue should be sufficient to induce the makers of the law to reduce the copyright fee on unpublished works.

I should recommend also that a specific clause be added making it a misdemeanor to copy from an unpublished ma.n.u.script any portion without authority, or to be found in the possession of an unpublished copyrighted ma.n.u.script or parts thereof without authority. This would correct two grave abuses, one, the stealing of an author's ideas and dialogue by a manager to whom the play might be submitted, and the second, the stealing of ma.n.u.scripts after a play is produced. One bureau openly advertises and continually sells for a few dollars ma.n.u.scripts of produced plays, and the sale of such ma.n.u.scripts enables infringers to deprive authors of great sums in royalties. The adoption of such a section as this will, of course, be sharply contested, but there is absolutely nothing inequitable in it for any person not intending fraud.

It might also be well to deny the privilege of copyright to authors who allow their plays to be publicly performed without first securing a copyright.

I trust that none of these suggestions will be taken as a criticism of the proposed law, which will confer great benefits upon and will greatly stimulate native art, but I am confident that the importance of some of the proposed additions and the convenience of others will at once be seen.

Allow me to thank you for your courtesy in sending us the copy of the proposed law, and to request the favor of any further matter which the copyright office may have to issue upon the subject.

Yours, respectfully,

THE PLAYWRIGHTS LEAGUE CLUB, By EDWIN HOPKINS, _President_.

BRIESEN & KNAUTH, COUNSELORS AT LAW, _New York, June 8, 1906_.

REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, _Library of Congress, Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C._

SIR: On behalf of a number of clients, who are interested in the new copyright bill, we respectfully beg to suggest that in order fully to carry out the broad purpose of the framers of the bill, the bill should be amended substantially as shown in the accompanying draft amendment.