Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/145

 made articles of commerce. So in the case of commissioned works the copyright was denied to both painters and photographers.

The royal commission which reported on the subject in 1878 proposed two distinct terms of copyright for painting and photography. The term for the painter was dependent on his life; that for the photographer was a definitely fixed term of years from the date of publication of his photographs; and there can be little doubt that this is the right way to deal with the two branches of copyright. The artist who paints a picture signs it, and there is no difficulty in knowing who is the author of a painting and in whom the term of copyright is vested. In a very large number of cases a photograph is taken by an employee, who is here to-day and gone to-morrow, and even his employer knows nothing of his existence. Of course, it may suit an employer to be able to maintain secrecy as to the authorship of his negative, inasmuch as it enables him to go on claiming copyright fees indefinitely; but it is not to the public interest. In most countries on the continent of Europe a photographer has the fixed term of five years’ copyright in an original photograph dating from its publication, which date, together with the name and address of the photographer, has to be stamped on every copy issued. In the public interest this is a good method of dealing with photographs.

24. The “authorship” of a photograph has been much debated in the law courts; and “author” was defined in Nollage v. Jackson (1883) as “the man who really represents or creates, or gives to ideas, or fancy, or imagination, true local habitation—the man in fact who is most nearly the effective cause of the representation” (per Lord Justice Bowen). He is not necessarily the owner of the camera, or the proprietor of the business; it depends on the circumstances. He is essentially the person who groups and effectively superintends the picture. When a photographer takes a portrait without fee, the copyright vests in him and not in the sitter, who cannot prevent its publication; but if the photograph is commissioned and paid for by the sitter the copyright—in the absence of contrary stipulations—vests in him, and he can restrain exhibition or multiplication of copies; “the bargain includes, by implication, an agreement that the prints taken from the negative are to be appropriated to the use of the customer only” (Mr Justice North in Pollard v. Photographic Co., 1888). And this applies even when the sitter is not the actual purchaser of the negative (Boucas v. Cooke, 1903). But in several cases the “celebrity” who has sat to a photographer at his request and without payment has not been allowed to distribute his photograph to newspapers for reproduction without the photographer’s consent. The fact that a sitter pays the photographer for prints, though he has not commissioned the sitting, would not vest the copyright in him.

25. The “Living Pictures” case in 1894 (Hanfstängel v. Empire Palace) was a curious one. The Empire music-hall in London produced some tableaux vivants, representing certain pictures, of which Messrs Hanfstängel owned the copyright, and an action was brought by them for an injunction. The courts of chancery and of appeal decided against the plaintiffs, on the ground that a reproduction of a painting must be by a painting or something cognate; but in an action for infringement, though the view already given was confirmed, the plaintiffs succeeded so far as the backgrounds to the grouping were concerned. Meanwhile two newspapers had published sketches of the same tableaux vivants, and Messrs Hanfstängel brought actions for infringement (Hanfstängel v. Newnes, and v. Baines, 1894). Mr Justice Stirling found for the plaintiffs, but on appeal, and finally in the House of Lords, this decision was reversed.

26. Copyright in Designs.—An act of 1787 first gave protection to printed designs on linen and cotton fabrics; and in 1839 a further act included designs on animal fabrics, or mixed animal and vegetable fabrics; while in the same year another act protected designs for manufactured articles. These acts had been preceded in France by laws of 1737 and

1744 creating a property by law in manufacturers’ designs. The British law, which in various acts established a copyright (a)in ornamental and (b) useful designs, was in 1883 consolidated in the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, with amending acts up to 1888; and these acts were further consolidated and amended by an act of 1905. See and.    The consolidation of the British copyright law, not only in the United Kingdom but in the Dominions, and its amendment so as to include the recommendations of the Berlin International Convention of 1908, were the objects of a government bill introduced into parliament by the president of the Board of Trade on the 26th of July 1910, discussion on which was reserved for a later period in the year. The passing of this bill, though the date of it was uncertain owing to the peculiar circumstances of English politics at the moment, was practically assured by the facts that, apart altogether from the crying need for a revision of the English law, the draft had previously been considered and accepted, not only by a Board of Trade Committee which reported unanimously in favour of the recommendations of the Berlin Convention, but also by an Imperial Conference. The bill for the first time brought British copyright entirely under statutory law and consolidated and amended all previous enactments; it adopted the suggestions of the Imperial Conference (attended by representatives of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland, other interests being covered by home representatives of the Foreign Office, India Office, Colonial Office and Board of Trade) as to providing for its extension by their declaration to the Dominions; and with its enactment a great simplification of the British law of copyright came in sight, though for historical reasons the details given above of the law as unamended must still remain of value.

Briefly, the new points of importance, apart from the placing of all copyright on a purely statutory basis and the inclusion of literary and artistic copyright within one arrangement, were as follows. All compulsory formalities of registration were abolished. The length of the period for which copyright lasted was extended to the life of the author and 50 years after. This reform was qualified, however, by a clause intended to protect the public from its abuse, and providing that after the author’s death, if the work was withheld from the public or published at too high a price, or if the reasonable requirements of the public were not satisfied, a licence might be granted to publish or perform it. These changes applied to all the subject-matters of copyright, which were now put on the same level and treated uniformly. In certain cases, already discussed above, protection was extended: e.g. translations and lectures, original adaptations and arrangements, works of artistic novelty, including architectural designs; and the right to dramatize a novel or “novelize” a drama was conferred in each case on the author. Musical works were protected against unauthorized reproduction by mechanical means without payment; but protection was also extended to the mechanical record when authorized.

In including all sorts of intellectual product the bill followed the recommendation (resolution 6) of the Imperial Conference as to the definition of copyright (Parl. Paper Cd. 5272): “the Conference is of opinion that, subject to proper qualifications, copyright should include the sole right to produce or reproduce a work, or any substantial part thereof, in any material form whatsoever and in any language, to perform, or in the case of a lecture, to deliver, the work or any substantial part thereof in public, and, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work, and should include the sole right to dramatize novels and vice versa, and to make records, &c., by means of which a work may be mechanically performed.” As to architecture and artistic crafts the Conference recommended (resolution 9) that “an original work of art should not lose the protection of artistic copyright solely because it consists of, or is embodied in, a work of architecture or craftsmanship; but it should be clearly understood that such protection is confined to its artistic form and does not extend to the processes or methods of reproduction, or to an industrial design capable of registration under the law relating to designs and destined to be multiplied by way of manufacture or trade.”

As to the application of the new period of copyright to existing 