Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

intellectual labour be denied the quality of origi- between authors of different nationalities pronality? No two translations are alike."

Das Recht der Feder remarks on these charming statements: "That the liberty defended by these gentlemen is that of the highwayman has entirely escaped their observation. And are the highest flights of imagination those which they have been so desirous to reproduce? Certainly not. Only his own interests make the translator a thief. The foulest pamphlet that delights the herd is by far more precious to him than the most important intellectual work, which pleases only a few cultivated people. The former brings in, the latter costs, money. Culture that takes money out of his pocket? Not if he knows it! Multatuli was right. There is a robber State between East Friesland and the Scheldt. When will the Dutch open their eyes to the fact that the protection of the rights of foreign authors is the best protection of national production ?"

The German Union of Authors ("Schriftsteller Verband") on the occasion of the annual general meeting at Wiesbaden, in September, turned its attention to the proposed revision of the copyright law of the German Empire, and passed several important resolutions:

1. That this meeting expresses its satisfaction at the prospect of a revision of the law.

2. That the meeting trusts that before the projected law is placed in the statute-book it may be submitted for public criticism.

3. That the union shall appoint a commission to determine (after making general inquiries amongst authors) what are the particular points which should be taken into consideration by the new legislation, and to lay the results of its inquiries before the Legislature.

On the motion of Herr M. Hildebrand four general propositions respecting the lines which the new Legislature should take were also passed, the second and fourth not without opposition :

:

[blocks in formation]

duces in the mind of the public a confusion of ideas respecting the nature of literary property. In a civilised State, such as the German Empire, a man ought not to be robbed because he happens to be a Roumanian or a Greek.

66

Translation of an Article Reprinted from Hannoverschen Courier" in "Das Recht der Feder" No. 143, October 2, 1898, p. 156.

We may express the hope that it [the revision of the German Copyright Law] will not result in a mere recension intended to amend certain particulars in which the law of 1870 has been left behind by subsequent international conventions, but that the Government may show itself disposed to favour more advanced wishes. For some time past a tendency that certainly deserves respect, has existed in the German literary world, or at least in that section of it which concerns itself about these copyright questions that so closely affect literary men-it is much to be regretted that more great names do not belong to that section of the literary world. On this subject a correspondent writes to us :

"Discerning authors have already availed themselves of the opportunity of discussing the revision of the law at congresses. Our present copyright law protects only the German author from unauthorised reproduction. Foreign authors are protected only in so far as conventions exist with their respective States. Literary works produced in States with which we have no such conventions (for example Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, and many others) can be translated or reproduced amongst us without restrictions, and vice versa. The wishes of literary circles, so far as these have been expressed, now go so far as to desire that the new law should protect all intellectual productions from translation, reproduction, dramatisation, performance, &c., irrespective of the country in which the author lives. This proposal at first sight appears to result from taking a purely idealistic point of view. The Russian author will be protected in Germany, and the German author will be absolutely unprotected in Russia. Nevertheless, solid realities lie at the base of the proposal. When we protect the foreign author from being taken advantage of, we compel the German publisher who desires to bring out a foreign work to come to terms with the author. The publisher will have to pay the author and the translator, and, in consequence, the foreign work will be made more expensive; for example, the foreign novel, which at present plays so important a role in our newspapers and elsewhere. Under these circumstances only those foreign

works will be translated upon which it is worth while to spend some money. The German author will be liberated from the base competition of bad translations of foreign mediocre works which are practically mere poor imitations either of our own or of French literature; and German intellectual labour will consequently increase in both material and ideal value, seeing that the German author, liberated from the meanest competition, will be able to emancipate himself from an enervating overproduction. The proof of the correctness of this view is at hand. France has had a law of this sort-ein solches Gesetz, but this statement seems to require qualification-since 1852, and French literature and French authors stand in the highest estimation. Supposing that a few journalistic pirates, in Russia or Holland or elsewhere, wrest foreign literary productions to their own advantage, they do so at the cost of the development of their own literature, which cannot but be a gain

to us.

It is to be anticipated also that this view may be taken by the representatives of our Government; for example, Privy Councillor Reichard, of the Foreign Office-I am unable to find the name of Reichard in the books of reference at my disposal-on one occasion remarked at a conference on international negotiations, Only the nation which has a strong copyright law can possess a literature.'"

The opinions here expressed certainly contain much that is to the point. On the other hand, it is not possible at once to set aside the consideration that by this one-sided protection of literary work we may be surrendering a weapon that might compel foreign States to abstain from pirating German literature.

Revision of the German Copyright Law. Herr Hildebrand, president of the Deutscher Schriftsteller Genossenschaft, in his excellent journal, Das Recht der Feder, is making strong protests against the constitution of the commission of experts entrusted with the preliminary consultations respecting the very important project of the revision of the German imperial copyright law. "Nine publishers, but not a single literary celebrity!" he exclaims, and not without reason. Associated with the names of imperial officials and legal authorities we find those of Brockhaus, Mulbrecht, and Voigtländer, of the musical booksellers Birkmeyer, Bock, Strecher, also of Engelhorn (President of the German booksellers' Borsenverein) and of Von Hase (President of the Musical Booksellers' Society). But literature is represented by Herr Hildebrand himself alone, whilst, to quote his own words, "the name of no single author of celebrity

VOL. IX.

appears on the list." He adds modestly: "That the honourable enterprise of defending the rights of authors against the interests of publishers should have been left to me alone, appears to me by no means a satisfactory arrangement." Meanwhile the protests of some of the trade journals against his large-minded views of copyright draw from him the strong remark "that certain publishers should be alarmed at the prospect of being compelled to earn their bread honestly, and of being prevented from stealing, is quite comprehensible." And in conclusion he adds: "What the interests of authors are must be learned from authors, not from their publishers," in which we entirely agree with him

III.-THE Pall Mall ON MR. VICTOR SPIERS.

"There is a long letter in The Author this month from Mr. Victor Spiers which raises an interesting point in the relation between the publisher and the writer of books. Mr. Spiers has taken

to issuing his books through a distributing agent, as, it appears, Miss Braddon does also, and his reason for recommending that method is practically this: that you should not trust any man in the dark. Suppose one publishes a book on the royalty system; the publisher after a due period says that so many copies have been sold and pays accordingly. But, says Mr. Spiers, how do you know how many copies have been sold? You rely on the publisher's bare word, and that is not businesslike. Mr. Spiers proposes as an amendment to this practice that the printer should take his orders from the publisher and the author jointly, and should render his account to both. But every publishing house would refuse to accept such a clause in an agreement, and would regard the proposal as a slur upon its integrity. That is, of course, the case; and I think that there is a good deal to be said against the attitude adopted by publishers in this matter. For, even if it be granted that nine publishers out of ten are to be trusted implicitly, there is always the tenth man to consider. If A., B., C., and Ď., whom I can trust blindfolded, do not want to publish my book, how can I go to E. and say: The arrangement which I should be willing to accept with A., B., C., or D., implies more confidence in the publisher than I should be willing to extend to you'? Thus the action of the trustworthy houses throws temptation in the way of those who are less honest. And it must be remembered that publishers have no control over members of their trade. A solicitor who has defrauded his client may be struck off the rolls, but a publisher cannot be. What Mr. Sp calls 'the large, old and respected houses' would

P

have probably everything to gain by accepting 'a legal examination of accounts.' Once the point was conceded in theory not one author in twenty would care to pay the expenses of such an inquiry."-Pall Mall Gazette, Oct. 8.

Mr. Victor Spiers has sent a second letter to the Pall Mall Gazette. It contains a statement of the greatest interest:

In my first letter I suggested a simpler alternative than a legal audit of accounts: it was merely that into the agreement should be inserted a clause to the effect that the printer should print only upon receipt of an order bearing the joint signature of author and publisher. Some of your many readers may be interested to hear that a large Paris house actually gives these very terms in its contracts; at any rate, I have just heard that they have been given to one author, who moreover has the stereos under his control, and actually has in his possession a few plates of one of bis books. Nor is it likely that he is the only one thus privileged. The general adoption of this clause would do away with the unpleasant feeling that undoubtedly exists in the minds of most authors, and that, undoubtedly again, should not be permitted to exist in the relations between honourable men.

Suspicion ought not to exist in the relations between honourable men. That is true. It is impossible to exist between honourable men. But when we have two sides, one of whom, like Mr. Spiers, demands nothing but honesty and the ordinary proofs of honesty, and the other side absolutely refuses these proofs, on which side does honour lie? Let us remember that in the famous" draft agreements" there is not one word of concession. Why, even the charge for advertisements not paid for is left without a word of remonstrance!

IV.-A QUESTION OF RIGHT.

In the number of the Publishers' Circular dated Oct. 8 a letter appeared, signed "A Publisher." The writer begins with the usual petty spitefulness about this Society. It appears that we are not "representative." He then proceeds to state certain considerations, especially that when cases are submitted to the Publishers' Association or the Authors' Society, neither of these bodies is pledged to secrecy. "Has either publisher or author the right of referring a dispute, including communication of all documents bearing upon it, to the Publishers' Association or to the Society of Authors without first obtaining the consent of the other party; and, if he does so, will an action for damages lie?"

His question in effect is: "Has an author or a publisher the legal right of making public to his association the terms of any dispute and the communication of all documents bearing upon it?" I write from the author's point of view.

An author has a certain property. He employs

an agent to administer that property on certain terms. He subsequently has a dispute with that agent. If he thinks it desirable he can refer the dispute, with all papers concerning it, to any person. In the case of referring it to the Authors' Society he refers it to them as an Association which can be of valuable assistance in defending him and his property. The same

remark would apply where the author sells the copyright or his property outright to the publisher. Apart from this broad principle, however, an author refers to the Secretary of the Society in the first instance as to a solicitor, and receives advice from the Secretary as from a solicitor, the Secretary holding all such communications in confidence. If, subsequently, owing to the dispute not being satisfactorily settled, the author desires the matter referred to the Committee, it is still treated in confidence as far as the Committee are concerned. The author, however, has the right of putting his statement of facts before anyone he may choose, whether the Secretary of the Society, the Committee, or the public.

The writer states as follows: "It is obvious that neither body can be regarded naturally as an arbitration tribunal." Such a remark is wholly unnecessary, though in some cases, with the consent of both parties, it might be advantageous to accept the Authors' Society or their authorised representative as an arbitrator. In three cases that came before the Secretary last year when matters were in dispute between author and publisher, and the issue was one that could be best settled by arbitration, the publisher accepted the settlement of the case on the basis proposed by the Secretary and the Society's solicitors. That such should be the case speaks very favourably for the Society's fairness in cases of dispute and to a recognition of the fact that while the Society exists for its members it does not entertain any desire to injure other people. The main gist of the question, however, appears to be that the "Publisher," whoever he may be, strongly objects to have his own practices or those of his brothers in trade made public. G. H. T.

V. CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAGAZINES. (From the Law Journal, by permission.) Section 18 of the Copyright Act of 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45) provides that, when the proprietor or conductor of an encyclopædia, magazine, review, or periodical or serial work, employs persons to compose articles, essays, poems, or any portion of such works, the copyright of the articles, essays, &c., shall vest in such proprietor or conductor, provided that the articles

were composed "on the terms that the copyright shall belong to such proprietor," &c., and have actually been paid for, and subject to a right on the part of the composer to publish his compositions in a separate form at the expiration of twenty-eight years from the date of their first appearance in the encyclopædia, magazine, or other work. For some years after the passing of the Act it was a disputed question what was the precise meaning of the words "on the terms that the copyright shall belong to such proprietor," &c. Was it sufficient to show that there had actually been payment for an article in order to vest the copyright in it in the proprietor of the magazine in which it appeared? Must there have been an express agreement that the copyright should pass from the author to the proprietor, or could a transfer be implied from circumstances? In Sweet v. Benning (24 Law J. Rep. C. P. 175; 16 C. B. 459) the Court of Common Pleas held that the transfer of copyright to the magazine proprietor might take place by implication, as well as by express agreement.

66

Where," said Chief Justice Jervis (24 Law J. Rep. C. P. 179; 16 C. B. 480), "the proprietor of a periodical employs a gentleman to write a given article or a series of articles or reports, expressly for the purpose of publication therein, of necessity it is implied that the copyright of the articles so expressly written for such periodical and paid for by the proprietors and publishers thereof, shall be the property of such proprietors and publishers; otherwise, it might be that the author might, the day after his article has been published by the persons for whom he contracted to write it, republish it in a separate form, or in another serial, and there would be no correspondent benefit to the original publishers for the payment they had made." But the implication does not arise from the mere fact that payment has been made for the article (Walter v. Howe, 50 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 621; L. R. 17 Chanc. Div.). The copyright was in the first instance in the author, and it remains in him except in so far as he can be shown to have parted with it (Hereford v. Griffin, 17 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 210; 16 Sim. 190; Smith v. Johnson, 33 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 137; 4 Giff. 632). Under the existing law, therefore, the offer of an article to the proprietors of a periodical will not carry copyright even upon payment, if the article has not actually been written in pursuance of a previous arrangement, express or implied. The section, in fact, is only applicable when the author, before commencing to write, has entered into an agreement with the magazine proprietor in express terms, or in terms which may be implied to have existed through

VOL. IX.

the subsequent action, relations, or behaviour of the parties.

The two bills recently before Parliament, introduced by Lords Herschell and Monkswell, made the following proposals as to this class of literature. Unlike the Act of 1842, which treated encyclopædias and magazines in precisely the same way, the present bills divide them into two classes consisting of (1) encyclopædias, dictionaries, and similar collective works; (2) magazines, reviews, and other periodicals.

In the first class the copyright in contributions will belong to the owner of the compilation during the entire period for which copyright will exist, and he or his assigns will be the only persons entitled to take action in case of an infringement. If the author wishes to reserve copyright to himself, he must enter into a special written agreement to that effect. It is obvious that this is a more favourable arrangement for proprietors of collective works than exists in the present state of the law, when at the latest, contributors to such works are entitled to republish their contributions in separate form at the end of twenty years.

In the second class the copyright in contributions will remain in the authors; but, provided that payment has been made by the owner of the magazine, &c., to which they are contributed, the authors will not be at liberty to republish their contributions in a separate form until the expiration of three years from the date when they first appeared (or three years from the end of the year in which they first appeared, as Lord Herschell's Bill proposes). Authors are, however, at liberty to register their contributions at Stationers' Hall as separate publications immediately on their appearance, and can then claim damages for infringement of copyright although the three years have not elapsed. As under the existing law, the magazine proprieters will have the sole right of publication in their magazines (but not otherwise) during the entire subsistence of the copyright. Here, again, the proprietors will be somewhat more favourably placed than at present, because they will be legally entitled to prevent separate publication on the author's part for the specified period of three years, whereas the only check that at present exists upon separate publication by an author on the day after his article has appeared in a magazine is, in the absence of a special stipulation, the improbability that he would see his signature at the foot of any further contributions in the same magazine. With most contributors this would, no doubt, be a sufficiently powerful incentive to refrain from any unfair dealing, but the new proposal places the rights of the various parties

P 2

on a clearer and more settled basis than at present, and is therefore desirable from every point of view.

Under existing conditions it is not an unusual course among authors, when submitting their contributions for an editor's approval, to notify their desire to reserve the copyright. As the law stands, this would appear to be a work of supererogation, but what will be necessary when the provisions of these bills become law will be a notification that the contributor desires to reserve the right of republication before the statutory three years, if such is the case. Probably, however, the majority of contributors will not object to the practical relinquishment of their copyright for a period which does not seem to be unreasonably long to duly safeguard the interests of the owners of periodicals.

66

[ocr errors]

VI. THE QUESTION OF OVERs.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This point has been raised before. It was brought before the notice of the Secretary for the first time by receiving a publisher's account, in which the author was credited with the " overs." In three editions of a thousand each they made a considerable difference in the sum due to him. Now it must be remarked that this is the only account ever received at the office in which the 99 overs were so much as mentioned. If a publisher is asked about them, he says that they are not worth mentioning, or that there are no overs," or that the overs were used up to complete imperfect copies. He might, however, just as well say that two or three copies, or two or three dozen copies, are not worth mentioning. Now, a certain authority states that publishers expect from 5 to 10 per cent. of overs. This seems to mean that, on an edition of 1000, there are fifty to 100 "overs," which seems too many. On this subject some exact information is greatly to be desired. If overs mean anything like fifty in a thousand, then a monstrous system of fraud has been practised, so far with absolute impunity.

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

ing of journalists. But this year, thanks to the establishment of the "British International Association of Journalists," with Miss G. B. Stuart as the energetic secretary, and Mr. P. W. Clayden as president, again English journalists have had a voice at this important congress.

The meeting at Lisbon promised to be an important and interesting one, and those of us who were in Holland for the Queen's enthronement felt, perhaps, more than others the care of the combined Dutch and Congress committees, for we were pleasantly sent direct, on a well-found Dutch East Indiaman, to Lisbon, where we were received in state by the ex-Minister of Marine of Portugal.

In this fascinating capital we met 396 journalists of eighteen nationalities, the French predominating in numbers, and we soon found the local committee had indeed done everything for the "congressites." The blue "Carnet " with the "Ordre du Jour," 66 Emploi du Temps" we quickly found was a passe-partout in Lisbon.

The solemn inauguration on Monday, the 26th Sept., was a short but important ceremony, H.M. the King of Portugal presiding, with the Queen and Dom Alphonso Infanta on either hand, the members of the Corps Diplomatique and the Municipality of Lisbon ranging round their Majesties.

The Great Hall of the Geographical Society (the whole building being given over as a club to the congressites) was filled with a brilliant gathering of Portuguese, and when M. Singer, the president of the Congress, rose to give his opening address, the scene was impressive.

The King replied in a happy impromtu, referring to the fact that he had just presided at a medical congress, a gathering of those who cared for the body, whilst before him were those who cared for and healed the mind. The cheers at the end of the King's speech in every European tongue were very cordial.

The English secured seats in the front at the gangway, and near them were the Dutch, Scandinavian, and Polish contingents; the Germans this year numbered thirty, Professor Koch, of Heidelberg, presiding on the third day.

INTERNATIONAL TELEGRAPHIC TARIFFS.

On Tuesday, at the first session, Mr. P. W. Clayden was elected to the Central Bureau as the English representative, and took his seat on the platform after the reading of the secretary's and treasurer's reports. The very important matter of international telegraphic tariffs was brought forward by M. de Beraza, of Spain.

« AnteriorContinuar »