COPYRIGHT "VVe have three terms of duration of copyright—28 years for engraving, 14 for sculpture, with a second 14 if the artist be alive at the end of the first, life and 7 years for painting, drawing, or photography. There are two different relations of the artist to his copyright. The sculptor’s right to sell his work and retain his copyright has never been questioned so long as he signs and dates it. The painter’s copyright is made to depend upon the signing of a document by the purchaser of his work. The engraver and the sculptor are not required to register; but the author’s name, and the date of putting forth or publishing, must appear on his work. The painter cannot protect his copyright without registration, but this registration as it is now required is merely a pitfall for the unwary. Designed to give the public information as to the ownership and duration of copyrights, the uncertainty of its operation results in the prevention of information on these very points. Difficult and complicated as is this whole subject of artistic copyright, it is perhaps not to be wondered at that ignorance of the law on the subject is very_ widespread, even amongst those who are most interested in its action. One of the commonest beliefs amongst artists is, that all they have to do to secure copyright is to register a picture at Stationers’ Hall; but the authorities at Stationers’ Hall ask no questions, and simply enter any particulars submitted to them on their printed form. Some artists make a practice, when they send a picture away to exhibition, to fill up one of these forms, reserving the copyright by their entry to themselves, in the belief that, if accompanied by the Is. fee required by the Stationers’ Hall, its entry will reserve the copyright to them, oblivious of the fact that the only thing which can reserve the _ copyright to them is the possession of a document assigning the copyright to them by the purchaser of the picture. Another useless method of attempting to reserve artists’ copyrights is that adopted by the promoters of public exhibitions, with whom it is an almost constant practice to print on some portion of the catalogue of the exhibition a statement that “ copyrights of all pictures are reserved,” the impression apparently prevailing that a notice of this kind effectively reserves the copyright for the artist while selling his picture from the walls. It, of course, does no such thing, and the copyright of any picture sold in these circumstances, without the necessary document from the purchaser, must be lost to the artist, and pass irrevocably into the public domain. In a work of art the work itself and the copyright are two totally distinct properties, and may be held by different persons. The conditions differ materially from those of a work of literature, in which as a rule there is no value apart from publication. There is a value in a work of art for its private enjoyment quite apart from its commercial value in the form of reproductions ; but when the two properties exist in different hands, the person holding the copyright has no power to force the owner of the work of art to give him access to it for purposes of reproduction; this can only be effected by private arrangement. It has been argued that, as the two properties are so distinct, the owner of the copyright ought to have the right of access to the picture for the purpose of exercising his right to reproduce it. But it is easy to see that it would destroy the value of art property if proprietors knew that at any moment they might be forced to surrender their work for the purpose of reproduction, though for a time only. There is often a strong sympathy between the artist and the person who buys his picture, and it is not at all unusual, when application is made to the owner of the picture for access to it, for him to submit the question of repro-
245
duction to the artist. Although the latter may really have no right in it, it is felt, as a practical matter, that he islargely interested in the character of the reproduction it is proposed to make. Hence the courtesy which is usually extended to him. Of late years, owing to the increased facilities of reproduction, the practice has become very common of splitting up copyrights and granting licenses in what may be described as very minute forms. It would, of course, be impossible for a publisher to pay an artist the sum at which he values his entire copyright, simply that he might reproduce his picture in the form of a black-and-white block in a magazine, and it has consequently become quite common for the artist to grant a license for any and every particular form of reproduction as it may be required, sothat he may grant the right of reproduction in one particular form in one particular publication, and even for a particular period of time, reserving to himself thus the right to grant similar licenses to other publishers. This, is apparently not to the injury of the artist; it is probably to his advantage, and it certainly promotes business. The great obstacle in the way of securing a really good Artistic Bill has been the introduction into it of photography. It was by a sort of accident that the photographer was given the same privileges as the painter in the Bill of 1862. The promoters of the Bill thought that the photographer would be protected by the Engraving Acts which covered prints ; but since the photographers feared that, as. their prints were of a different character from the prints from a plate, the Engraving Acts might not protect them, it was at the last moment decided to put photography into the Art Bill. The result of this was that the painter lost his chance of copyright on all works executed on commission. Legislators feared that if photographers held copyright in all their works the public would have no protection from the annoyance of seeing the photographs, of their wives and daughters exhibited, and sold in shopwindows by the side of “professional beauties” and other people, and made articles of commerce. So in the case of commissioned works, the copyright was denied to both painters and photographers, and there seems considerable fear that in any new legislation the attempt to give the same terms to both painter and photographer may lead to great injury and injustice to the public. The Itoyal 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. But who knows anything as to the authorship of a photograph? 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 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 some such method of dealing with photographs should be introduced into any new Act. If the choice is between the Continental method and registration, the photographer would probably
