The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 6.1862
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1862
• Sprache: Englisch
• Signatur: F 135
• Vorlage: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Rechtehinweis: Public Domain Mark 1.0
• URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id1780948042-186200003
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18620000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18620000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Bemerkung: Seite 1-72 fehlen in der Vorlage. Vorlagebedingter Textverlust.
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

3, 18?" h were “ j vhicb^ n have 9 ' justie", rememla even Pi not suNA its isre ft feel 2 onsor’^ xdthatto" , otherwise ‘sodais ntain fre • Fiiter“e he 202 verio"A ic cy»“'y; silyetcv ■ 412 11 say lutes 0 andag.,4 aight w ularPK itofd n inc2"" "we ason tog with descri I “63 find it . W e quarl j the p”$ ctisedv, membei, :Ag2 ped 2” Of v ; . t»5 mmoole, idide05, rain 203, 1C0llo0 ieof : 1g sused" varyy)) Of tW iU* 9 Use’ v good or 8 nesatitba t well % irt. me” ably is S0 anding5, i cover h regards ere the " 1 be out t scarcely J ■ apertut OUS to t® ‘ collodico develop, contains ion of)"Lgi en add g 'ould bed, 2 The v obably3, i should 4 Wax is it wax. 8> uul gl, . Leavla betook THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. Vol. VI. No. 195.—May 30, 1862. COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS. Os another page we give at some length the discussion which arose at the second reading in the House of Lords, of the “ Copyright (Works of Art) Bill,” in which protection from piracy is provided for photographs. We do so in order to impress on those concerned the fact that the Bill and their recognition in it, is by no means safe yet. We know there are, at the present moment, many photographers who are reserving, at temporary inconvenience and loss, with hopes of permanent gain, works ready for publication, until the Bill shall pass into law. It is important, therefore, that any influence which can be brought to bear shall not be neglected or relaxed. We do not intend hero to discuss the principle or the Vording of the Bill; we believe both are capable of some amendment. But we accept the fact, with thankfulness, that a method is provided by which an artist or photo grapher may secure his property in the results of his own skill and labour, and that on the sale of such works means are provided for vesting the copyright in either vendor or Vendee, as may be arranged and agreed. We are concerned, however, to see the steady persistence with which apparently feasible, but really foolish and igno rant objections, are brought against the right of photography to be included in the protection of the intended Act. Earl Stanhope, whilst defending the Bill generally, and showing the groundlessness of the forebodings and vaticinations of objectors, stops short when he approaches photography. In defending the object of the Bill he cannot be gainsaid. "If,” he observes, “ it were once admitted that a man should profit by the fruits of his own genius, no person could fairly Say that, having given a copyright to another, Parliament should refuse it to the artist. There was no difference in theory between a poem and a picture, and the producers of both had an equal right to protection.” Why, in the name of common sense, the insertion of the word “photographic ” before the words “ artist ” and “ picture ” in the above sen- lence, should alter the whole case, we cannot conceive. But * suddenly qualifies his arguments, and admits he feels We difficulty on one part of the Bill. “ For example, he Conld not see how the principle of copyright could be carried ontin the case of photographs. One person might make a ?Py of a photograph of the Coliseum, originally produced D! another; but who could say that the copy was not an original photograph ? How could any one assert th at the person who published it did not go to the Coliseum, take 118 stand upon the same spot of ground as the other photo- Erapher, and commence his operations at the same hour ? 00, too, with respect to photographic portraits of living Persons. He should be glad if some noble and learned lord Could show how the proposed law was to be enforced in the ease of photographs.” y the noble earl had understood anything of his subject, ad known anything of photography or photographs, he "'ould not have needed to ask how it was possible to distin- u8h between the works of different photographers. He “ould have understood that in photography it was as pos- e for the artist to stamp his individuality upon his pro in, ion, and be distinguished by his “ manner,” as in paint- nl?f I he will walk with us, or any one familiar with b o ogiaphy and photographers, through any public exhi- posono photographs, we will undertake, unhesitatingly, to Vol nm out at once, without reference to catalogue, the k8 of Bedford, Heath, Mudd, Wilson, or any other artist I of standing, in landscape ; or of Williams, Claudet, Mayall, and others, in portraiture. But another argument might have suggested itself to the noble earl. If photographs were so lacking in individuality as he seems to conceive; if pho tographs of the same place and person were necessarily as much “ alike as two peas,” a large element in the photo grapher’s desire for protection would be removed. If all photographs were alike, the value of property in any of them would be at least much diminished. But one part of the injury done to photographs by piracy derives its force solely from this individuality. The pirated copies possess the style and manner of the artist who is plundered, but the work is bad, flat, mealy, and fading. Thus the original artist is not only robbed, but his works are travestied, and his reputation damaged. Again, in the case of portraiture, there could rarely be any difficulty in enforcing the law or proving its infringe ment, because it would be very easy to prove, in the majority of instances, that the original of any pirated portrait never sat to the pirate for the picture in question, and that ho could only have obtained a negative by reproducing it from an original print. The piracy would in such case be placed beyond a doubt. But wo can put a stronger case than this, in reference to many subjects, and one in which the wrong is still more patent. We have not, moreover, to suppose a case; there is one before us actually in point. The London Stereoscopic Company have just paid a heavy sum to Her Majesty’s Commissioners for the right of photographing inside the Exhibition Building. Fifteen hundred guineas have been paid down, and an engagement entered into for the prospec tive payment, under certain conditions, of sums which may amount to twice the amount already expended. The Company have undertaken these heavy payments for the sole right of photographing in the building, and doubtless with the viewto reaping the sole profit of such undertaking; and, if we are not mistaken, they are at present delaying the publication of the pictures until the passing of this Bill shall give them protection. Without such protection the moment they publish their views, the sole right to obtain which has cost them some thousands of pounds, they are at the mercy of all who are sufficiently unscrupulous to profit by pirating the property of others. Now in such a case there could not be the shadow of a doubt as to the piracy ; there could not be the slightest difficulty in proving it ; for no other photo grapher could by any possibility get a negative of the build ing except by piracy,, or other dishonest means. That cases may be supposed in which some difficulty to prove piracy might exist may be granted. The Earl has supposed one case : two photographers may take negatives of the same subject, from exactly the same spot, with exactly similar lenses, on the same sized plates, and under like con ditions of light and atmosphere. All this is possible, although not very likely. But even then it would be very easy to prove all this, and we venture to assert that it is next to impossible for two different photographers to pro duce two negatives, under whatever conditions, so exactly similar, that an expert could not readily distinguish whether one was a reproduction, or both were original negatives. Moreover, these things, which are easy for any photographer to produce, afford no temptation to piracy. If a photo grapher can easily get an original, he will not pirate for the mere pleasure of selling piracies. It is only where certain difficulties exist, where an amount of capital in skill or money, not possessed by the pirate, require to be expended