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

260 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [May 30,1862. of the invention to the public interest. Neither of these objects ■was provided for by this Bill. His main objection to the Bill was, that it did not discriminate as to the character, position, and interests, as well as the reasonable rights, of the various parties concerned. If a person ordered a portrait to be painted of himself or of any member of his family, or if he commissioned an artist to produce a picture upon a given subject, surely com mon sense required that the copyright, if there was to be a copyright, should at once be vested in him rather than in the artist. Such was the law in France, such was the law that reason and justice would dictate, but such was not the law that this Bill contemplated. Again, the Bill provided that copyright might be reserved at the time the picture was produced, but the registration of it was not necessary for a twelvemonth. The conse quence would be, that there would exist a patent right unknown to the public for the whole period of one year. It was obvious that, if a copyright was to be granted, the registration of it should accompany, if not precede, the first production of the work, otherwise copies made and sold in good faith would be liable at any moment to be seized and suppressed. Even the language of some of the clauses was calculated to give rise to a great deal of doubt, and he believed that much litigation would result from the passing of the Bill, particularly that portion of it which related to the fraudulent imitation of works. The Bill, if pressed forward, would require very careful consideration, and he thought it should be withdrawn and a different measure in troduced in another session. Earl Stanhope did not think the noble lord had stated any valid objection against the principle of the Bill. The noble lord had spoken as if the Bill were retrospective in its character. No doubt that idea was in the minds of several persons when the Bill was before the other House, and he knew that some great publishing houses were afraid that their property in illustrated ■works would be destroyed ; but if their lordships would look at the Bill, they would see, especially from the commencement of the first clause, that it was entirely prospective. Moreover, though the Bill were to be passed to-morrow, it would still be in the power of a purchaser to make a bargain with the artist whom he employed that the copyright should be vested in him. When, many years ago, he had charge of the Literary Copy right Bill in the House of Commons, he was opposed by some persons who anticipated all kinds of disastrous consequences from the passing of the measure. Those anticipations had been entirely belied by the result, and the same would be the case in the present instance. If 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, Par liament 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. Ho admitted, however, that there were one or two points in the Bill on which he felt some difficulty. For example, he could not see how the prin ciple of copyright could be carried out in the case of photographs. One person might make a copy of a photograph of the Coliseum, originally produced by another; but who could say that the copy was not an original photograph ? How could any one assert that the person who published it did not go to the Coli seum, take his stand upon the same spot of ground as the other photographer, and commence his operations at the same hour? So, 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 case of photographs. Lord Taunton entertained great doubts as to whether the true interest of art or artists would be promoted by the operation of the Bill. A good picture should, he thought, be its own pro tection against the art of the copyist; and he, for one, had no sympathy with the man who purchased a picture and laid it up in his gallery for the purpose of boasting that he possessed something which nobody else could procure. The Bill, more over was, he was afraid, calculated to give rise to litigation, and on these grounds he was not disposed to look upon it with favour. It might benefit the dealer in pictures, but he did not believe it would operate for the advantage of the artist or the public at large. The Lord Chancellor ■was surprised to find that while a man was allowed a property in that which was, in the ordinary way, the work of his hands, it should be gravely contended that in those productions which were the creations of the mind no such right should be admitted. For his own part, he was entirely of the opinion which was expressed by the great Lord Mansfield, to the effect, that in all -works of the mind and of genius tit common law of this country ought to be held as givinganab lute property. After great exertion, the imperfect state of ti law, so far as literature was concerned, was amended to me the requirements of the case, but the fine arts were still W without an adequate protection—the painter, in point of» without any at all. As an illustration of the justice of thatvief he might mention a case in which a celebrated artist soldapi ture for a considerable sum, of which some time after, a cor was produced, with the name of the artist attached to it. T person by whom it was so attached was indicted for fraud an’ forgery, but it was held he was not amenable to the law. “ state of things such as that, surely stood in need of alteratil nor was it due merely to our country, but to foreign nations, that some step should be taken in the matter. As far as t artist was concerned, there was no possible ground why N should not receive the same protection as the poet and his*®', rian. The purchaser of a work of art would also obtain ben 1 ’ 11 from the passing of the Bill, as the measure would tend to 1* vent inferior repetitions of works of art from being improps™ hawked about. In these respects the Bill proceeded not o0! on the principle of justice, but of great expediency; and’ regarded the public, its operation would be most advantageo because in proportion as protection was given to worls: genius, and the remuneration of the artist thereby enhanol would productions of beauty and talent be increased in W country. Some observations had been made in reference to t provision which related to alterations made in a work of af but that provision had been introduced in consequence o1 being known that many pictures, in respect to which altera^ had been made, were sold again as the works of the orisi painters. As an illustration of this, he might mention thati picture painted by Mr. Charles Landseer there were introi 1 *? the figures of two dogs, ■which received some touches from” brother, Sir E. Landseer. The picture got into the hands d dealer, who cut out the figures of the dogs, and sold them sst work of Sir E. Landseer, and having repaired the holeink original picture, and got it painted over by some inferior he then sold it as the work of Mr. Charles Landseer. T5 were some of the frauds committed on artists, and, witl being actuated by petty feelings, they might naturally mnan%a some sensitiveness on the score of their reputation atbein7 treated. A point had been raised respecting the difficulllv proving in some cases that photographs were copied, bul thought it possible that the copy of a photograph might bo 8 ciently detected, as it would be hardly possible for two PeP to produce representations of the same object under esSa the same conditions of light, position, and other circumstab” Ho did not deny that there were many provisions in the. which would require careful consideration in committeei the great principle of the measure, which recognized prok in works of art, and the adoption of which had been too • delayed, was in accordance with a natural feeling of justie® The Bill was then read a second time. Friday was appointed for the consideration of this BJ committee. It was announced, however, that it wouldber poned till the Tuesday following. Lord Overstone trusted that the postponement of tl might be taken as an indication that the Governmen alive to the full force of the objections which had recently a urged against it. It was not his intention to propu? amendments in committee ; but, nevertheless, he miglt out one or two suggestions for the consideration of the G ment. In the first place, ho thought it was reasonable 2d, per that the words, “ new and original,” should be intra! before the word “ picture,” in the first clause. Second thought that if Parliament were prepared to grant a CoPT it ought at once and absolutely, without any necessity iot 12 tiation and arrangement between the parties, to vest thaja, in the employer, and not in the artist. Such was the France, and in the discussion upon the Bill the other nl9 Lord Chancellor rested his argument upon the expedittd • necessity of making our law correspond with tha"ad‘ neighbours on the Continent. His third suggestion ference to the question of registration. Not a single wort je i been said in explanation of that extraordinary clatsw. Bill which provided that copyright was to be obtained twea the necessity of registration, except after the lapse of up month. An arrangement more inexpedient, more, 4 M and more inconsistent with justice, could not well 0np devised. He trusted the objections which hud W 1