Volltext Seite (XML)
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. Vol. VI. No. 183.—March 7, 1862. SUPPRESSION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC PIRACY. The growing prevalence of photographic piracy demands some prompt measures for its suppression. The injury to the art is as great as the loss to artists. The metropolis teems with card portraits which are at once a libel on the persons portrayed, a wrong to the original artist in reputation and in purse, and a deep degradation to the art by which they are produced. Even common decency is disregarded by these pirates ; photographs of Her Majesty the Queen meet the eye at every turn, in which the original photograph has received certain additions from the pencil of the painter, so that the pirated reduplications represent her in that garb of widowhood which should render the meanest of her subjects sacred from such an impertinence. As might be anticipated, these piracies are rarely undertaken by artists who can make a living by the skilful and honourable practice of the art, and the pictures are what might be expected from the incompe tent blunderer. Flat, mealy, fading, and worthless, the prints, as we have said, degrade the art. Apart from the injury to his pocket, this cause alone is almost sufficient to make the photographer who values his reputation forswear publishing altogether. For, it often happens, that when a picture of any value is first published, it generally becomes identified with the name of the artist; and when the town is flooded with vile copies, all their shortcomings are charged by an indiscriminating public upon the luckless artist who was so unfortunate as to issue something tempting enough to become the prey of pirates. The somewhat complicated state of the law of copyright, as relating to this subject, and the expense of conducting a prosecution against persons from whom, after a case is gained, it is impossible to recover costs, has hitherto prevented de cisive steps being taken ; and, emboldened by impunity, the offenders seem to challenge consequences. It appears, how ever, that there is strong ground for coming to the con clusion that the existing law on the subject may, by observ ing certain conditions, be made to protect the copyright in photographs. We have been favoured by Mr. Mayall with a copy of counsel’s opinion on this subject, which as it is not long, and the subject is important, we shall give in its entirety. Re Mayall. (Copy of Counsel’s Opinion.) I have considered the question submitted on behalf of Mr. Mayall, viz., whether the portraits of Her Majesty, and of various members of the Royal Family, produced by him by Photography, and intended to be published and sold by Her Majesty’s permission, are, or not, protected from piracy by the various Acts of Parliament which have from time to time been made for the regulation of copyright in engravings ; and upon >® whole, although the question cannot be considered free °‘doubt, I am of opinion that they are so protected. stat t effect of those Acts may be shortly stated :—The first sole" ■’ 8 Geo. ii., c. 13 (known as Hogarth’s Act), confers the printight of printing or reprinting any historical, or other invent for the term of 14 years, upon the person who shall chiaro., and design, engrave, etch, or work in mezzotinto, or tn Ln 5o8curo, or from his own work and invention shall cause Ldesigned, &c., any such work. movisissecond statute, 7 Geo. iii., c. 38, in effect, extends the P bo m"a of the first Act to prints generally, made or caused tn mint from a person’s own design or invention, and also ° m 8 made from any picture, drawing, model, or sculpture, ancj or modern. This Act also enlarges the copyright term to 28 years. Both of these statutes appear to be limited to engravings in mezzotinto or chiaro-oscuro. The next statute, 17 Geo. iii., c. 57, however, in effect, ex tends the provisions of the former Acts to any prints whatso ever which shall be engraved, etched, drawn, or designed. The following statute, 5 and 6 William iv., c. 59, extends the provisions of the former Acts to Ireland, and gives a right of action to the proprietor of “ any engraving or print of any description whatsoever,” against any person who shall engrave, etch, or publish any such print without the written consent of the proprietor of any such print. The last statute upon the subject is the 15th and 16th Viet., c. 12. By the 14th section of this Act, after reciting the former Acts, and that doubts were entertained whether their provisions extended to lithographs and certain other impressions, it is declared that the provisions of these Acts were intended to include prints taken by lithography, or any other mechanical process by which prints or impressions of drawings or designs are capable of being multiplied indefinitely. The question, therefore, appears to be reduced to this, viz., whether the means by which copies of a photograph are pro duced are a “ mechanical process ” within the last mentioned Act of Parliament; and I am of opinion that they are. It is certain that they constitute a process by which drawings or designs can be indefinitely multiplied, and they were a process known, and in operation, at the time when that Act was passed, and may well be considered to be included amongst the “ other impressions,” as to which it is recited that doubts existed, and which it was intended to include in the provisions of the earlier Acts. I think, however, that to obtain the protection of these Acts, the name of the proprietor of the photograph, and the date of its first publication, must be placed on the photographic plate or negative from which the photograph or positive print is taken, and on all the prints of it (see Newton v. Cowie. 4 Bingham, 234; Brookes v. Cock, 3 Ad. and Ell., 138). This may be in a similar manner to that usual on engravings; as thus— “ J. E. Mayall, proprietor;” or “ J. E. Mayall, fecit, 1 January, 1861;” and address; or, the name in one corner, and the date of publica tion in another corner. The opinion I have above expressed applies, properly, to positive photographs, or prints produced from negative photo graphs, and published for sale. The right of the photographer in the original negative, or in a positive, prior to any publica tion, seems to be the same as that of the painter of any picture to his picture, and depends on ownership, and not on the copy right statutes. I think also that Mr. Mayall might, perhaps, obtain the protection of the Literary Copyright Act, 5 and 6 Viet., c. 45, for his series of portraits of Her Majesty and the Royal Family collectively, by having them connected together so as to be formed into a book, and adding some short descriptive matter, such as the names, ages, place of birth, &c., of the various persons whose portraits are comprised in the series ; and the circumstances under which they were taken. For this purpose, of course, it would be necessary to register the work, and com ply in all other respects with the requisitions of that Act (see Bogue v. Houlston, 5 Dessex and S. M., 267). (Signed) Stephen CRACKNALL, 3, New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, 12th March, 1861. From the extracts of acts above given it appears very clear in the first place that photographs must be included in the term, “ print of any description whatever; ” and if it be argued that photographs were not in existence at the time that act was passed, it may be answered that the enactment of the 15th and 16th Victoria appears to set aside all possi bility of dispute. For the veriest opponent of regarding photography as a mechanical art, will admit that the pro-
