Volltext Seite (XML)
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. Vol. VI. No. 219.—November 14, 1862. COPYRIGHT IN ENGRAVINGS. Ix another page we give in detail the proceedings recently taken by Mr. Gambart, the well-known publisher of engrav ings, against certain dealers in photographic prints, who were selling photographic piracies of his copyright engrav ings. In the recent Fine-art Copyright Act, although engravings were not generally included under its provisions, being already protected by more than one Act, there is a danse inserted with the evident purpose of simplifying the mode of securing redress in case of piracy. The remedy given to owners of copyright by former Acts, was to be I obtained through the operation of the superior courts of law; always a tedious, and generally an expensive mode of securing redress. By the eighth section of the recent Act it is enacted that the penalties incurred by an infringement of copyright granted by former Acts, shall now be recoverable by summary proceedings before two justices of the peace. Mr. Gambart, having been a considerable sufferer from piracy, sought a remedy from the sitting magistrates at Bow-street. It is tot necessary here to recapitulate the details of the case, which appear in another page ; suffice it to say, that on some technical grounds, Mr. Corrie dismissed the summons, stat ing, however, that a wrong had undoubtedly been done ; but that the remedy must be sought in a civil court. We cannot presume, of course, to measure legal opinions with Mr. Corrie, in such a matter; we must confess, more over we do not clearly understand the nature of his objec tion to exercise jurisdiction in the case, his judgment as reported in the Times, not being altogether so clear or intelligible as might be desired. From our own reading of the Acts passed in the 8th of George II, and the 17th of George III, with the 8th section of the Act passed last session, We should have had no hesitation in saying, that in the case tried, the Act had been contravened, penalties incurred, and that the penalties were recoverable by summary process before two justices of the peace. We should think it very improbable that Mr. Gambart will let the matter rest on ®uch a decision, which makes the recent enactment practi- cally inoperative. Apart, however, from all considerations as to the legal boundaries set to this wrong, and the difficulty or ease with which a legal remedy may be obtained, it is clear a monstrous Wrong is perpetrated. It is not a question of casuistry upon which conscientious men may honestly hold different views. Here is the broad fact that Mr. Gambart gave upwards of two thousand four hundred pounds for a painting, chiefly With a view to the profit to be obtained by multiplying and selling copies of it. Those who copy his engravings simply fob him. They seek to make a profit out of the investment of his capital. We know that some plead the uncertainty of the law, as an excuse. They say, let the law be clearly defined and we will obey it. But if the law of England, even, were somewhat inexplicit on this subject, there can Surely be no uncertainty as to the morality of the matter. Every shilling made by these piracies is profit on another man’s capital, who suffers loss, probably in geometrical ratio to the gain of the pirate. We earnestly call upon all photographers having interest in the respectability and legitimate use of the art, to discountenance, by every means in their power, this dishonest application of it. On the other hand, publishers of engravings have, wo regret to say, largely opened facilities for these piracies, and tended to complicate the popular view of the question by neglect of certain precautions. The original Copyright Act for engravings states it as a condition by which protection is to be secured, that each print must have upon it the date | of publication and the name of the proprietor of the copy- [ right. In many instances artist’s proofs have been issued, we believe, without any such precaution having been taken. A photographic piracy of such a copy may be made with impunity. The fact becoming known that some copyright ! engravings may be copied without coming within the pale of the law, the ignorant or unscrupulous readily jump to I the conclusion that it is a complicated question, and that there is no certain illegality in any case, and readily regard piracy as vulgar minds regard poaching or smuggling, as at least venial, if not praiseworthy. The suppression of piracy does not in any way lessen the legitimate value of photography for reproduction. A wide field is open for the skilful and enterprising, in the repro duction of old, rare, and valuable engravings, which arc not copyright, and the skilful multiplication of which, on moderate terms, would be a decided boon to all lovers of art. Let those who practise reproduction devote themselves to these legitimate fields, and avoid degrading the art by practices which are injurious to individuals, repressive of enterprize, and antagonistic to the sister arts. PHOTOZINCOGRAPHY, PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY, AND PHOTO-ENGRAVING—WHO ARE THE DISCOVERERS ? What is a discovery? What is an invention? The perpe tual recurrence of claims for discovery or invention, in con nection with photography, and the amount of discussion which such claims often involve, render it very desirable that the application of these terms should be strictly defined. Yet, in no art are the boundaries which divide modification or recombination from invention so slight, or the distinctions so subtle as in photography, As a broad definition, we may state, according to lexicographers and common understand- ing, that discovery is the first perception of bringing to light of any fact, either as to any substance or any property of any substance not previously known, but which, never theless, did exist; but that invention is the production of something which did not previously exist. The substances may exist, and their properties may be known ; but a new combination, or new application, producing new results, is, nevertheless, an invention. The various methods of producing impressions of photo graphs in printers’ ink, such as photozincography, photo lithography, and photo-engraving, have occupied an unusual share of public attention recently, and in all instances involve, more or less, of the question of invention. Papers have been read at scientific societies, discussions have ap peared in the daily papers, books have been published, letters have appeared in photographic journals, &c., giving these subjects a prominence altogether unprecedented, although, by no means exceeding their importance. In attempting to decide where invention begins, and modifica tion ends, here we are struck with the fact, that in no photo graphic process have the steps been so gradual as those by which photolithography and the kindred process have been brought to their present state. The principle upon which all photolithographic or carbon- printing processes of any importance are based, was disco-