The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 13.1869
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1869
• 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-id1780948042-186900000
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18690000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18690000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Bemerkung: Heft 545 (S. 73-84), Heft 547 (S. 97-108), Heft 589 (S. 599-610) fehlen in der Vorlage. Paginierfehler: Auf Seite 444 folgt Seite 443
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. Vos. XIII. No. 558.—May 14,1869. CONTENTS. PAGE The New Fine Art Copyright Bill and Photographic Portraitists 229 Persistency of the Latent Image 229 Echoes of the Month. By an Old Photographer 230 Spirit Photographs 231 The Photographic Market 232 Retouching the Negative. By Dr. Vogel 232 Over-Developed Negatives. By M. Carey Lea 233 How to Keep a Bath in Good Working Order for the Greatest Length of Time. By Geo. II. 233 Many Mites from many Minds. By Edward L. Wilson 234 Photographic Piracy 234 Correspondence—Toning Collodio-Chloride Prints—New and Old Iron Developers—Stability of Gum Negatives—Wet Landscape Photography without a Tent — Photo-Relief Printing Process—Iron Developer — Carbon Printing at Newcastle 235 Proceedings of Soiceties—French Photographic Society—Pho tographic Society of London—North London Photographic Association—Edinburgh Photographic Society—Amateur Photographic Association 237 Talk in the Studio 239 To Correspondents 240 Photographs Registered 240 THE NEW EINE ART COPYRIGHT BILL AND PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAITISTS. Wb recently called attention to the provisions of the new Fine Art Copyright Bill introduced by Lord Westbury into the House of Lords, in which the rights of photographic portraitists are left in a somewhat anomalous and unsatis factory state. The Bill was read a second time on the 30th ult., and a committee of the House of Lords was appointed for the 3rd inst., when it will be subject to such modifications as the evidence which may be brought before the committee may prove to be necessary or desirable. How far it is of sufficient importance for portraitists, either singly or in any combined form, to secure a hearing before the committee, is for themselves to determine.* In our con viction, photographic portraiture has become such an im portant art industry, and is surrounded by so many special circumstances which do not obtain in regard to paintings, that it imperatively demands a distinct and separate con sideration and provision which should meet the equity of the case, and protect at once the photographer and his sitter. As the matter stands, the provisions made for the protection of the rights of the purchaser of a painting costing a thousand guineas apply equally to the sitter for the cheapest photographic portrait, and give him a facility for recovering penalties against the photographer who has supplied the portrait if he venture to sell, give away, or even exhibit a single copy of such portrait, or, to use the words of the Bill, if he “ repeat, copy, imitate, or otherwise multiply, for sale, hire, exhibition, or distribution ; ” and these penalties may extend to twenty pounds for each copy so unlawfully produced, circulated, or exhibited. That photographs might possibly require special and separate provisions, and that to their disadvantage, was suggested in a narrow speech by Lord Kimberley, who thought it was worthy of consideration whether it was de sirable to give so long a protection to photographs as paint ings and drawings. No voice was heard claiming any special care for photography. The Earl of Caithness, a skilful amateur photographer, and a vice-president of the Photographic Society, was possibly not present; but surely his name ought to have appeared amongst the committee appointed to sit in regard to a Bill which so nearly concerns the interests of photographers.+ We append a letter from an esteemed correspondent, who suggests that a special clause should bo inserted in the Bill We are glad to state that a committee to watch the Bill was appointed by the Council of the Photographic Society on Tuesday evening. t The committee consists of the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Stanhope, the Bari of Carnarvon, Earl Somers, Viscount Hardinge, the Bishop of Oxford Lord Portman, Lord Overstone, Lord Lyveden, Lord Westbury. Lord’ Houghton, Lord Romilly, the Duke of St. Albans, Viscount Stratford de xedclitte, and Lord de Lisle and Dudley, the latter three names having Peen added to the committee since its appointment. to prevent the perpetration of what have been termed the “ twopenny piracies.” As the Bill stands, the respectable portraitist is absolutely deprived of any remedy in such cases. If the copyright in a portrait, with proper limita tions as to its use, were made the property of the photo grapher, all piracies of photographs, twopenny or other wise, could be easily suppressed. We subjoin the letter in question :— “ Piracies. “ Dear Sir,—I observe that a Bill to amend the law of copyright was read a second time in the House of Lords, on the motion of Lord Westbury, last week. Now, would it not be worth while trying to introduce a provision making the copyright of any photographic portrait, taken in the ordinary course of business by (say) Mr. T. R, Williams, making, I say, the copying of such by the “ twelve for 2s. 8d.” men an offence ? What possible right have these fellows to step in and deprive Mr. W. or me of the profit we may legitimately look for from the demand for further copies ? “ Only last week, a wretched thing was brought to me. ‘ Please, can I have a copy of this ? It (!) was taken here.’ On examination I found it to be a copy from a photograph done here, the original being a very good and brilliant picture. On the back of the coarse bit of pasteboard on which it was mounted was the address in type of one of these pirates. He had clearly done us out of an order for an extra dozen pictures, besides the discredit attaching to the wretched copy being supposed to be our production; and I have no doubt the reputation of many of my con freres is made to suffer in the same way. This man’s pro ceedings are as nefarious as those of the parties proceeded against by Mr. Graves, but, instead of working in secrecy, he has the impudence to proclaim his robberies by open advertisement. “ It would follow that the nature and limit of copyright and ownership of negatives should also be strictly defined. Nothing can be more sensible or to the point than the letter of Mr. Plees, in a recent number of the News, on this point, and it would but need a declaratory clause in the Act to that effect to settle the matter satisfactorily for all concerned. Were such legislation to take place, it would answer the purpose of the authorities to reduce the registration fee to a nominal sum, and of photographers of any standing to register all portraits. The extra copies we are now robbed of orders for would soon make up for the expense.—Yours truly, " G. R. Fitt.” PERSISTENCY OF THE LATENT IMAGE. RErERRING to our record of Mr. Fothergill's experiment in redeveloping the image in a collodio-albumen negative after all apparent trace of the picture had been removed by nitric acid, Dr. Van Monckhoven sends us the following commit