The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 7.1863
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1863
• 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-id1780948042-186300004
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18630000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18630000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

602 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [DECEMBER 18, 1863. Mr. Limbird Sisman, manager to Messrs. Southwell, said he registered the copyrights in question at Stationers’ Hall, on the 3rd of October, 1862. On the 23rd of November last he'purchased the two colourable imitations of them at the establishment of Messrs. Bickers and Son, of Leicester Square, where they were sold at 5d. each, the price of the original photographs being Is. 6d. each. They were very good as copies. He afterwards tried to purchase some at Mr. Ordish’s shop, but was unable to do so. Mr. Poland said certainly not, because Mr. Ordish had previously ascertained they were not legal photographs. Mr. Greenwell alleged an opposite reason, Mr. Sisman having been recognised as Messrs. Southwell’s manager by the shopman. Mr. Bickers, jun., proved that he purchased the two spurious photographs in question of Mr. Ordish. He had known him many years as a highly-repectable tradesman. He bought the photographs, with others, openly and in the ordinary conrse of trade. There was no concealment, neither did he receive any caution from Mr. Ordish about them. Mr. Greenwell said that was his case. Mr. Poland relied upon the respectability of his client, and the manner in which he had acted on learning that he was doing wrong in selling the spurious photographs, as the strongest evidence to prove that he had no knowledge of a subsisting copyright of the portraits he had been selling. That he had withdrawn them from circulation was clear, as Mr. Sisman was himself unable to buy a single copy when desirous of doing so prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the absence, therefore, of any proof of a guilty knowledge, Mr. Ordish was entitled to have the complaint against him dismissed. Aiderman Carter said he could only come to the con clusion that the defendant had erred through ignorance; and as he did not continue the sale of the spurious pho tographs after he became aware of their real character, he should not feel justified in convicting a respectable trades man of such an offence under those circumstances. He therefore dismissed the summons. Mr. Greenwell asked for a case to enable him to appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench on the question. Aiderman Carter said : Certainly ; he should be pleased to have the point argued by a higher court. The decision here given is not unnaturally very un satisfactory to the plaintiffs, and to many others who, like them, possess valuable copyrights in published photographs. One correspondent, writing to us on the subject, concludes that if such decisions are possible the Act is a dead letter, and that piracy may become as rife as it was before the passing of the late Act. There is, however, one very cogent reason why such a result will be impossible. The sole ground of exemption from penalties in this case is the con clusion at which the magistrate arrived to the effect that the defendant had no knowledge of the fraudulent character of the pictures he sold, that he erred through ignorance. Without pausing for a moment now to ask how far the plea is justified by facts in this instance, it is quite clear that such a plea will not be available for the same person a second time. The law, therefore, if not penal in this in stance, must at least become preventive of further piracy by the same person. The whole case here turns on the question of guilty knowledge, and will, no doubt, be fully argued before the Court of Queen’s Bench, The clause in the Act giving penalties makes a significant distinction on the subject of guilty knowledge. Persons making piratical copies, or causing them to be made, are subject to penalties without any reference to their knowledge of the law, or of the exist ence of a copyright in the works. They are presumed not to attempt to obtain an interest in a certain existing pro perty until they have ascertained the legality of their act. But persons selling, importing, publishing, or otherwise distributing pirated copies, are subject to penalties only if they do so “ knowing that any such repetition, copy, or other imitation has been unlawfully made.” Here a well-known maxim of criminal law is doubtless intended to apply; actus nonfacit ream, nisi mens sit rea. Criminal knowledge and criminal intent are necessary to constitute criminal action. The plea of ignorance, however, even where estab lished, is only available for the seller, not the producer; it cannot be pleaded in any case if sales are continued after warning from the proprietor of the photograph, and can never be available twice for the same person. • THE TANNIN PROCESS: IS IT SLOW OR RAPID? BY JOSH. S. IUEST. [Referring to the question regarding the rapidity of tannin plates, Col. Stuart Wortley has sent us a practical answer in the shape of a magnificent study of clouds, and some portion of foreground, taken instantaneously on a tannin plate with the triple achromatic lens. Mr. Hurst, who has been very successful with rapid tannin plates, sends the following excellent remarks.] Perhaps a few remarks upon the tannin process, as practised by Mr. H. C. Jennings and “ G. W. 0,” and published in the News of the 4th inst., may not be unacceptable to your readers. The first thing that strikes one is the vast differences in time of exposure given by the two operators, and the ques tion naturally arises, What is the cause of the difference of sensitiveness of plates prepared by these processes ? Having made many experiments for the purpose of obtain ing rapid dry plate?, I think I can point out the reason why those prepared by Mr. Jennings are likely to be more sensi tive than the others, though of course the two processes can not be accurately compared, because the whole details are not given in either case; for instance, Mr. Jennings does not name the strength of his bath, nor does he say whether it is acid or neutral. “ G. W. 0.” docs not give the focus of his lenses, and aperture used. I will, however, suppose that the baths and lenses are in both cases equal, and pass on to the collodion. In this there is a difference; Mr. Jennings uses bromo-iodized, and " G.W.O.” uses Ponting’s iodized, mixed with bromo-iodized. Now I have proved by careful experiments, that (with the same exposure), bromo-iodized collodion gives much more detail in tannin plates, than collodion simply iodized, and this agrees with Major Russell’s assertion. See the 2nd edition of his book, page 30. Here, then, is one cause why I should expect to find Mr. Jennings’s plates more sensitive than those of “ G. W. 0.” The next point for consideration is the preservative. Now, as tannin has an acid reaction, it may be supposed that a preservative containing 5 grains to 1 ounce of water would be less likely to impair sensitiveness than one of the strength of 15 grains. On looking over my note book, I find that on January 7th, 1863, I prepared fourteen dry plates with various pre servatives of different strengths ; these were exposed in the same camera under precisely similar conditions of light (having been kept until February 21st, to secure a favour able day), and, after comparing the results, I made the fol lowing memorandum :—“ These experiments seem to show that a stronger solution of tannin than 5 grains tends to make the film more insensitive, probably from the acidity of tannin.”—Major Russell says, “a strong solution slightly diminishes sensitiveness,” page 53. Here, then, is another reason why Mr. Jennings’s plates may be expected to be the most sensitive. We now come to the developers. " G. W. O.” uses 3 drachms of a solution of pyrogallic acid, strength 1} grains to 1 ounce of water, mixed with from 10 to 20 minims of a solution containing 20grainsof nitrate of silver, and 20 grains