Volltext Seite (XML)
MARCH 5, 1880. | THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 109 Ue Dqotographir Zehs, Eturck 5, 1880. PHOTOGRAPHS IN AND OUT OF THE STUDIO- Photogbaphic Copyright—Photographs as Legal Evid ence—Spence’s Metal or Gelatine Moulds—Trying it on. Photographic Copyright.— The vexed question of copyright is still as far off being settled as ever. It was hoped that the Copyright Amendment Bill introduced by Lord John Manners, Viscount Sandon, and the Attorney-General in July last, would have come on for discussion this session, but it has been sacrificed to the Juggernaut of Obstruc tion, and the subject will be left for a future Parliament to deal with. So far as photographers are concerned, the present Bill may be said simply to make legal that which has been pretty generally the practice in the profession. The clauses relating to photographs are brief, and it may be useful to reproduce them in extenso. (a). The pre visions of this Act, as to the name of the author and date of execution, shall not apply, (b)■ The copyright in a photo graph shall endure for thirty years from the date of the pub lication of the photograph, and no longer, (c). The copy right in a photograph shall belong to the proprietor of the negative from which the photograph is printed, (d). When the photograph has been made on the order of any person for a valuable consideration, the proprietor of a copy right shall not be entitled to sell, expose for sale, or ex hibit any copy of the photograph without the consent of the person, and that person shall have the same right of pre venting the selling, exposing for sale, or exhibition of any copy of the photograph ; and, if the copyright is infringed, of taking proceedings in respect of the infringement, as if he were the proprietor of the copyright. It is not quite easy to understand why, in this clause, the word “ valu able " should have been introduced, as it is just as reason able to ask that a negative for which one shilling has been paid should be protected, as if it had cost five guineas. Considering the word “ valuable ” by the light of its ordin ary interpretation, it is certainly open for a man who has infringed the copyright of a negative (the consideration of which was, say, sixpence) to plead that the consideration was not a “ valuable” one. It is possible a judge might not admit the plea, but, if not, he would in justice have to define where inferiority ends, and “value” begins. Though not expressly stated, this clause implies that when a person sits for his photograph the copyright in the negative belongs to the photographer, though the latter cannot make use of it in any way without the consent of the sitter. This, of course, is only right, and, as we have just pointed out, is but a confirmation of the rule generally acted upon. In a recent libel case, some remarks which, we believe, were unfounded and unjustifiable, were indulged in by a learned counsel, who asserted his client had made every effort to stop the sale of certain photographs, but without success. As far as shopkeepers are concerned this is quite possible, and the law at present provides no remedy ; but in regard to the photographic profession, no photographer of respec tability, we are certain, ever makes use of a negative in opposition to the wishes of his customers ; indeed, most photographers are extremely punctilious on this point, and we know an instance where a photographer of emin ence refused to supply an artist (though he knew the latter to be a friend of the sitter—a young lady, whose portrait the artist wished to introduce into a picture he was painting) with a photograph until he obtained the consent in writing of the father of the young lady. It is but just that the person photographed should have some right in regard to exhibition of the photograph, and that he should be able to exercise that right legally which he certainly can not do at present. Supposing that you arc abominably ugly, and the photographer exhibits your portrait; or put the case that you have offended him by objecting to the head rest and by moving in consequence, and he takes his re ¬ venge by holding you up to public scorn in the possession of three heads, or with your nose amalgamated with your mouth—surely there ought to be a safeguard against all this ! And yet, at present, there is none. Or take a possible contingency hinted at by a correspondent last week. You are an assistant in want of a situation, and you send speci mens of your best work to a " petty photographer.” You never hear anything more of your situation or your specimens, until one day you are upbraided by one of the originals, because you have allowed his or her photograph to be exhibited in a case of monstrosities somewhere in the New Cut! The subject of copyright in photographs is really one which might be fairly discussed by the various photographic societies before the Bill is again brought before the House of Commons. Photographs as Legal Evidence.—Photography is destined to play a very important part in legal proceedings, especially in cases of accident, when the causes are dis puted, and when it is essential an exact representation of the condition of affairs immediately after the accident should be laid before a jury. For this purpose photo graphs were taken of the scene of the disaster at Vauxhall, and these may probably be of assistance in fixing the lia bility on the proper parties. Such photographs, however, require to be executed with some degree of intelligence on the part of the photographer, and an appreciation of the facts of the case, or they may become absolutely mislead ing. Precise as the camera is, it would not be very difficult, we fancy, by the use of an unsuitable lens, and by the choice of an improper point of sight, to give an idea of the appearance of any place quite foreign from the truth so far as relative proportion is concerned. We remember a case some years ago when a photographer made a blun der of this kind, which proved very disastrous to his client. The latter was a publican who was very anxious to obtain a spirit licence for a large public house he had built. The chief opposition to his application came from a neighbouring Boniface who had had undisputed posses sion of the custom of the locality for some years, and who, of course, did not want an intruder. The applicant’s house was situated on the top of a gentle slope at the corner of two roads, and was really an imposing looking edifice; the opponent’s house was a somewhat stunted building also at the corner of two roads, but with a considerable front age on one side. It occurred to the applicant that if he could only lay the photographs of the two houses before the visiting justices they would be so overcome with the contrast presented, that they would immediately grant him a licence. Accordingly he had the two photographed. Unfortunately the photographer used a short-focus wide- angle lens, and, selecting his point of sight in respect to the new house opposite the angle (which happened, un fortunately, to be naturally rather an acute one) formed by the two sides of the building, produced a picture in which the two lines of the roof formed almost an isosceles tri angle, while the house was squeezed together in the most absurd fashion. The perspective, in fact, was strained and unnatural, and the camera had absolutely made a picture which no human eye (unless it posssssed a short-focus, wide-angle lens) could by any possibility see. To make the matter worse, instead of meting out the same justice to the old house, the photographer selected a point midway opposite the longest line of frontage, and planted the camera much nearer the object than he did in the first instance. The result was, that the old house in the photograph appeared much the more imposing of the two, and anyone who had not seen the originals would have preferred it to the ungainly and disproportioned edifice of which the owner was so proud. At any rate, the justices thought so, and refused the licence. There is no occasion to point out the moral of this little story. Every photographer who is accustomed to use his brains will see it for himself. The one who does not well, we fear there is no hope for him.