LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 27 February 1862)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to copyright in works of fine art. The law on that subject was at present in a very imperfect and anomalous condition. Copyright had been created in books and other subjects. With respect to the fine arts, two series of Acts had been passed, giving a copyright of a limited and special nature. In 1735 an Act was passed at the instance of the celebrated Hogarth, giving a copyright in prints and engravings, but awarding no protection to the pictures from which they were taken. In the present reign that protection was extended to lithographs. Another series of Acts gave copyright to sculp- 844 tures, models, and casts. That was the extent to which works of fine art were protected in this country. It might appear a singular thing, that while an engraving enjoyed protection, the picture from which it was taken should be without of any protection at all. Yet that was the present state of the law. This, the principal evil he proposed to remedy, was almost peculiar to England. In most European countries the principle of copyright extended through the whole range of the fine arts, and especially existed in regard to pictures; and if we had a similar copyright, the benefit of the laws of the different countries with whom we had connections under the International Copyright Acts would be obtained by our artists. The periods for which copyright were given in this country varied rather arbitrarily. He had taken as the period of copyright for pictures, drawings, and photographs the period of life and seven years beyond. That was one of two alternative periods adopted in Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's Act giving a copyright in books. He believed that such a limited protection for life and seven years beyond would be satisfactory to artists, and that protection would extend to every painting, drawing, and photograph now in existence, or which might be hereafter made, and which had not already been sold or disposed of. He had not thought it expedient to make the Act retrospective, so as to give a copyright either to the painter or the purchaser of pictures, &c, already parted with. The Bill did not propose, when a picture was sold, to give any copyright as against the purchaser, unless the copyright were especially reserved by the author at the time of sale. He did not propose to extend the protection beyond paintings, drawings, and photographs. The Bill would give the ordinary legal remedies and penalties to secure copyright. Another object was to put a stop to a considerable trade which had grown up in spurious pictures, the manufacturers of which counterfeited the marks and monograms of artists of eminence, whose reputation suffered from the fraud while the public were imposed upon. The Bill proposed to make that offence a misdemeanour and to protect artists against frauds. The Bill differed considerably from that of last year. It was simplified, and some of the more questionable provisions of the measure of last year were omitted. In the previous Bill 845 there was a provision that even in cases where there was no subsisting copyright, and where any one was at perfect liberty to engrave a work, the name of the anther should not be affixed to any copy or engraving. That did not appear to him a reasonable provision, and he had not retained it. In other respects the Bill was much simplified. The penalties would be found to be not so severe as before, some having been omitted and others modified. It was of considerable importance in the present year that such a Bill, if the principle was approved by the House, should be passed with despatch; otherwise foreign artists, who had a copyright in their own country in those works which we were most anxious to see in the Great Exhibition, must either withhold their contributions or expose themselves to the danger of having their rights invaded. He begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill.

§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY
said, he regretted that the Bill did not include any provision with regard to works of plastic art.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that protection was at present afforded by law for fourteen years at all events, and if the author were living, for a further similar period, making altogether twenty-eight years after the first production or publication to works of sculpture, casts, and models. The natives of countries which have treaties of international copyright with England enjoyed the benefit of that protection.

§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY
observed, that the present state of the law was most unsatisfactory both to the professors and patrons of that branch of art.