HC Deb 17 August 1911 vol 29 cc2175-86

If it appears to His Majesty that a foreign country does not give, or has not undertaken to give, adequate protection to the works of British authors, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct that such of the provisions of this Act as confer copyright on works first published within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, shall not apply to works published after the date specified in the Order, the authors whereof are subjects or citizens of such foreign country, and are not resident in His Majesty's dominions, and thereupon those provisions shall not apply to such works.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, to add at the end of the Clause—

"In the case of a foreign country under whose laws it is a condition precedent of protection being given to works that such works must have been in whole or in part manufactured in such foreign country, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct that the protection afforded by this Act shall not apply to works the authors or publishers whereof are subjects or citizens of such foreign country, unless such works are wholly manufactured in the United Kingdom."

This Amendment raises a point of some importance, as the House will see by looking at the Clause. In the Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment, which was negatived without a Division on this matter, and I asked the Solicitor-General whether the object which I had in view could be provided for under the provisions of this Section. The hon. and learned Gentleman answered that, so far as he was concerned, he could not pledge the Government to give a right to American authors unless similar rights were given by the American authorities to British authors. I desire to move this Motion now with regard to one foreign country, which is, of course, I admit, the United States.

I am afraid I must trouble the House a little with the law as it now stands in America. The House knows that for many years there was no copyright afforded to publishers of foreign countries. In 189] we get the first American copyright law. I will not trouble the House with the conditions in regard to time and so forth, but in 1891 the United States first agreed to grant copyright to foreign authors. There was a clause inserted in the American law at the instigation of the Type Setters Union that such copyright should not apply unless to books which were set up in type in America. That was the foundation principle upon which America agreed to give copyright to the citizens of foreign countries. After that Act was passed another copyright Act was passed, and although an effort was made by American authors to get that particular Clause eliminated, it was actually made stronger in order to comply with the demand of the type setters and workmen of America. It was made to apply not merely to type setting, but to the reproduction of all pictures photographs, chroms and lithographs, but a very curious provision was inserted in that Act, namely, that it did not apply to any foreign works except those printed in the English language, so that so far as Englishmen are concerned in the copyright of America we have gone backward and not forward since 1891. While the Frenchman and the German can obtain copyright in America, for French or German works, without the necessity of going over there and having their books printed in America, the English author cannot get copyright there unless he goes to the expense of sending his work over and having it set up in type and printed in America, and I think I am right in saying in having it bound there, and having any illustrations that may be necessary reproduced there.

I have taken some trouble since I last spoke upon this matter to interview many authors, and I make a present of the fact to my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Sir Gilbert Parker), whom I know is a very great opponent of this Amendment, that works like this, for which there is certain to be a large demand in the United States of America, do not suffer any injury or harm under the provisions of this law. It pays them to send their works over there and to have them printed and set up there, and, I am sorry to say, not only to have the American edition printed and set up there, but also to have the English edition printed there and sent back here rather than have it printed by our own printers. It pays in the case of certain books with large circulation, but with all deference to my hon. Friend, there are literary and scientific works. I do not mean to make any reflection upon the works of my hon. Friend, but the House understands what I mean when I say there are works of a literary and scientific character as distinct from works of fiction. The authors of these works cannot afford to have a double setting up in this country and in another country. Take the case of mathematical and scientific works. I had an opportunity of speaking to Professor Loney, the well-known writer of mathematical text-books. The great cost of printing such a book as his is not only the type-setting but the numerous corrections that must unfortunately take place with regard to these books, and lie assures me that in regard to scientific works of that character they are not at the present moment doubly set up both here and in America. He publishes his works here, sets them up in English type by English type-setters and has them printed in England, and the result he assures me is, that in the first year he may get a circulation of 1,000 or 1,500 in America. The second year he may have a circulation of 2,000 or 3,000, and in the third year none, because by that time the American publisher pirates the publication because he has come to see that the particular work is good business. He practically pirates the copy in America.

Mr. BOOTH

Infringes the copy.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I prefer to say pirates the copy in America, giving the English author no benefit and the English printer and publisher no benefit. That is the position. You cannot go to the expense of having duplicate printing in England and in America unless you have a very large circulation. Further than that this action of America is detrimental to Canada. Many of these English works printed in that manner in America are sent over the Canadian Frontier and sold at a cheaper rate than they could be if they were sent out from England. I am not making this statement entirely upon my own responsibility. That is the point to some extent which was gone into by the Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Gorrell, which sat some two years ago. I admit quite frankly the Committee did not decide in favour of this Clause, but there were two important witnesses called before that Committee from the point of view of the typesetters of Great Britain, and they were the only two witnesses who dealt with this question at all. I do not think there was any other witness called by the other side. Lord Gorrell's Committee did not see fit to recommend any alteration of the law. The first witness was Mr. James Hodgson, Chairman of the Master Printers' and Allied Trades Union. Mr. Hodgson made a very strong point with regard to this American law, and in question No. 3,719 he said "the main point is the insertion of an Employment Clause in our own Copyright Act similar to the Employment Clause that now exists in the American Act. That is what I advocate, and what I have repeatedly advocated." A little further along he was asked a question by the Chairman. This affects not merely the author, but very largely the working men of this country, and this is the point to which I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward). By English authors?—By English authors, intended for the English market. They wanted to secure the American market, and they had them set up in type in America, they had electro-shells cast, brought into this country for the English edition, and they printed from the electro-plates. Were the books actually printed in England, then? —Printed from plates supplied from America. The witness was asked for further details as to the number of these works. He admitted the difficulty of ascertaining the number, and he said:— I may say I have been concerned in the production of three books which have been set up in America; as a matter of fact, they have not been printed in America. English works were printed there in America, re-exported to this country, and the title-pages merely set up here. I should like to call attention to a question which was raised by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), who took a very keen interest in this question. The question was:— Your point is, if it is good for America insisting as a condition of copyright there that the work should be done there, then it is good for England that we should insert as a condition of copyright here that the work should be done here?—Yes. You see we do not want to take the Americans work from them, but we are trying to protect ourselves from America taking our work from us. The next witness was Mr. Harry Vane Stow, the secretary to the Federation of Master Printers and the authorised witness of the London Chamber of Commerce. He was authorised by them to give evidence and he did so. I need not trouble the House with very much of his evidence, but I may say that it bore out the evidence of Mr. Hodgson as to the injustice under which the English workmen suffered. He said:— That the Amended Copyright Acts should provide, except where there is reciprocity, that no colonial or foreign authors can obtain British copyright unless their works are printed in a country signatory to the Berne Convention. Those are the witnesses which came before that Committee, and I think it is common knowledge to many hon. Members who take an interest in the commercial side of this question in addition to the author there is the work of the printer, who is entitled to appeal to this House for protection against this unfair competition. I remember the hon. Member for Norwich, who spoke on the Second Reading, asking the President of the Board of Trade if he would make inquiry as to the effect of this law on the English printing trade. I think hon. Members will agree with me as to the injustice caused by these particular provisions. What is their objection to this Clause? The objection raised in the Committee was a fear of the United States of America. We have been too long subservient to the United States in regard to our Copyright law. We have given American authors full copyright here, and they have given us in America only this very modified form of copyright. I do not believe that the Americans would alter their copyright had somebody suggested that the President of the United States would issue an order prohibiting the importation of the right of copyright to English authors.

Mr. BOOTH

Retaliation.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

He could not do it. I have looked up the American law, and the only thing they could do would be to repeal the existing copyright laws in America. I now wish to deal with the conditions contained in the Berlin Convention, which has been held over us as a bugbear. Article 6 of the Berlin Convention makes it perfectly clear that, under the Convention, the authors of America are entitled to enjoy the same rights as native authors. But there is nothing in the Convention which prevents us modifying it with regard to our own internal laws. We have modified it over and over again in this Bill. In the first Clause of this measure you will find that we have modified the Berlin Convention, which grants copyright where a work is first published in parts of His Majesty's Dominions, but in no other works except so far as the protection conferred by this Act is extended by Orders in Council relating to the self-governing Dominions and foreign countries. So that the whole thing is in our own hands. Under the provisions of the Bill there is no copyright at all for the American authors until His Majesty in Council makes a provision bringing American authors within the provisions of this particular Bill. Clause 23, to which I am proposing to add a Subsection, provides:— If it appears to His Majesty that a foreign country does not give, or has not undertaken to give adequate protection to the works of British authors, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct that such of the provisions of this Act as confer copyright on works first published within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends shall not apply to works published after the date specified in the Order. If it appeared to His Majesty that the manufacturing Clause in the American copyright was unfair to English authors, and, incidentally, to English type setters and English manufacturers, it might be open to the Government to make an Order in Council protecting the American rights of copyright. But that is not the view of the Solicitor-General, and I want the House to pass this addition to Clause 23, not absolutely to debar the Americans from having copyright here, but to enable His Majesty in Council, if on consideration this conclusion is arrived at and it is found that the American printing Clause is an unfair hindrance to English manufacturers and printers to make conditions, when applied to copyright under the provisions of this Act to the American authors, insisting upon the American manufacturing Clause being repealed or else making a similar condition in the case of this country. I do not see that is in any sense an infringement of Free Trade, although I agree it could be done by imposing a tariff upon American books coming into this country. I do not suggest that alternative, because I do not want to drag the tariff question into this very important dispute. All I ask is that the same justice should be done to the English printer and manufacturer as the great American nation has decided upon for the protection of the American printer and manufacturer. In these circumstances I ask the Government to accept this Amendment.

Mr. CASSEL

I beg leave to second this Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has informed the House that in Grand Committee we had a discussion on this subject. This Amendment is not quite the same in language, and no doubt it avoids some of the difficulties which were then pointed out. I do not think, however, that it avoids all those difficulties, for the simple reason that it is not possible to introduce into a Copyright Bill a provision to this effect without doing some of those things which the hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid. My hon. Friend has examined the convention with great care, and he has served on the Departmental Committee. If we introduced a provision of the kind he desires we should be breaking Article 4, Sub-section (2) of the Berlin Convention, because it would be "the imposition of a condition or a formality," and the international Convention of Berlin says that shall not be allowed. It is no answer to say that they do it in the United States of America. We thought it was worth our while to take part in a Conference which represented all the great literary people of the old world, and in this matter there is a good deal to be said for the old world.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think if the Solicitor-General refers to Article 4 he will see that it does not apply.

Sir J. SIMON

I notice that I was not making the right reference, but the House will see that I am right in substance. If my hon. Friend will turn to Article 6 he will see the intention is that a book which is written by an American—supposing that book is first published on the Continent of Europe—is a book which is entitled to the same copyright protection as though it were written by a European subject or citizen. It is impossible to contend that an Amendment of this sort can be accepted without setting at naught the provisions of the Berlin Convention. I may point out that the hon. Gentleman is not very successful in keeping himself within the limits of his own proposition. What he would enact would include any American painting or photograph taken by an American of architectural work on the Continent of Europe. He wishes it to be limited to books, but there is not a word to suggest that. The real truth is, the hon. Member thinks this is an opportunity for arguing the case for retaliation. He has given up consideration of the difficulties of the law of copyright in order that we may discuss an abstract question of retaliation.

We cannot adopt what he proposes without a breach of the Berlin Convention under which any author who first publishes in a union country is entitled to have the same treatment as if he were a native of that country. His Amendment is far too wide even for his own purposes. I suggest that those who urge that this step should be taken would be well advised to follow the advice of those who have personal and intimate knowledge of this matter. I remember the speech made by the Member for Gravesend, who will not be accused of suffering from any Free Trade bias. He pointed out, convincingly, that it would bring down upon English authors in the United States the destruction of that very protection they enjoy. I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman opposite when he explained the American law, but I am informed that it is quite a mistake to suppose any elaborate legislation would be required before the English authors could be denied copyright there. I am informed that a proclamation made by the President of the United States is sufficient. The hon. Member for Gravesend assured us in Committee that an attempt to introduce a provision of this sort is going to have no other consequence than that of depriving a certain number of English authors of the protection they enjoy. Is it not attempted to say that the printing trade of this country—one of our great and prosperous trades — is unable to remain on its legs unless we imitate the protective legislation of America? The truth is in this country the printing trade is a great and successful trade. It is not true that this legislation has had the result of throwing the work into other hands. Printing is better and cheaper done here than in America. If anyone buys a book in an American bookstall he will see the cost instead of being less is greater. I hope the House will come to the conclusion that we cannot do what is asked. What we can do is that we can reserve Clause 23, which does give to the Privy Council, when adequate protection to the works of British authors is not given, the power to expose the offending country to the disadvantages of that Clause. I would ask the hon. Member to rest content with that. To go further in this matter is not likely to assist British authors. It will, on the contrary, do them great damage.

Mr. J. WARD

I shall certainly support the Amendment if the hon. Member takes this matter to a Division. I confess it is rather peculiar that men should talk of the principles of Free Trade or Protection being involved when, I suppose, it is taken for granted the Copyright law, as it has existed for years in this country, is rank Protection from whatever point of view you choose to look at it. There have been some modifications since I became a Member of this House which have tended towards greater freedom. I cannot for the life of me see, when I remember the Patents and Designs Act of 1907, how it is possible that those who supported that Act can refuse to assent to what the hon. Member opposite proposes. The situation with reference to patents was exactly similar to that presented now. We in this country were so vigilant in our protection that although an article was not being pro- duced in this country we absolutely prohibited our own people from producing it either. We gave the foreigner the absolute right to make it in his own country. Under this copyright certain countries at the present time only give copyright on the conditions on which we give patents. In some countries the only conditions on which copyright is given is that the work shall be produced in that country. The Government proceeded to rectify the question of patents by its Act of 1907, when it was discovered, as a matter of fact, that such was the protection given to certain monopolies that our trade was being ruined. The Solicitor-General has told us the printing trade is a powerful trade and may be left to look after itself. The Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that with regard to the great boot industry, and other industries, when the Patents and Designs Act was under consideration. It was found that, owing to this special proceeding, which places the copyright in a foreign country, the copyright is only secure so long as the article is produced in that country. The matter was debated in this House and it is extremely questionable if the whole boot trade in this country would not have evaporated by now if action had not been taken. It is surely splitting hairs to refuse the same principles to works of art, musical records, and things of that description. We should give greater opportunities to our people to make these things. We should not design our laws to prohibit them from making them in this country. On the principles of Free Trade the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member ought to be accepted.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

If this question was not one of great gravity I would not detain the House. I am anxious the Bill should pass, but I should be unfaithful to my knowledge of the subject if I did not venture to say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. Member for Stoke. I agree with much they have said regarding the principle involved, and undoubtedly there is a grievance. It is a grievance against which I have protested, and hundreds, similarly situated, have protested. We recognise that it is an injury to the British printers that the American printers should have a particular advantage through books being printed there under compulsion, else they cannot be published. I would like to point out this. Before 1891 there was no copy- right in the book of an English author, or any other author, in the United States, and it was a work of twenty years to get that Copyright Bill passed. It would never have been passed but for this Clause, which was a compromise with the United States. The compositors and printers were not disposed to give copyright at all. They were brought in, and they were reconciled through having this printing Clause included. Every other nation of Europe of any importance has aimed at what my hon. Friend wishes—real Free Trade and international reciprocity in books. An attempt has been made to put music, art, and literature upon a plane different from the products of industry, and you find in the nations of Europe whom we do not consider to be as enlightened as ourselves a desire to come to an agreement whereby the arts shall be put upon what may be called a reciprocal basis. That has been achieved, and the Solicitor-General is absolutely right when he says there is great danger in England now adopting what we have always considered to be an absolutely retrogade action on the part of the United States.

Supposing England adopted the printing Clause, I believe there would be a certain advantage to the English printer; but the ultimate loss would be great. It is absolutely certain this whole question of a printing Clause would come up again in the Berne Convention, and we should be breaking an international agreement and understanding reached after many years' striving and after many years of progressive thought and of conciliation of the various interests. The result of the Amendment, if carried, would be that the international agreement would be broken, because the principles laid down by the Berne Convention would be repudiated by this country, and we should be adopting a principle which we have condemned for a great many years. We not despair yet of getting the United States into that convention. There is a stronger movement in the United States now than there ever was before for the inclusion of the American Republic in the Berne Convention; and I honestly believe if we adhere to our honourable agreement of international reciprocity with those powers comprising the Berne Convention, and do not pursue this proposed policy of retaliation, we shall within a reasonable time be able to induce the United States to give up this reactionary principle of compelling a book to be printed and set up in the country where it is published. I want to say one word of warning. If we adopt this Amendment, I am absolutely certain the United States will abrogate the Copyright Act which already exists there to the injury of interests which all of us hold dear, the interests of literature and the interests of working people in this country, those who work with their heads as well as those who work with their hands. I beg the Solicitor-General not to hesitate a moment in adhering to the principle which has been well established as against a principle that has been repudiated by every nation of the world except the United States.

Mr. JOYNSON HICKS

I should like to be quite clear about the matter before I withdraw my Amendment. If the Solicitor-General holds that Clause 23, as it now stands, would provide a Government of opinion that the American provision was detrimental to the English compositor with power to make an Order in Council, then I should be glad to withdraw my Amendment. I gather that is what the Solicitor-General said. I do not ask that this Government should carry that into effect, but, if that Clause would give the Government of the day that power, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. Gentleman knows the Clause begins: If it appears to His Majesty that a foreign country does not give, or has not undertaken to give, adequate protection to the works of British authors, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct. If a situation arose to justify the application of those words, the Government would certainly have the power to make an Order in Council.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I do not ask the Government to make the Order, but so long as there is the power I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.