§ The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death, unless previously determined by first publication elsewhere than in the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends.
§ Provided that at any time after the expiration of twenty-five years, or in the case of a work in which copyright subsists at the passing of this Act thirty years, from the death of the author of a published work copyright in the work shall not be deemed to be infringed by the reproduction of the work for sale if the person reproducing the work proves that he has given the prescribed notice in writing of his intention to reproduce the work, and that he has paid in the prescribed manner to, or for the benefit of, the owner of the copyright royalties in respect of all copies of the work sold by him calculated at the rate of ten per cent. on the price at which he publishes the work; and for the purposes of this proviso the Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing the mode in which 1958 notices are to be given, and the particulars to be given in such notices, and the mode, time, and frequency of the payment of royalties, including (if they think fit) regulations requiring payment in advance or otherwise securing the payment of royalties.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEAs the House appears to regard the term of copyright as a closed question, I do not propose to move my Amendment making the term sixty years from the date of publication.
§ Mr. RADFORDI beg to move, to leave out the word "fifty" ["and a period of fifty years after his death "], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
This very important provision making the term of copyright fifty years from the death of the author was passed in a Committee of rather attenuated dimensions. I do not think the number of Members present warranted such a great change as was made on that occasion, and I think it my duty to call attention to the matter in order that the House may reconsider the question. Prior to this Bill the term of copyright dated from the time of the first publication until seven years after the death of the author or for forty-two years, whichever period was the longer. It is now proposed in all cases to give copyright to the author and his successors for the term of the life of the author and for fifty years afterwards. That obviously very largely increases the period of monopoly and correspondingly encroaches on the public domain.
Sir GILBERT PARKERUnder the Bill the author will have only twenty-five years of unrestricted copyright. After that period any publisher may publish on the simple condition that he pays a royalty.
§ Mr. RADFORDI quite admit that. But in my judgment it is better for the public that there should be unrestricted competition in publication after sufficient concession has been made to encourage the author in the good work of publishing the result of his labours. It seems to me a very grave act to encroach so far on the public domain and pro tanto to increase the price of good literature and to deprive the public, particularly the poor, of the great boon which they nowadays enjoy in the cheap and abundant publication of excellent works. It is a very invidious thing to say anything in this House which may appear to be hostile to the interests of the poor author. We are all sympathetic to- 1959 wards the poor author; but I would say, in reference to that argument, that it is perfectly true, as was recognised by the Members of the Committee, some of whom had much skill and experience in such matters, that there is not one book out of a thousand of which the copyright is worth anything at all at the expiration of twenty-five years after the author's death. Therefore, we are going to produce a very small effect by this great change in the law. It is proposed, for the sake of one book which may have a value fifty years after the author's death, to impose an embargo on the public in respect of the other 999. In the case of a book which has any copyright value several years after the author's death it is unlikely that that author's descendants will be in any want at all. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he has left them a valuable property which many years after his death is bringing in an income to his descendants. Therefore the provision we propose to make for his descendants is not needed at all.
It is also said that if the copyright, although continuing as a matter of law, does not bring in any return no harm is done. But that is a point upon which I think no such assertions can properly be made, because if you have 999 works of which the copyright is spent, they are producing no income to anyone, and are of no use to anyone. It is to the public interest that that dead weight should be cut away, and that the public should not be encumbered by what I may call a mass of spent copyright. Supposing that the work has been published many years, and the author has long been dead. Quite innocently, unintentionally, and inadvertently one of these works or part of it is published. Then the publisher finds out for the first time that there is a latent copyright existing, and that latent copyright is used for the purposes of litigation, extortion, and blackmail. Those who are familiar with what has happened in some cases with artistic, and in other cases with a musical copyright, will know that it is a great danger to the public. It is in order that the public may be saved from that grave danger that I think that it is well to limit the period of copyright to twenty-five years, as I propose to do in my Amendment. I think also that the advantage to the poor artist, or, rather, to the starving children of the deceased artist, is not so 1960 great as the disadvantage imposed on the public by leaving all this mass of spent and useless copyright in the world.
§ Mr. LEACHOn a point of Order, will it be competent for me to move a lower figure than twenty-five years as a further Amendment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYou will have to get the fifty years out. When fifty is struck out, the hon. Member can make a further Amendment.
§ Mr. LEACHThen I second the Amendment with pleasure to take out the fifty years. As one of those poor authors to which the last speaker alluded, it would be an advantage to me if I could leave behind me books that would circulate for twenty-five years. It remains to be seen whether they would do so, for I shall not be here to see. But I cannot see why a longer period of protection should be given to the man who writes a book than to the man who invents a great machine. If, for instance, I were a mechanic, like many hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway, and invented a machine that would automatically silence and re-seat any Member of this House who spoke for more than ten minutes at a time, I should not be given more protection than fourteen years. If, on the other hand, I wrote a book the proposal under this Bill is to protect it for fifty years after the death of the author, except as we have provided in a later part of this Bill, Clause 4, to which I will refer later.
Mr. BUXTONI would like, in the first place, to draw attention to what occurred in Grand Committee in reference to the statement made by the hon. Member behind, that the fifty years' period was accepted by an attenuated Committee. That really is not so. It was decided in the Committee that the matter should be decided on its merits, and while the period was put in at the moment, when the Committee was attenuated, it was clearly understood at the first that the full Committee had the matter entirely within their purview to deal with at a subsequent stage. I just want to correct that statement, therefore, so that Members should not take it that the fifty years was inserted by an attenuated Committee. I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend at any length in arguing the merits of the fifty years. The position, so far as I am concerned, is this: that in the Bill as originally drafted these years were put in to bring the Bill more or less into conformity 1961 with the period already adopted by other nations. It appears to me that if you have an extension of period of this description there ought to be protection for the public in the matter. In Clause 4 we have endeavoured to protect the public.
It became the duty of the Committee and myself following the criticisms made on this matter to find some alternative. After a consideration of the various proposals we alighted upon a proposal which I think should give general satisfaction to two classes. It gives a certain period to an author, to estimate the dealing with his copyright, and when that period had expired, it gives a sort of free trade in the copyright, subject to a royalty of 10 per cent. to the author. That proposal, I am glad to say, was unanimously adopted by the Grand Committee, and I think may be said to be to the advantage to the author to give him that to which he is entitled, and at the same time to protect the public. My hon. Friend behind me said that only one in a thousand authors did get any advantage from copyright.
§ Mr. RADFORDOne work in a thousand.
Mr. BUXTONI beg pardon, one work in a thousand. I should have thought that that was the best argument for giving this protection to the public, and I think also the best argument to give a real substantial period of years for the protection of such a work as would come under the proposal. My hon. Friend is proposing to reduce the period to twenty-five years. The effect of that will be that considerable reduction of the benefit for any book published in the last seventeen years of an author's life, so far as free copyright is concerned. Macaulay, in his great speech upon copyright seventy years ago, showed—and so far as I have been able to examine the matter I concur in that view—that it is the works of later years of an author that are the best. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that argument applies to works of research, history, and science, and the proposal now before us would materially diminish the advantage that is justly accorded. Without going into details which I discussed at length on the Second Reading and more than once in Grand Committee, I feel confident that our proposal, while it does no injury to the author, on the whole does not give him much advantage; it does him no injury, at the same time the interests of the public, which I have placed in the forefront, are 1962 protected. I hope under those circumstances this House will support the Grand Committee in arriving at a conclusion. I need hardly say that the Grand Committee gave every possible consideration to the matter which was discussed over and over again.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODAs one who was on the Grand Committee, and was a party to the arrangement made about this, I should like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The copyright originally was fifty years after death; the terms arranged were that absolute copyright should exist for twenty-five years, and that in the subsequent twenty-five years everybody should be free to publish subject to the payment of 10 per cent. royalties.
Mr. BUXTONI do not claim any copyright in the proposal, but that was my proposal, and was on the Paper for weeks. The only change made was twenty years and twenty-seven years, and that we came to an arrangement by accepting twenty five years.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODYes. The copyright and the Clause does rest with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope, my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment will not go to a division. If he does I do not see how any of us who are on the Grand Committee can support him.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am one of those unfortunate individuals who was not upon the Grand Committee, and therefore I am not bound by any arrangements made behind the back of the House. Look at the difficulty we are in now. I have not had the opportunity of putting my views and those of my Constituency before the Grand Committee, and when I come here I find two such irreconcilables as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) have arranaged this matter between them. I think this is the vital part of the Bill. Up to now we have only been skirmishing on Amendments; I think twenty years is an adequate period. I am sorry the Labour Members and representatives of the working classes are not here to hear my appeal. I am making this appeal in response to invitations which I got from the Labour conferences. The Labour conferences are entirely against this proposal, and I venture to say that hon. Members cannot get 1963 a working man in their constituencies to agree to the figure in the Bill. You cannot get a single intelligent working man to declare himself in favour of this Clause 3. I myself put this matter before the working-men, and I could not find a single one of them in favour of it. I am not one of those who says that the working-man should always have his way, but I want hon. Gentlemen to realise there are two sides to this question. Hon. Members in favour of this Bill are always talking about poor orphans. I do not look at it in that way at all. This is not a Bill to protect orphans any more than the Jameson Raid was intended to protect the women and children of Johannesburg. This is merely an effort to queer the pitch. The Committee room upstairs was not filled with poor authors while the discussion was on. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) seemed to think everybody was in some way or other committed to some vested interests. I would be very glad to champion orphans, but in this case I think it is my duty to champion the poor working men who want enlightenment. How are the great bulk of our people to get on who have been denied the privilege of education in the battle of life and become useful citizens unless they have access to cheap literature? I may be wrong, but I think this is an effort to prevent cheap literature, and that that is the secret of the whole opposition to this Amendment. That is the reason I appeal for further consideration. I am not here to say that the author of a book should not have some kind of help from the State to protect the products of his own brain. That is not the point. The point is, Is the figure in the Bill a reasonable one? I say no. I regret I have not yet had the advantage myself which many members of this House have of expressing their views with literary polish, but we do not find people in commercial circles asking for the protection for their products which is asked for by authors here.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORCommercial people are not robbed of their profits.
§ Mr. BOOTHWe could produce from the commercial circles of Lancashire far stronger cases of injustice than can be produced from literary circles. My father did not complain that a piece of cloth exactly like what he was manufacturing was copied and produced by someone in business alongside him. What protection did the law give him for the 1964 piece of cloth which he designed? Not fifty years, not fifty minutes, not fifty seconds. He did not come whining to this House to protect him. He belonged to the great Free Trade city of Manchester, and he attended to his business and put in some extra zeal, and got up at six in the morning. The hon. Member for Gravesend thinks that the answer to all that is that he was paid for his piece of cloth. But no one denies that a man should be paid fox the book he sells. The whole case is that a special Act of Parliament should be passed to prevent a book being copied whereas there is to be no protection for a piece of cloth being copied. It is not a question of being paid for the piece of cloth; it is the question of another having the right to make the identical article and to say, "This piece of cloth is exactly like the other man's, but I will sell it so much per yard cheaper." That is done in Lancashire and Yorkshire and they sell these things in competition with America, where they have everything favourable, and yet they do not come whining to this House for fifty years' protection. No, they put a little extra business capacity into their work. The people who will benefit by this provision are the rich publishers and the men with stocks of books. Naturally, the men who print those books want as long a period as possible to work their monopoly in order that they may be sure to sell their articles at a profit. Why should we sacrifice our Free Trade principles. Probably hon. Members will say that a Free Trade Government has brought in this proposal, and, therefore, we must accept it. But I am not prepared to trust Free Trade to all the Members sitting on the Front Bench. My point is that when you provide for a period of fifty years you cannot be benefiting the author at all. It has been said that an author does his beat work in his old age, but I think many of those works which we love the most have been written by men when they were young, with warm souls and enthusiasm in their nature, before they had the privilege of sitting in the Gallery here listening to our Debates. What I have just said applies to Keats's "Endymion," and other great works.
I want the House to avoid putting such a hideous figure as fifty years upon the Statute Book. Do hon. Members think that in the course of ten or twenty years the House of Commons, as it will then be constituted, will leave a Copyright Bill like this in existence. I am not troubled so much about twenty-five or fifty years, but 1965 a great many hon. Members seem to have a totally wrong conception with regard to this period. We owe a great deal of our progress to the time when our literature was cheap and free. Such provisions as this did not apply to such works as "Paradise Lost" and all those other beautiful odes on liberty, which I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will read. We see at the present time the ignorant Chinaman struggling for liberty, and we see him poring over these great works. What are we to do in the future? We are to tell people that they shall have none of these great works unless a Copyright Bill is passed. The grandeur and glory of literary effort is far above the pecuniary reward of these men. In trade and commerce we manage all these things without this kind of protection, but when you come to the disclosure of brilliant ideas to us humdrum individuals, when the man has the evangel in his mind and wants to give it to the world, whether in the form of art, literature, or political lecture—
§ Dr. HILLIERMay I ask the hon. Member if he thinks £5 was an adequate price for "Paradise Lost"?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt.
§ Mr. BOOTHAlthough the hon. Member was out of order, as hon. Gentlemen on those benches occasionally are, I thank him for reminding me that Milton got £5 for "Paradise Lost." I believe Disraeli got a good many thousands for his work. That is something very interesting upon which to reflect. The hon. Member just proves my case. What induced the great Milton to write those odes and to pen those beautiful lines? What induced him also to come out as the apostle of freedom and liberty? He was able to make tyrants beyond this House quake. He had to do it for £5. I take the hon. Gentleman's interruption as proving my case, and I ask hon. Members to look at this thing from a practical standpoint. I quite admit those who are in commerce are sordid enough to work for pounds, shillings, and pence, but we have always admired those great men and looked up to them as men of superior advantages to ourselves and as men who could come with a message we were unable to grasp. After all, you cannot expect
§ people who are accustomed to the sound of the looms and the Manchester streets to have the same appreciation of great literary efforts as men who have had the advantage of a university education.
§ I want this looked at from the point of view of uplifting the poor people. Why should you deprive millions of people of the inestimable benefit of reading these priceless works of literature? Why should they not come forward and try to march with us in the van of human progress. Knowing as I know the industrial districts of the North, I say that one of the greatest charms and solaces we had was that we were able for a few pence when Cassel's National Library was published—we were able, for 4½d., or 6d. bound in cloth, even if you did not get any discount—to get some of the priceless gems of English literature. It was my privilege, even amid the din of the loom and the winding frame, occasionally to get a few minutes when I could pull one of those little books out of my pocket. They had not been induced to write those books by Copyright Bills or by the sordid idea of making money. It is because those books are cheap that we who are engaged in commerce get the advantage of them. I speak as one under the deepest obligation to those writers, and I appeal to hon. Members to lift this discussion on to a higher plane. This Clause is framed to suit men with stocks of books and men who are going to buy up the brains of the authors. Supposing an author dies, and leaves a widow and children who are in need of our pity and appeal for our help, and then suppose the widow dies, it is impossible those five or six children can remain the proprietors of this copyright. They have to sell it for what they can get, and the great bulk of the profit goes to people who exploit other men's brains. There are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to protect the public rights. Fifty years is undoubtedly too long; but if you bring sordid gain in a fewer number of years would meet the case. I appeal to the House not to put in this exaggerated figure of fifty.
§ Question put, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 35.
1967| Division No. 297.] | AYES. | [4.19 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ashley, W. W. | Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Beck, Arthur Cecil |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Balcarres, Lord | Beckett, Hon. Gervase |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Haddock, George Bahr | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hillier, Dr. A. P. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Hills, John Waller | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham). |
| Cameron, Robert | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Campion, W. R. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pollock, Ernst Murray |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cassel, Felix | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Reddy, M. |
| Chambers James | Joyce, Michael (Limerick) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Clough, William | Kerry, Earl of | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Rothschild, Lionel D. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Cullinan, John | Leach, Charles | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lewis, John Herbert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Dillon, John | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Sheehy, David |
| Donelan, Anthony Charles | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Doris, W. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | Shortt, Edward |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lyell, Charles Henry | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lynch, A. A. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Mackinder, Halford J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Maclean, Donald | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bclton M. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Falconer, J. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Tennant, Harold John |
| Falle, Bertram Godfrey | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Mallaby-Deely, Harry | Touche, George Alexander |
| Fell, Arthur | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Meagher, Michael | Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Molloy, M. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Mooney, John L. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | Morgan, George Hay | Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gibson, Sir James Puckering | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Munro, Robert | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Nolan, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Hinds, John | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Hudson, Walter | Radford, George Heynes |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Barnes, George N. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Lansbury, George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Rowlands, James |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Macpherson, James Ian | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Martin, Joseph | Wardle, G. J. |
| Crooks, William | O'Grady, James | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Booth and Mr. Murray Macdonald, |
| Higham, John Sharp | Primrose, Hon Neil James |
Resolution agreed to.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move to leave out the words "or, in the case of a work in which copyright subsists at the passing of this Act, thirty years."
This part of Clause 3 enacts that twenty-five years after the death of an author anyone shall have a right to publish his books subject to the payment of a royalty. Let me make clear the object of the Government in inserting this Amendment. It was really inserted at the request of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Gilbert Parker). They said there are 1968 books at present for which copyright will clearly last more than twenty-five years after death and where the book is published within five years of a man's death the normal period would be forty-two years for a publication, that is thirty-seven years after death, and here under this Bill you are cutting it down to twenty-five years after death. In that case the author of that work will lose twelve years of copyright, and therefore it would be unfair to pass this Act. To meet hard cases the Government, on the suggestion of the hon. Mem- 1969 ber for Gravesend, inserted these words, "or in the case of a work in which copyright subsists at the passing of this Act thirty years." My contention is that if twenty-five years after death is to be in use at all it must be universal. The chief complaint against the existing law is that it is forty-two years from publication, and that no one quite knows when books were published. It is very difficult to say when they came under copyright, and the main argument of those who recommended that a certain period after death should be taken as the period for copyright was that by this measure every one would know, and that a certain amount of certainty would be given to the publishing trade as to whether they were contravening copyright or not. Surely that argument is equally appropriate in the case of this Amendment. It will lead to a certain amount of trouble if copyright is to apply to certain works thirty years after death and to certain other works twenty-five years after death. The publishing trade will have all the difficulty of finding out when a man died, and whether the work they propose to deal with does or does not come under the exemption. This introduces an additional complication in the Bill, and I think, in the interest of simplicity, these words should be excised from the Clause. I would remind the House that the average duration of copyright after death is twenty-one years, so that twenty-five years is an advance of four years on the average. In addition to that, we are giving authors twenty-five years with 10 per cent. royalty. Ten per cent. amounts to as much as an author gets from absolute copyright. A publisher would not be likely to pay more than 10 per cent. for the right of publication. It is well known that there is now a large eruption of cheap books of the we. and 4½d. type on the bookstalls. These books are cutting out the ordinary magazine. They are bought extremely widely, and they are becoming the literature of the lower middle and the working classes. The royalty paid by the publishers does not exceed 10 per cent., and it is very often less. Five years after a work has been published in library form the royalty has generally sunk to 10 per cent. or less.
§ Sir GILBERT PARKER indicated dissent.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe hon. Member gets more than ten per cent., but I repeat that the royalty on cheap books is certainly not more than 10 per cent five years after 1970 publication in library form. A larger royalty than 10 per cent. after twenty-five years would be most ususual and exceptional. There might be poets like Tennyson and Kipling where more than 10 per cent. would be secured after death.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWho can secure 25 per cent? That is absolutely impossible. If the hon. Baronet can give me a case, I will look into it, but there would be the opportunity given to the author, besides the 10 per cent., of increasing the number of his books sold and therefore increasing the amount of his royalties. Therefore we are not asking very much in suggesting that these words should be cut out and in every case twenty-five years after death be the regulating time for the extinction of copyright.
Mr. BUXTONThis was retained by the Committee in order to give some little advantage with reference to this question of royalty after twenty-five years to existing authors. It seems on the face of it a comparatively small matter one way or the other, but it seemed rather unfair that under certain circumstances the assignee of the author should unquestionably suffer, and therefore the Committee thought that this little concession might be given to existing authors. I do not think, in reference to the argument used by my hon. Friend, that there would be confusion between two periods running side by side, that there would in any sense be an injury in present circumstances. Take the case of a man who dies in the existing state of affairs. Under this proposal, in the future there would be twenty-five years' legal copyright and ten years royalty, and that would put them in many cases in certain circumstances in a worse position than they were before. But I do not think that that was intended. I think that this is a concession which, as far as the Committee were concerned, was generally agreed on. I think that justice is on the side of that obvious concession, and I hope that the House will endorse the action of the Committee.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, after the word "work" ["reproduction of the work for sale"], to insert the words "or any portion thereof."
1971 It seems to me that there is an omission in the Bill itself on this point. If a man publishes a volume of poems one poem may live through generations and all the rest may be rubbish. If after twenty-five years after his death it is desired to publish the living poem you have got to publish the whole volume of rubbish in order to get the one living poem published. The whole Clause deals with the words "the work," and there is need for some alteration there.
§ Sir J. SIMONI have not had an opportunity of considering the point, but the House will see that the percentage is a fixed percentage, which certainly avoids opportunities for litigation, which everyone in this House wishes to discourage as far as possible. That being so, you have got to put in the Bill what protection can be given. It is not very easy to apply words where the whole work is concerned, and if the hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity I would ask the House to leave the provision as it is until the matter has been further considered and it can be seen whether it can be dealt with without getting up an elaborate arbitration clause. It should be remembered that side by side with this Clause there are two other ways—one under the education book clause, and the other the field of negotiation and agreement. The whole field of negotiation and agreement will be left open, and if the Bill is allowed to remain as it is at present, I will in the meantime see whether any form of words can be introduced in another place.
§ Sir W. ANSONI fully understand that where a difficulty arises it may be met by negotiation or agreement, but if it could be dealt with by a form of words introduced into the Bill I confess I would prefer it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIn the circumstances, I do not propose to press my Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.