HC Deb 28 July 1911 vol 28 cc1971-7

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:

Provided that—

  1. (a) where in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright] and
  2. (b) where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright.

(2) The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limitations to any particular country, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence, but no such assignment or grant shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the owner of the right in respect of which the assignment or grant is made, or by his duly authorised agent.

Provided that where the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright therein, no assignment of the copyright, and no grant of any interest therein, made by him otherwise than by will after the passing of this Act, shall be operative to vest in the assignee or grantee any rights with respect to the copyright in the work beyond the expiration of twenty-five years from the death of the author, and the reversionary interest in the copyright expectant on the termination of that period shall on the death of the author, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, devolve on his legal personal representatives as part of his estate, and any agreement entered into by him as to the disposition of such reversionary interest shall be null and void.

(3) Where under any partial assignment of copyright the assignee becomes entitled to any right comprised in copyright, the assignee as respects the right so assigned, and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of the copyright, and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

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

(a) Where a photographer takes a photograph at the request of the sitter upon the terms that the sitter will pay for the taking of it, or under circumstances, which raise an implied promise to pay on the part of the sitter, the sitter shall be the first owner of the copyright in the photograph, notwithstanding that the negative, in the absence of any agreement for its purchase, may remain the property of the photographer."

As the law at present stands, the person who is photographed orders a number of copies in the ordinary way, and he retains the copyright in them, while the negative remains with the photographer.

There is a possibility that the copyright may follow the negative, and in that way belong to the photographer rather than to the person who ordered the photograph. The intention was to leave the existing law exactly as it stands in this respect.

Mr. BUXTON

If a person goes to a photographer and orders a photograph the point of the hon. Gentleman is, I understand, does the photograph belong to him.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

It is a question of the copyright as apart from the ownership of the negative.

Mr. BUXTON

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me the opportunity of looking into the matter. If we find there is any flaw in the Sub-section, and we do not think there is, we will have it altered.

Mr. T. TAYLOR

The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether the Government intend the sitter to be the owner of the copyright.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

I understood clearly that the Government mean that the person who orders the photograph shall be the owner of the copyright. In view of the explanation I beg to withdraw.

Mr. T. TAYLOR

Does the Government mean the sitter to have the copyright?

Sir J. SIMON

Under the existing law if a person goes to a photographer and pays him for taking his photograph, then, although he only asks to be provided with a certain number of copies, and does not stipulate for the negative the copyright in the picture which includes the right to reproduce belongs to the person who pays for the photograph. I have not the slightest doubt but that the same result is secured under this provision.

Mr. LEACH

Suppose I should go to one of the artists' places in London and purchase a copy of a photograph of the learned Solicitor-General in order to reproduce it in some work, should I be under any pains or penalties or be at liberty to do so?

Sir J. SIMON

I do not think that that arises.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BOOTH

I beg to move, to leave out the words:— (b) where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright. I propose to delete this Sub-section because it is a matter of very great importance to most of those who are in. the employment of other persons. The wording of it shows that those who framed the Bill viewed it from the standpoint of the proprietor, the capitalist and the employer rather than that of the workpeople. I am perfectly certain no Clause of that kind could have been framed in the interests of the workman. It is said that many distinguished inventors, or claimants to inventions, have not had the advantages and benefits they ought to have enjoyed from them. One great firm, it is said, laid the foundations of their fortunes on an invention by one of their employés of which they took advantage. Certainly the man of business and superior wits may get a valuable invention at a low figure. This Clause goes further than that, and says deliberately that the fruit of the brain and hand of a workman should be the property of his employer. I cannot possibly understand how such a provision can be defended on the grounds of justice. Suppose an architect has got some apprentices or assistants and one of them strikes upon a good idea, and he sketches out a new town hall or a new House of Commons, or a place suitable for the Home Rule Parliament in Ireland—

Mr. JOYCE

We do not want one. We have our own House there.

Mr. BOOTH

I am glad to hear that you have one already. Well he might sketch one for Scotland. There is a great movement for Scottish Home Rule. It might be a plan suitable to his native place. In a ease of that kind his employer becomes the owner of it. The plea here is that a man should have the benefit of the produce of his own brains. This Clause is dead against that principle. The mere fact that the man works for someone else is put forward as a justification for taking his reward from him. I think it is unfair. I am an employer myself, but if any of my employés developed a new idea in the manufacture of cotton I should think it very unfair that because he works for wages that man should be robbed of the benefit of his invention, and that another should become the proprietor of it. But in this Bill we get outside the world of commerce, and get into the realm of painting and books. A man employs some others to paint for him, and if an idea strikes one of them it belongs to the employer. The head painter may have one or two working at pot-boilers in his studio and one may produce something good. The same thing in literary work. Suppose a man in a journalist's office were being paid so much a column, or so much a week, and, a brilliant idea striking him, he wrote a special article: the copyright of that article would be the property of his employer. I do not say that the employer should have no part in it. My suggestion is that in such cases where the workman claims to have done special work, to have put upon it the stamp of his own individuality and not that of the office, there should be some impartial tribunal to assess in a friendly way the master's and the workman's respective rights.

Mr. R. PEARCE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BUXTON

Not only does this provision represent the existing law, but it is also good policy that some line should be drawn as to the position of copyright when a person is under contract of service to another. As far as the individual is concerned, it is really a matter of indifference. He makes his contract on the understanding either that he keeps the copyright or that it belongs to his employer. It is a matter of bargain, and would not be affected. From the common-sense point of view it is important to know in whom, in such cases, the copyright subsists, and it is obviously just that it should be in the hands of the employer. Take the case of a leader-writer under contract of service. If under his contract he has the copyright, that is one thing; but if he has not, and this Amendment were accepted, it would be necessary in connection with every leader he wrote to make a new arrangement with regard to copyright. I do not think the provision can give rise to any real difficulty, and as it makes the position quite clear, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept a slight Amendment—to insert the words "during office hours"?

Sir J. SIMON

Really that would be an absurdity. Leader writers, for example, sometimes write their leaders in private houses, sometimes in the office, sometimes on Sundays when away in the country. Can it really be suggested that the question of ownership of copyright should depend on whether the leader was written in the office or elsewhere?

Mr. R. PEARCE

Are the Government willing to accept this Clause as only relating to editorial or newspaper arrangements? It seems to me that the burden of proof by this Clause is in favour of the employer.

Mr. SPEAKER

That was upset by the second Amendment.

Mr. BOOTH

May I, on behalf of my hon. Friend, say that after all there is something in this point. I am thinking of an architect's office. It is no uncommon thing there for a pupil to try and make out at home something that his employer has suggested to him. His employer may say, "We have got a gate or the porch of a new hall, or a new cottage to plan. Can you produce any idea?" The youth, after he has got home, having studied architectural works, may try to produce something. It is most unjust and against the spirit of the Act that that youth, having got his idea, goes back to his master's office to produce it, that immediately the master should coma down upon him and says that the copyright belongs to him. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make some concession on this point. I have been pleading this afternoon in connection with this Bill rather in the direction of the workmen than the employers. My labours have been almost entirely fruitless. Unless the Government have made up their minds that they are not going to make any concession at all, I would ask for this, which is a very little thing. If the Government were to give way a little it would ease very much the passage of this Bill.

Mr. BUXTON

The Government have already considered the matter referred to, and have discussed the various reasons, and they are unable to accept the Amendment. We are not able to see how the suggestions would work. The particular case mentioned deserves attention. The difficulty is this: to distinguish whether the work has been done in course of the youth's service or not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BOOTH

I beg leave to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out paragraph (b).

Sir J. SIMON made a reply that was inaudible in the gallery.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words: "but nothing in this proviso shall be construed as applying to the assignmnet of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work as part of a collective work."

And, it being Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.