(NO. 73.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 May 1875)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was a very small Bill on a very large subject. It dealt with only one portion of the law affecting international copyright; it had passed without opposition through the House of Commons—it was supported by the literary interest in this country, and, indeed, he believed there was no objection to it in any quarter. The object of the Bill was to remedy a defect in the International Copyright Act of 1852. Their Lordships were familiar with the history of that Act. In 1851 a Convention on the subject of international copyright was concluded between England and France, and in the following year legislative form was given to that Convention by the passing of the Act now proposed to be amended—namely, 15 & 16 Vict., c. 12. The Convention and the Act following it reserved to foreign authors of dramatic pieces the copyright of translations of their works, with a Proviso respecting "fair imitations or adaptations," which was embodied in Section 6 of the Act, which ran— 4 Nothing in the said Act contained shall he so construed as to prevent fair imitations or adaptations to the English stage of any dramatic piece or musical composition published in any foreign country. It was this section which the Bill now before the House would repeal. The reason for this proposal was that it had been held by our Courts that a translation of a French dramatic piece would be a "fair imitation or adaptation," and consequently no longer a piracy, when there had been made some trifling alteration, such as the change of a title, of the names of the dramatis personæ, or of the scene of the play. Although the passing of the present Bill would remove from the consideration of our Law Courts the question whether a translation was a "fair imitation or adaptation," the question as to what was or was not an imitation or piracy of a foreign dramatic piece would always be left to their decision. If Parliament gave its sanction to the measure, French authors would have the same protection in English Courts as English authors had in French Courts. French authors had not that protection at present. A Bill identical with this one had been proposed by the late Government. The present Government took it up last year, and it passed through the House of Commons, but by a misunderstanding it was allowed to drop. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be now read the second time.