COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL. (Hansard, 28 April 1899)

*LORD MONKSWELL

said that this Bill and the Literary Copyright Bill, the Second Reading of which their Lordships had already passed, entirely covered the ground taken by Lord Herschell's consolidating Measure of last Session. This Bill came before their Lordships' House with very great authority. It had the 806 earnest support of the whole body of the Royal Academy, and also of numerous other bodies of great eminence interested in artistic work. In 1879, soon after the Report of the Royal Commission was issued, the Royal Academy issued a manifesto on the subject of artistic copyright, and, in the main, this Bill was based upon the contentions that were put forward in this manifesto. Changes had, however, been made in order to safeguard the owners of pictures and to provide that the copyright of the artist should be subject to such conditions that it could never possibly be a grievance to the owners of pictures. The Bill was also largely based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, though in one important particular it went contrary to those recommendations. The first clause in the Bill was of considerable importance, because it gave to American artists the same rights that English artists had in America. Under the present law English artists who produced and published works in America had the copyright in America, although they were not resident there, but an American artist who wanted to get a copyright here had to be resident in Her Majesty's dominions. This clause proposed to give a copyright for works of art made by any person in America provided only they were registered in England. The term of copyright for original artistic work would be the same as that proposed in the Literary Bill for literary copyright—namely, a life and 30 years. In the case of a work of fine art, made by one person from the design of another, of a cast from nature, and of a photograph the term of the copyright would be 30 years. The Bill further proposed to extend artistic copyright so as to make it perfectly clear that to imitate one form of art by another was an infringement of copyright. This was a provision on which artists laid great stress, and it was recommended by the Royal Commission. With regard to registration, the law at present was that an artistic work might be registered at any time, but it was impossible to sue without registration, or in respect of anything done previous to registration. The Bill proposed that registration should be required only on the assignment of copyright from the original author of the work. While the artist retained the copyright he had power to 807 sue without registration. The registration law was made more stringent than it was at present. In future, the registration of artistic copyright must take place within six months after it had been acquired, or such time as a judge may deem reasonable. Failure to get the copyright registered within that time would involve the absolute forfeiture of the copyright. The Bill also gave power to search for and to seize unlawful copies in houses or shops, and to seize unlawful copies hawked about the country. He now came to the part of the Bill which the artistic world deemed to be of supreme importance, and it was a matter upon which the Royal Commission was almost equally divided. By a majority of one, he believed, the Commission decided to confer the copyright of a work of art, in the absence of any agreement, on the buyer of the work. The law at present in force, and which had been in force for 37 years, was that when an artist sold a work of art, as he nearly always did, without any stipulation as to copyright, that copyright ceased to belong to the artist, but it did not belong to the purchaser. That was to say, it lapsed altogether, and anyone who could get a sight of the picture was at liberty to reproduce it to his heart's content and to the replenishment of his pocket. A counter proposal, that in the absence of any agreement the copyright should belong to the artist and not to the buyer, was unanimously adopted by the artists. The Royal Academy, in their manifesto, strongly combated the conclusion at which the Commission had arrived, and complained with not unnatural warmth that, while several literary men were included in the Commission, not a single artist sat on it. It was reasonable to suppose that if an artist of eminence had sat on the Commission his arguments might have turned some votes in a, direction contrary to the decision of the Commission. During the last 20 years events had happened that had greatly strengthened the cause of the artists. The experience of 37 years conclusively showed that this matter was one of great importance to artists and to art, and it ought to be settled one way or the other by law. The change proposed by the Commission would make bargains infinitely more difficult on the part of artists than at present, because the 808 artist would then have to bargain to retain something the law gave to the purchaser. The artists wished to retain the copyright, not only because it was a question of money, but chiefly in order to prevent bad reproductions of their pictures. The experience of the last 20 years had shown that cheap and common reproductions were calculated absolutely to stop high-class reproductions, and without this protection of copyright high-class reproductions would cease to be made. Very few artists made money out of their copyright, but they were able to insist, in the cause of art, upon the reproductions being creditable reproductions. The purchaser, if the provisions of this Bill were carried, would lose nothing. The reservation of the right of the artist was safeguarded as to make very little difference to the purchaser. The purchaser would get what he got now; the difference was that a right which everybody thought ought to exist would continue to exist. It was said that the purchaser ought to get the copyright; but did the ordinary purchaser want copyright? The ordinary purchaser bought a picture in the first place to look at it; secondly, to show it to his friends; and, thirdly, to talk about it. The ordinary purchaser did not get copyright now, and he had never heard that there had been any agitation to give it to him. He had spoken of the ordinary purchaser, but no doubt there were other purchasers who thought a great deal about copyright. There were the engravers, photographers, and others, who naturally always bargained for copyright. The artists proposed to subject their copyright to reasonable restriction in the interests of these purchasers, but they suggested that no replica should be made of any picture likely to be confounded with the original picture, and it was proposed that the artist should not be allowed to exhibit a replica that was made before the picture was bought. As to portraits, the owner would continue to enjoy practically the same protection that the law now gave. The artist would hold his copyright subject entirely to the good will and pleasure of the owner of the portrait; what he got was only the control over any reproduction that might be authorised by the owner of the portrait. An eminent Royal Academician told him two or three years ago that he 809 never made a sixpence by the copyright of his pictures, whilst he had devoted an enormous amount of time and attention to giving advice as to the best method of reproduction. It seemed clear that in the interests of art artists should have as far as possible the copyright. He hoped the House would endorse the unanimous opinion of the artists and send the Bill to the Select Committee that had been appointed to consider the Literary Copyright Bill. They would, in course of time, have the views of that Committee before them, which would guide them in their ultimate decision. But he thought it his duty, in justice to the Royal Academy and to art in general, to lay before the House the nature of the grievance under which the artists considered they suffered, and the remedies they proposed. He felt a peculiar pleasure in being permitted to champion the cause of art, inasmuch as many members of his family had been imbued by a keen love of art, and some of them had been proficient in the practice of it.