COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 23 July 1900)

* LORD MONKSWELL

In moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee, I am afraid that I shall have to make one or two observations upon the Bill. On the second reading I stated that the Bill in its then condition as drafted by Lord Thring was a tentative measure, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that it has undergone considerable modification in Committee. One object of the Committee was to simplify the law by assimilating it in all cases of artistic work. To a great extent this Bill does simplify the law, for as regards various important matters the law is made the same with regard to all artistic work. For instance, every kind of artistic work will have the same term of copyright, that is to say, during the life of the author and thirty years after, and copyright will be attracted to all artistic works, whether made by subjects of the Queen or by anybody else, and wherever they are made. There is no restriction either as to the person who can obtain copyright or where the artistic work is to be made. Again, 838 in no case will registration be necessary to attract copyright. Now, my Lords, in all these particulars the Bill has undergone no change in Committee, but a further and very difficult question arose with regard to artistic copyright, and that is as to the respective rights of the author and the owner of artistic works in default of any agreement as to what those rights should be. This was a question very much discussed in 1878 both by and before the Copyright Commission, and by a bare majority of one it was recommended that on sale, in the absence of agreement, copyright should pass to the owner of the work, and not remain in the artist. This recommendation was vigorously assailed by the whole body of artists. It was contended that subject to certain restrictions in favour of the buyer the copyright should remain with the artist. The Select Committee has taken a good deal of fresh evidence on this matter, both oral and written, and they have bestowed much thought and labour on the question, and they have arrived at definite conclusions as to the principles on which the Legislature should proceed. But the drafting details are exceedingly technical. I am not at all sure that everything is covered; in fact, I am quite prepared to hear that the Bill leaves a great deal to be desired in the matter of drafting details; but as the Bill cannot pass this session the Committee do not attach very much importance to this defect in detail. It is submitted not as a measure that has been carefully thought out in every detail, but as containing the main provisions of a just settlement of the respective claims of artists and those who deal with them. The Committee have adjusted the claims on somewhat different lines according to the nature of the artistic work. The Committee place the painter and the draughtsman in one class, the sculptor in another, and the photographer in a third. With regard to painters and draughtsmen, with respect to portraits painted on commission the Committee propose to leave the law as it stands at present; that is to say, the person giving the commission and not the artist will enjoy the copyright, but as to all other pictures painted on commission the artists' contention has been adopted by the Committee in its entirety, and the law has been altered by retaining copyright in the artist, and not transferring it to the person 839 giving the commission. Further, where a picture is not sold on commission, but is sold out of a studio, the artist, according to this Bill, is to retain the copyright on a sale in the absence of agreement. The law at present is that the artist loses the copyright on sale, and in the absence of agreement the buyer does not get it, so it becomes lost. We propose that it shall go to the artist. Now, copyright of the artist is in all cases subject to a proviso against making or authorising replicas against the wish of the owner of the painting. Replica is defined to be a copy so like the original as to be calculated to deceive an ordinary observer. So much for the painters and draughtsmen. Now I come to the sculptors. The sculptor hitherto, unlike I the painter, has been the spoilt child of legislation. The sculptor enjoys privileges that artists in their wildest dreams would never think of asking for. Their copyright is absolute, and it is subject to no restriction at all in favour of the purchaser. Busts, statues, ornamental work of every kind, even when executed on commission and only for private use, can be copyrighted by the sculptor without consulting the owner at all. The Committee had before them the celebrated sculptor Mr. Brock, and he told them that no sculptor of repute would think himself justified in making the replicas of sculpture intended only for use in private houses unless the owner gave leave. The Committee have decided to make the law conform to the practice and to prohibit replicas of sculpture made on commission except where the work is intended to be located in some public place. With regard to photographs, what the Committee propose is this: that copyright not only in portraits, but in all photographs made on commission, shall belong to the person giving the commission. I think the only other thing I need say is that provisions have been introduced for the detection and for the punishment of infringement of copyright that are quite sufficiently stringent. T ought to say in conclusion that I do not propose to carry the Bill beyond its present stage. I propose to have it printed and circulated for criticism during the vacation, and I have to ask your Lordships' leave to make one alteration in Committee in this Bill. It is a drafting alteration. By some error two alternative subsections have been put into this Bill 840 which are not intended to stand together, and what I hope your Lordships will agree to is to strike out one of those subsections in Committee.