COPYRIGHT BILL.

HL Deb 04 December 1911 vol 10 cc451-87

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Infringement of Copyright.

2.—(1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything the sole right to do which is by this Act conferred on the owner of the copyright: Provided that the following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright:—

1. (i) Any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review, or newspaper summary:
2. (ii) Where the author of an artistic work is not the owner of the copyright therein, the use by the author of any mould, cast, sketch, plan, model, or study made by him for the purpose of the work, provided that he does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of that work:
3. (iii) The making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situate in a public place or building, or the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs (which are not in the nature of architectural drawings or plans) of any architectural work of art:
452
4. (iv) The publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bonu fide intended for the use of schools, and so described in the title and in any advertisements issued by the publisher, of short passages from published literary works not themselves published for the use of schools in which copyright subsists: Provided that not more than two of such passages from works by the same author are published by the same publisher within five years, and that the source from which such passages are taken is acknowledged:
5. (v) The publication in a newspaper of a report of a lecture delivered in public, unless the report is prohibited by conspicuous written or printed notice affixed before and maintained during the lecture at or about the main entrance of the building in which the lecture is given, and, except whilst the building is being used for public worship, in a position near the lecturer; but nothing in this paragraph shall affect the provisions in paragraph (i) as to newspaper summaries:
6. (vi) The reading or recitation in public by one person of any reasonable extract from any published work.

(2) Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who—

1. (a) sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or hire; or
2. (b) distributes either for the purposes of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright; or
3. (c) by way of trade exhibits in public; or
4. (d) imports for sale or hire into any part of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, any work which to his knowledge infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made within the part of His Majesty's dominions in or into which the sale or hiring, exposure, offering for sale or hire, distribution, exhibition, or importation took place.

(3) Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who for his private profit permits a theatre or other place of entertainment to be used for the performance in public of the work without the consent of the owner of the copyright, unless he was not aware, and had no reasonable ground for suspecting, that the performance would be an infringement of copyright.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I move to amend the proviso to subsection (1) by adding, after the word "work" at the end of the subsection, the words in my Amendment. The object is to eliminate from the acts which constitute an infringement of copyright the performance of any song or other musical composition on the title page of which the word "Copyright" does not appear. I think the Amendment on the face of it clearly shows its intention. It is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("work") insert ("or the performance in public of any song or other musical composition which as printed and published for sale does not bear on its title-page a notification that prior to its performance a licence from the owner must be obtained; or the publication of the reproduction of any photograph or photographic reproduction which does not carry on itself or immediately beneath it the word 'Copyright'").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)

This question was a good deal discussed in the Committee, and I think by a very large majority we came to the conclusion that the Amendment was not only unnecessary but unworkable. There is protection given for these cases by the clause giving full discretion to the Court as regards costs as well as damages. The origin of the provision requiring performing rights to be expressly reserved were the proceedings in old days of certain persons who made a rather illegitimate use of the right which then existed to sue for a penalty. Consequently an amending Statute was passed in 1882 to prevent their operations, and the provision to which the noble Lord refers was introduced for that purpose. But it was found to be unworkable, for the reason that the author of a song, for instance, very seldom has control over the printing, and it is impossible for him to see whether the word "Copyright" is put on or not. Moreover, it was found that the provision did not stop the operations of those who brought actions in order to extract blackmail. But those operations were stopped by the subsequent introduction of the clause giving the Court control over costs and damages, and we have incorporated that clause in this Bill. On the other side there is this very great difficulty. The Berlin Convention has laid down that all technicalities such as registration are to be got rid of by the great Powers which are giving each other the benefit of their copyright system, and if we inserted this Amendment in the Bill we should be excluded from a large number of the benefits derived under the Berlin Convention. For these reasons I would be glad if the noble Lord would not insist on this Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I quite see that the reasons which the noble Viscount has given against my Amendment are powerful ones, and I therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN)

The noble Lord has a second Amendment on this clause, to add to subsection (1) a new subsection—viz.:

(vii) The republication of any article or paragraph published in a magazine or news paper, unless in the original publication the word "Copyright." appears either at the head or at the foot of the said article, or in the case of a paragraph, or the article from which the paragraph was taken; always provided that a period of not less than twelve hours shall have elapsed between the original publication and the reproduction.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I do not move that Amendment.

Clause 5:

Ownership of Copyright, &c.

5.—(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 sonic other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the coarse 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 the United Kingdom or any self-governing dominion or other part of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, 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 the 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, but nothing in this proviso shall be construed as applying to the assignment of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work as part of a collective work.

(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.

^*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved an Amendment in proviso (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 5, after the words "where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of," to insert "continued" before the word "service." The noble Earl said: This matter has, I know, been discussed a good deal, and I have merely put down this Amendment in order to ask the noble Viscount if he can give a declaration that the words "where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service" do not include a sculptor or an architect who receives a commission for work. If he could give me that assurance I would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, after ("of") insert ("continued").—(Tice Earl of Plymouth.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Before the noble Viscount replies, I am anxious to express a hope that he will give no such assurance as the noble Earl asks. The words may be vague, but surely while the contract of service lasts, if only for a week, this clause ought to apply.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I agree with the noble Viscount; but I think I can give an assurance which will remove the difficulty which the noble Earl feels. A contract of service means a contract which creates the relationship of employer and employed. If you merely give a commission to an architect or sculptor to produce a design or a bust for you that, does not create the relationship of employer and employed between the parties. Therefore I think the noble Earl may take it that in that respect his doubt is allayed. The scheme of the clause is to declare quite clearly for the future that the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright. To that two exceptions are made. There is the definite case of a commission, and the case of a contract of service; and there is another point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, is going to call attention with which we are ready to deal. Lord St. Aldwyn may rest assured that we have no intention of departing from what is the great principle of this clause; and the question which the noble Earl put to me is one which, I think, is capable of a satisfactory solution consistently with the clause.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved the insertion in Clause 5 of a new proviso, that "Where in the case of an architectural design or drawing for the erection or restoration of any building, the design or drawing was ordered by some other person and the author was paid for superintending such erection or restoration, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such design or drawing was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."

The noble Viscount said: I have given notice of this Amendment in order to raise again a point which I raised when we were discussing this Bill in Committee, and with regard to which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill promised consideration. I confess that I hoped from what, he said that he would have been able himself to place an Amendment on the Paper to meet what I wished, but he has not done so, and I fear, from what he has told me, that he will not be able to agree to this Amendment. This Bill for the first time gives copyright to the profession of architects. I confess it seems to me very doubtful whether they ought to have been admitted to copyright at all. The profession is by no means an ill-paid profession, because when an architect has made a design for which he is employed by some other person, he is, after having made the design, employed to carry out the work at a very considerable percentage of the total cost of that work. Therefore I maintain that he receives as much remuneration in such cases as he is at all entitled to. As the Bill now stands, the architect would not only receive that remuneration, but if the employer who had paid him, and fully paid him, for his work, desired to repeat that work in another building, he would be obliged to pay what really I must call blackmail to the architect for the copyright of the designs. The case that occurred to me was this. A landowner, or a local authority, or a municipal authority, might desire to erect cottages or artisans' dwellings. They would naturally obtain from an architect plans for the first of those dwellings. They would employ that architect to superintend their erection, and he would be paid for the work. They might then desire to repeat that design to a very considerable extent, and in that case, as the Bill now stands, they would have to make a payment to the architect on every cottage or artisan's dwelling they built on the same plan whether they employed the architect again or not. It is a difficult matter, as everybody knows, to build houses of this kind at a cost which will as a pecuniary investment recoup those who undertake them, and this is really an additional burden to be imposed by Parliament on the cost of these houses. I maintain that as the Bill now stands the interest of the public has not been sufficiently considered. Therefore, my Lords, I have ventured to propose in this Amendment that a third exception to the general rule shall be made.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, after ("copyright") insert ("and (c) Where in the case of an architectural design or drawing for the erection or restoration of any building the design or drawing was ordered by some other person and the author was paid for superintending such erection or restoration, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such design or drawing was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The noble Viscount first raised this point in Committee, and I was struck with the individual cases which he gave and undertook to set to work to see whether, consistently with the principle of the Bill, I could find some words which would cover these cases without destroying the principle. I regret to say that after the most careful consultation with the experts I have wholly failed to do so. The principle of this Bill is to give to the architect copyright, which he has not had up to now. It was thought wrong that if an architect was employed to design a cathedral, for instance, or a beautiful house, and had at great pains made a design for that purpose and the person who employed him to do so did not carry out the design, or, having carried it out, wished to set up another, that the artistic work, which was the creation of the architect's brain just as much as literary copyright would be, should pass from the architect unless the person who commissioned him had stipulated to obtain it. We felt that the root principle of this Bill was to bring in architecture as one of the Fine Arts for which copyright might be secured, and there has been a great response to that among architects themselves.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

That, of course, is natural; but it is not wrong. They may be quite right in asking that the creation of their art should be protected just as much as in the case of the sculptor or painter or man of letters. That is the position which architects have taken up, and that is the position which the Government have accepted in this Bill. The Amendment which the noble Viscount has placed on the Paper takes the copyright from the architect and gives it, quite contrary to the principle of the Bill, to somebody else, and so difficult is it for him to make a working Amendment that he has to add something else. He provides that there are to be two conditions—where the design was ordered by some other person and the author was paid for superintending the erection. I quite agree that ought to come in. But see the awkwardness of it. Instead of the copyright remaining in one place it remains with the architect until the cheque is given him in payment, and then it shifts from the architect to somebody else. Difficulties of that kind are inevitable if you try to go into the simple principle with which Clause 5 begins—that the copyright is to be in the author of every kind of artistic design except in the two cases in which it is taken out.

After all, there is a very simple remedy for this case. When the Bill is passed the public will know, or will get to know, the law, and if anybody wishes to have a design which he may use hereafter, for instance for the erection of houses, all he has to do is what every owner of a journal does at the present time when he buys an article and wants to have the copyright. He says, sometimes on the back of the cheque, that the copyright is to belong to the proprietor of the journal. It is the simplest thing in the world. In a great many cases the person commissioning an architect will wish to have the copyright, and in those cases he has only got to draft a few simple words to secure to himself the right to call for an assignment afterwards. Architects have suffered very great hardships up to now from having no copyright. The Bill proposes to give them copyright. If you take the copyright away from them, which the Amendment proposes in a most sweeping way to do, you get into a much greater series of difficulties than those with which you are left confronted by the clause as it stands. What you are left confronted with is this, that for the future anybody who wishes to reproduce a building for which he has commissioned an architect to produce a design he must say, in the letter to the architect, "I wish to have the copyright of this design." The Bill will pass, we hope, and the public will get to know of this, and it will be the practice in these cases, as it is already in a great many other cases, for this to be done. It is far better that people should have to take a little trouble than that you should destroy the whole principle which lies at the root of this provision with regard to architects—namely, that at last we are going to give architects the recognition of their right to the creation of their own brains in the same way as we have done it in the case of other artistic persons.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

I would ask the noble Viscount whether there is anything in the Bill to provide that the design shall be an original one.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Yes. If the noble Lord will look at the definition of "copyright" at the beginning of the Bill, he will see that the work must be original in order that there may be any copyright at all.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

Then the design of a labourer's cottage, for instance, would hardly be original.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I should think almost never, though there might be some little feature in it of originality.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I am glad the noble Viscount does not propose to accept the Amendment which has just been moved. I know there are very great difficulties in dealing fairly with everybody concerned, but I venture to think that the noble Viscount behind me (Lord St. Aldwyn) is not quite fair to the architects in this case. His Amendment would put architects in a worse position than they are in without this Bill, because by a decision of Mr. Justice Ridley in 1904, in the case of Gibbon v. Pease, it was held that under the present law the person who commissioned an architect to design a building was entitled to have the drawings, but that the architect himself, who would naturally keep copies and tracings of all the drawings, was entitled, if he desired at some subsequent date to reproduce any part of them, to do so. Under this Amendment if it were incorporated in the Bill he would part with the right of ever reproducing anything that he had designed, because the copyright would pass to the person who had given him the commission. The Government have thought, and rightly, that architects ought not to be left out of the Copyright Bill altogether. It would, I think be very hard to put them, as the Amendment would do, actually in a worse position than they are in at this moment.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment now before the House felt that the interests of architects had been regarded in the construction of this clause and that the interests of the public had been neglected. I am afraid that criticism applies to a good deal in the Bill. The public has not been sufficiently considered with respect to many of its provisions. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said that there was an easy escape out of the difficulty which Lord St. Aldwyn had suggested; that the employer could contract to secure the right of reproducing the work, and that therefore the matter might be left as it stands—namely, that the copyright should remain with the architect. But I submit that the law ought to conform to common sense. The real question here is whether you are laying down the law in a way which conforms to common sense.

I think I can suggest to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill a way of meeting the difficulty which would satisfy the noble Viscount opposite and at the same tune be consistent with what Lord Haldane says is the main principle of the Bill. Let the architect have his copyright and let that copyright remain with the architect whatever it is worth, meeting thereby the observation made by the noble Earl opposite. But let it not be an infringement of that copyright if the person for whom the design has been produced, and who has employed the architect to superintend the works under that design, uses the design afterwards. That would reserve to the person concerned—it may be an individual or a local authority—the right of reproduction. That I think, would satisfy what Lord Haldane calls the main principle of the Bill, and would also remove the difficulties and pitfalls which would certainly be set to many persons who give architects commissions and would not be prepared for the device of securing by contract that which they ought to secure by the operation of the law.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I quite felt when I placed this Amendment on the Paper that it was open to objection. I had no wish, however, to place architects in a worse position than they have been in under the present law, and if Lord Plymouth is right in saying that the Amendment does that I should not wish to press it. But I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to consider the suggestion which has just been made by Lord Courtney. Surely the person who has employed the architect—limited, if you like, to smaller buildings such as I have had principally in mind, artisans' dwellings and the like—ought to be able to construct other buildings of a similar kind without any infringement of the architect's copyright. That would be, as far as I am concerned, a satisfactory settlement of the question. I feel that, although the noble Viscount is right in saying that it is possible for an employer and architect to contract themselves out of the Bill and to reserve the copyright to the employer, very few people who employ architects will be acquainted with this new law for some little time to come, and there may be cases of considerable hardship in which persons have not contracted themselves out of the Bill because they have not the least idea of the position which this Bill gives to architects with regard to the possession of copyright. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I am glad the noble Viscount does not press his Amendment. I would only say about the Amendment suggested by Lord Courtney that we have not got it before us, but as far as I followed it it would be unnecessary or unjust—unnecessary if you are dealing with such designs as those of cottages and things of that kind, for the reason to which Lord Clifford of Chudleigh called attention; and unjust if it was a great building, for instance, a cathedral. In the latter case it would be unjust that a person who had contracted to get a cathedral built should be able to reproduce the architect's designs in which there might have been as much artistic and original work as in a great picture. It seems to me that in those cases if you wish to get the design you ought to buy it from the architect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of proviso (b) the words, "but where the work is a contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical."

The noble Viscount said: In Committee on the Bill I tried to suggest words with regard to the position of those who contribute to newspapers under a contract or salary, and the Government admitted that there was some difficulty in putting a man in the position that because he had been paid a certain salary he was to lose, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, all claim to the copyright. The Government have now suggested words which I have placed on the Paper which will meet that difficulty. But I think it will be felt that possibly the words which they have suggested are a little wide. The words leave things in this position, that where a work is a contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, the copyright, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, shall be in the hands of the author. That has been held by some newspaper proprietors to be likely to cover the reporting of speeches, which, as I daresay is well known, is carried out by a circle very often of ten or twelve reporters, and those reports are copied into other newspapers, for which, of course, no authority is needed from the reporters themselves. Everybody would wish to safeguard to proper extent the work of the reporters, but it would certainly be a change from the existing practice to attempt to lay down that a man who has reported under a contract of service should have the copyright. The one object which I had in suggesting words in Committee was to provide that the existing admirable practice and good understanding between proprietors and the authors of contributions should not be disturbed. I therefore propose to amend this Amendment so that it would read, "but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical," etc. I believe those words would meet the view of the noble Viscount, and they have been accepted by persons representing the proprietors and have been seen and concurred in by those who represent the authors.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 21, after ("copyright") insert ("but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical").—(Viscount Midleton.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The noble Viscount has in consultation arrived at a happy solution of the difficulty. When we discussed this question in Committee obscurity arose from the fact that it was proposed to affect copyright. The Amendment of the noble Viscount does not touch the copyright. It leaves it to be dealt with by the governing words of the section. Now all he says is that there is to be a right of veto on the publication of this kind of work otherwise titan as part of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical unless the author has given his consent. I think that is a very sensible solution of the matter, and on behalf of the Government I accept the words.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I spoke on this matter in Committee and pointed out the difficulties that might have arisen on the Amendment as originally drafted, and on behalf of the Newspaper Society I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, on the arrangement which has now been arrived at.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

^*LORD GORELL had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), after the words "or other part of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends," to insert "or any foreign country." The noble and learned Lord said: My Amendment was intended to deal with a difficulty in the assigning of copyright with limitations to his Majesty's Dominions. I thought that the words "or any foreign country" should be added. I have since discussed this point with considerable care and with some expert assistance, and I am not at all satisfied that the Amendment does not introduce greater difficulty than it was intended to remove. If the noble Viscount takes the same view I would rather not move the Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My noble and learned friend is right. There is something offhand to be said for his words, but when you come to look into the point the uncertainty which the Amendment would introduce as to the interpretation which the Courts would put upon it makes me think he is wise in his decision not to move the Amendment.

Amendment not moved.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 5 is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to make it clear that a licence to publish part of a work may be given.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 6, after the first ("work") insert ("or part of a work").—(Viscount Haldane.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

The new clause standing in my name introduces a matter of considerable importance. No doubt the noble Viscount will point out that under the Bill as proposed copyright is to be given by each country on the same terms to foreigners as to its own subjects. But here in England we have had a very cheap and expeditious form of copyright, which is achieved by registering any publication at Stationers' Hall, and that very cheap and expeditious form of copyrighting a work has received the approbation of all parties concerned. I have had quite an unexpected number of letters in its favour since putting down this Amendment, not only from the Newspaper Society, but from individual authors, who have written to say that whatever may be the changes affecting their copyrights abroad they desire most emphatically that the facility of registering at Stationers' Hall should be maintained. As long ago as 1842 Stationers' Hall was recognised as the centre for copyrighting, and it has been used since then and has worked exceedingly well. You can copyright at Stationers' Hall all kinds of designs; it has been used as a centre from which information can be obtained as to previous articles registered there, and has become recognised as the depot for registration. The greatest poachers of copyright in the world are the people of the United States, who, using the same language as we do, are able to take articles, books, and all kinds of copyright matter, unless precautions are taken beforehand which are costly and involve simultaneous publication, to the great detriment of authors and others. If Stationers' Hall could be recognised as the centre of registration in this country, I believe it would facilitate the matter which the Government have in view, which is the nationalisation of copyright. As a specimen of the letters I have received I will read one from a well-known author. He says— As an author, and baying always registered my copyrights at Stationers' Hall, I thank you for putting down your Amendment in favour of the present system. I find by personal experience that considerable advantage and convenience exist in the simple method of registering, and the simplicity and ease with which assignments can be effected at a cost of 5s. There does not seem to be any adequate reason for interfering with a long-established practice to which no objection can be taken. The Amendment is a lengthy one, but it can be summed up in the phrase that it is desirable to retain the Stationers' Hall system of registration. When you have once registered a newspaper at Stationers' Hall, all the articles which appear in the newspaper and subsequent publications become copyright, and that protects the contributor to the newspaper as well as the proprietor, and therefore the system is very conveniently arranged all round. I believe that when this subject was considered in Committee in the House of Commons the Committee came to the decision that it was inadvisable to retain Stationers' Hall in an exclusive position and that the internationalisation of copyright was desirable; but many of my friends are anxious that Stationers' Hall should be retained, and I therefore hope the noble Viscount will give the matter his serious consideration.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

.—(1) There shall be kept in the hall of the Stationers' Company by an officer (hereinafter called the "registrar") to be appointed by the Stationers' Company, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, such one or more registers as may be prescribed, in which shall be entered the names Of titles of works and the names of authors, and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) The author or publisher of, or the owner of or other person interested in the copyright in, any work, shall cause the particulars respecting the work to be entered in the register, and in the case of any artistic work, no action shall be sustainable nor any penalty be recoverable in respect of anything done before registration.

(3) In the case of tin encyclopædia, newspaper, review, magazine, or other periodical work or work published in a series of books or parts, it shall not be necessary to make a separate entry for each number or pert, but a single entry for the whole work shall suffice.

(4) There shall also be kept in the hall of the Stationers' Company by the registrar such indexes of the registers established under this section as may be prescribed.

(5) The registers anti indexes established under this section shall be in the prescribed form, and shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection, and any person shall be entitled to take copies of or make extracts front any such register, and the registrar shall, if so required, give a copy of any entry in any such register certified by hits to be a true copy, and any such certificate shall be primâ facie evidence of the matters thereby certified.

(6) There shall be charged in respect of entries in registers, the inspection of registers, taking copies of or making extracts from registers, and certificates by the registrar under this section, such fees as may be prescribed.

(7) The Stationers' Company shall annually render to the Board of Trade such accounts of their receipts and expenditure under this section as may be prescribed.

(8) The Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing any matters which under this section are to be prescribed, and generally for carrying this section into effect, and any such regulations may require that, in the case of an artistic work desired to be registered, there shall be furnished a representation of the work sufficient for the identification thereof.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

This question has been very closely considered by those who were responsible for framing the Bill and in consultation with a large number of experts. The noble Lord spoke of the good system which used to prevail at Stationers' Hall. I cannot help thinking that he has not looked into the details of that system. I do not know any system that has been more universally condemned. To begin with, the Copyright Committee unreservedly condemned the whole system of Stationers' Hall. At Berlin, at the Convention of the great Powers, the plan of registration was also condemned, and if this Amendment were accepted we should not get the benefit of the Berlin Convention. The Amendment does not even propose to make copyright essentially dependent upon registration. If that were done, there might be something to be said for the system, under which you would be able to go and look in the register and, if the register disclosed copyright in a particular work, then to abstain from printing it. But the Amendment follows the old system of Stationers' Hall. That system is one which was carefully considered in the other House and by the Government before the Bill was framed, and one of the great reforms and simplifications in the law of copyright which we have introduced is the getting rid of that system altogether. On the grounds I have stated we feel bound not to accept the Amendment.

LORD GORELL

As this matter formed a very important subject in the inquiry by the Copyright Committee, I should like to say a word about it. Article 4 of the Berlin Convention expressly says that— The enjoyment of the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to the performance of any formality. This matter was very fully gone into, and the Committee in their Report made this statement— The Committee fail to see what advantage to the public can be expected from systems of registration, which are particularly onerous in the case of foreign authors, and, if abolished for them, should equally be abolished for authors of our own country. This Amendment would require English authors and publishers to register at Stationers' Hall, but, if I appreciate the situation rightly, we could not carry out this Convention if we imposed that on foreign authors whose works come into this country. Therefore the Committee came to the conclusion that it was undesirable that there should be any system of registration. I understand that in the other House a clause of an optional character was introduced, but was finally abandoned, and I think that at the present day there is no necessity for any system of registration. This system dates back to the time when Stationers' Hall had the sole right of printing, and it followed from that that they had a right to keep up the registration. The Amendment would go against the views of the Copyright Committee who carefully considered the matter, and also very much against the clause of the Code or Convention which seeks to get rid of these formalities.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

After what has been said by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, I beg to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time I do not think all the points have been fully answered. I trust that what the noble Viscount says is true, and that my friends who have written to me on the subject will really not suffer under the Bill. But the point is one which I hope will still receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11:

Summary Remedies.

11.—(1) If any person knowingly—

1. (a) makes for sale or hire any infringing copy of a work in which copyright subsists; or
2. (b) sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or hire any infringing copy of any such work; or
3. (c) distributes infringing copies of any such work either for the purposes of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright; or
4. (d) by way of trade exhibits in public any infringing copy of any such work; or
5. (e) imports for sale or hire into the United Kingdom any infringing copy of any such work;

he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for every copy dealt with in contravention of this section, but not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of the same transaction; or in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two mouths.

(2) If any person makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists, or knowingly and for his private profit causes any such work to be performed in public without the consent of the owner of the copyright, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months.

(3) The court before which any such proceedings are taken may, whether the alleged offender is convicted or not, order that all copies of the work or all plates in the possession of the alleged offender, which appear to it to be infringing copies or plates for the purpose of making infringing copies, be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.

(4) Nothing in this section shall, as respects musical works, affect the provisions of the Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902, or the Musical Copyright Act, 1906.

LORD GORELL

Subsection (2) of Clause 11 provides that "If any person makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright, subsists, or knowingly and for his private profit causes any such work to be performed in public without the consent of the owner of the copyright, he shall be guilty of an offence," and so forth. I propose, after the words "If any person," at the beginning of that provision, to insert the word "knowingly." He might be a person in innocent possession of a plate for the purpose of making infringing copies, and he might not know that, they were infringing copies. I think this Amendment is a desirable one and I do not imagine that it will be resisted.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 15, after ("person") insert ("knowingly").—(Lord Gorell.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15:

Delivery of Books to Libraries.

15.—(1) The publisher of every book published in the United Kingdom shall, within one month after the publication, deliver, at his own expense, a copy of the book to the trustees of the British Museum, who shall give a written receipt for it.

(2) He shall also, if written demand is made before the expiration of twelve months after publication, deliver within one month after receipt of that written demand or, if the demand was made before publication, within one month after publication, to sonic depot in London named in the demand a copy of the book for, or in accordance with the directions of, the authority having the control of each of the following libraries, namely: the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the University Library, Cambridge; the Library of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin; and, subject to the provisions of this section, the National Library of Wales. In the case of an encyclopedia, newspaper, review, magazine, or work published in a series of numbers or parts, the written demand may include all numbers or parts of the work which may be subsequently published.

(3) The copy delivered to the trustees of the British Museum shall be a copy of the whole book with all maps and illustrations belonging thereto, finished and coloured in the same manner as the best copies of the book are published, and shall be bound, sewed, or stitched together, and on the best paper on which the book is printed.

(4) The copy delivered for the other authorities mentioned in this section shall be on the paper on which the largest number of copies of the book is printed for sale, and shall be in the like condition as the books prepared for sale.

(5) The books of which copies are to be delivered to the National Library of Wales shall not include books of such classes as may be specified in regulations to be made by the Board of Trade.

(6) If a publisher fills to comply with this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and the value of the book, and the line shall be paid to the trustees or authority to whom the book ought to have been delivered.

(7) For the purposes of this section, the expression" hook" includes every part or division of a book, pamphlet, sheet of letter-press, sheet of music, map, plan, chart or table separately published, but shall not include any second or subsequent edition of a book unless such edition contains additions or alterations either in the letterpress or in the maps, prints, or other engravings belonging thereto.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add, at the end of subsection (2), the words, "All demands for books, except in the case of the British Museum, shall be made in writing direct to the publisher by the librarian. and it, shall be understood that no book will be asked for which is not intended to be permanently added to the library for which it is claimed."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I have put down at the instance of the Publishers' Association, on whose behalf your Lordships will remember the same point was raised in Committee. There was considerable discussion then, and certain proposals were put forward. The publishers quite realise, and I think they have been wise in doing so, that any book that they publish shall be liable to be demanded by the libraries mentioned, but what they object to is that all books should be sent without any question. It will be noticed that I have excepted from my Amendment the case of the British Museum. The British Museum, of course, should have every book that is published of every sort and kind; but many books of an ephemeral nature are published in which the other libraries cannot possibly be interested, and I am told that in some cases the difficulty is to find room to sort out the mass of perfectly worthless and undigested literary matter. That being so it seems reasonable that the institutions other than the British Museum should not be in a position to ask from the publishers for a copy of every book of every sort and kind that is published. The publishers offer to supply any book that is asked for if it is demanded by the librarian, but in cases where it is not demanded they ask that they should not be put to the expense of sending a copy. I am sorry, as an Oxford man, to differ on this point from the noble Earl the Chancellor of Oxford University (Earl Curzon of Kedleston), but I hope the House will give the Amendment their consideration.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 25, after ("published") insert ("All demands for books, except in the case of the British Museum, shall be made in writing direct to the publisher by the librarian, and it shall be understood that no book will be asked for which is not intended to be permanently added to the library for which it is claimed").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

I do not think the Amendment which has just been moved is a reasonable or a feasible Amendment. I am told by those who have looked into the matter that it would be impossible to work the system if this Amendment were adopted. It should be borne in mind that this right has not been given without very valuable consideration. One would think from what has been said that this demand for copies came as a bolt from the blue, and that this privilege was asked from publishers without any right or reason. But I would point out that after the Union with Scotland, in 1709 an Act was passed giving this right to all the Scottish Universities and to the Advocates' Library, and that was the position for a considerable time. And after the Union with Ireland in 1800 the right was given in regard to Ireland to Dublin University and King's Inns Library. But the right in both cases conferred a copyright which the publishers had not previously in Scotland and Ireland.

The matter was considered more than once, and an Act was passed in 1835 which took away, with a carefully measured compensation, from the four Scottish Universities and the King's Inns Library the right which they then had under the Act of 1709. That left the present five bodies—the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the University Library, Cambridge, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin—with this privilege. Surely the history of this privilege is to be taken into account in considering the question. Everybody agrees that the British Museum should have these copies, and I am sure my noble friend the Chancellor of the University of Oxford has made out a good case for the inclusion of the Bodleian Library. But Scotland and Ireland are in a special position. The British Museum and the libraries of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities provide for England. Is it not reasonable that Scotland, a very intellectual country, should have its library ready to hand in order that its authors and its students and its literary people may have their books collected under one roof where they may go and make their researches and pursue their studies, and so on? Is it reasonable that they should be told in Edinburgh and Glasgow and other places in Scotland, "You must go to the British Museum and forage for your books there."

Similarly, is it not reasonable that Ireland, which has a great centre of learning and a splendid collection of books in Dublin University, should have similar facilities? Their library is open to students and all who make proper application, and they allow a user of it and every fair facility for a user of their books for reading, study, and research. Now my noble friend seeks to cut down the privilege that Ireland at present enjoys by imposing restrictions that would make it much less valuable, as I am told by those who are better judges than I am. It is conceded that the publishers do not make any complaint about the cheap books. But that is not the point. The point is that under the Amendment of my noble friend the libraries will be hit, and hit hard, with regard to the expensive books. Surely it is obvious that they will want these expensive books. What we say in Ireland is, "We may take your cheaper books and look at them at our leisure, but as to your expensive books we tell you without any hesitation at all that those are the very class of books we need for our library." Those are the very books which any great library would wish to have and that poor scholars and students cannot buy for themselves, and it is quite legitimate that they should have a public library to go to where they can examine them at their leisure.

I have read the publishers' letters, most admirable and temperate letters, and I know some of the publishers myself, and they make little or no point about the cheap literature. Their main point is as to the expensive books. Those are exactly the books that librarians are asked for, and they would not be able to supply them. There is little more to be said. The cheap books may pass without discussion. The publishers make little point with regard to them, and even the rubbish may get an advertisement that may do some good to somebody. The object of the Amendment seems to me to mutilate or do away with a privilege which is not only highly prized but most usefully applied by these great seats of learning, and which gives a great deal of benefit to students and authors for the reason that they can indulge in research and study there. At all events they know where the books are, and if they want to examine them they can readily apply at the library.

LORD GORELL

My Lords, I do not rise either to oppose or to support this Amendment. I should like, however, to make a suggestion to your Lordships. It seems to me, on reflection, that there are only four ways really of dealing with this question. One is to leave the Bill as it is; the second is to regulate the requests by the libraries, which was the subject of the Amendment that I moved the other day and which your Lordships did not accept; the third is, as I follow Lord Montagu's proposal in the next Amendment, to have an arbitration if there is an objection made by the publishers to supplying the books because they are not suitable, which it seems to me would be very inconvenient and lead to a great, deal of trouble, because one can quite understand that publishers who were very averse to supplying books might practically fight every book, so that it seems to me that it is an impracticable suggestion. But there is a fourth possibility which I venture to suggest to your Lordships, though I have not put it down as an Amendment. In fact, I should not have been in time even if I had wanted to do so, as it only occurred to me after reading this first Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Montagu. It seems to me that what has been objected to chiefly, although, of course, no doubt the expensive books are at the bottom of it, is the demand, without any consideration by the libraries, for everything that is published, and it may be that my suggestion would be a possible way out of the difficulty. It is that it should be put upon the authorities of the library to make a written demand based upon what they consider really needful and requisite and suitable for the library. Of course, that might put an extra duty and burden upon the librarian, but in large libraries he has assistance, and I venture to formulate this as a suggestion worthy of consideration, that the written demand which has to be made—except in the case of the Welsh library, which is to be governed by other regulations—should be sent direct to the publishers of the book demanding it, and the demand should contain a statement by the librarian that in his opinion the book is needful and suitable for the purposes of the library. The demand would have to be signed by him, or one of his subordinates authorised by him to do so. That would place on the librarian the duty of considering what out of the mass of publications was really required and really suitable for the purposes of the library.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I want to say a word about this Amendment. It seems to me, if I may say so, that by putting down this Amendment the publishers have somewhat changed their minds. As I understood the discussion to which I listened in Committee, the idea then was that it was a grievance that the publishers should have to supply the expensive books, and we had an address from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Courtney) upon the political economy of the question devoted to the particular point that, after all, the publishers were not really suffering any wrong because they got it back from the public. But now the Amendment proposes that there should be a demand made for every book, and, if I understood the mover of the Amendment rightly, he not only made no point of the expensive books but he said that as a matter of course they would be asked for and would be given. I venture to say that the proposal in the Amendment, which is all we have to deal with on this occasion, is not only unfair in principle but it would be unworkable in practice. At present, as I understand it, the four libraries mentioned, other than the British Museum, have a common agent in London who gets the books from the publishers and distributes them to the libraries. I venture to say that if you are going to put upon each individual librarian the labour and trouble and annoyance of claiming every book that is published, you will not only put an absolutely impossible amount of work upon him but you will add greatly to the difficulty and friction of carrying on the whole matter.

LORD ASHBOURNE

And add to the expense of the staff.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes, I have no doubt; and the publishers will not get rid of the grievance of having to supply the expensive books. Something has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, about the University Library in Dublin. I put in a plea for the Faculty of Advocates' Library in Edinburgh. That library is, after all, a national library for Scotland; it is as national for us as the British Museum is for England and for London, It is the only really first-class library now in Scotland which is open to the general public, and particularly to students. It is quite a mistake to suppose that this is a mere professional library. It should not suffer disadvantage on account of the fact that it is maintained by the patriotism of the Faculty of Advocates. As a matter of fact, there is a small grant from public funds for the purchase of books, and on one or two occasions the Treasury have given grants for additions to the library and other matters connected with it, but almost the whole expense of the library is defrayed by the Faculty of Advocates with a liberality which does them the greatest credit and which has extended over more than 100 years. They have placed it freely and without charge at the disposal of students from all over Scotland. It would be an injustice to Scotland and to Ireland if the Scottish and Irish people had to come to the British Museum to look for these books. After all, as now put, it does not seem to me that there is any real grievance upon the publishers, because, as I mentioned a few moments ago, the idea of giving up the expensive hooks—with which I confess I had a certain amount of sympathy, because I thought if a book was very expensive and only a limited number was published it might, perhaps, be a grievance—has been, I understand, departed from. I do plead for the right of all these libraries to have the ordinary books that are published. They, may not keep them all, but it is in these very libraries that there is a chance of things that are published being preserved for the use of posterity, and I would express the earnest hope that this Amendment will not be agreed to.

LORD RAYLEIGH

My Lords. I certainly hope that this Amendment will not be accepted by the House. I know there is great apprehension in Cambridge among those connected with the library as to the possibility of such changes taking effect. Many of the arguments have been stated with great force by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I need not repeat what he has said. I would be rather inclined to take the more general ground, that a change should not be made without an inquiry by a Commission or Committee or sonic such body before whom the parties interested should be fully heard. The University of Cambridge—and I have no doubt it is true also of the other bodies interested—have not been heard on this matter, and the objections which they have are very strong. It is natural enough that the publishers should object; one cannot be surprised at that. The publishers are men of business—many authors think publishers are rather too much so, I believe—but anyhow they do not undertake the publication of a book unless they can see their way to a probable profit upon it, and they take care that at any rate part of the burden should be shared both by the writers and by the readers of the books. It seems to me that it would be a step very much in the wrong direction to hamper the action of the Universities in this matter. These collections of books have a national value. It is not only a question of the interests of Oxford or Cambridge or of the Faculty of Advocates' Library in Scotland; it is a great national requirement that there should be public libraries in which all books of any kind of importance are sure to be found. Therefore I earnestly hope that the House will not interfere with the present practice, at any rate without giving much more consideration to the matter than so far has been given to it.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, when this matter came before the House in Committee the Government took no active part in the discussion but left it to the consideration of the House, and I propose to take the same course on the present occasion. In what I say I am speaking only for myself. I cannot help feeling that we have been discussing a little wide of what is the real point of the Amendment. We are not discussing whether these libraries should be entitled to have all books which they could reasonably ask for. We are not discussing the question of putting shackles upon them in their endeavours to make a real University library. We are not seeking to limit the class of books which they obtain and which are suitable for University purposes. But do think that the speech of Lord Balfour of Burleigh has shown that we are face to face with a system which is capable of considerable abuse. The noble Lord told us that the great University libraries, instead of asking for the books they wanted, appointed a general agent in London who collected from the publishers, I suppose, all books that he found in the catalogues and sent them down. He did not tell us what was done with them. I am quite sure that these libraries do not continue to encumber their shelves with all the shilling shockers and cheap illustrated books which come within the category. But I think what the noble Lord told us and what we heard on the last occasion shows that, while this is a valuable right which the libraries possess, it is a right which is exercised without consideration for the publishers, and I confess I have more sympathy for the publishers than my noble friend behind me has, nor do I take his view of the economics of the cost of production.

I do very strongly feel in this case that what is reasonable—after all, one has to look to a principle—is that these libraries should get all the books that they require and should not get the books that they do not require. I am quite aware of the difficulty of carrying out that principle by means of any legal sanction. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's proposal to send this matter to arbitration, because the cases are too numerous and too small for arbitration; but I do conceive that what is at the bottom of his Amendment is a desire to put upon the librarian of these great libraries some little sense of responsibility. Let them, by all means, have all the books that they think suitable, but do not let them appoint a general agent to sit in London and call for every book that appears in the publishers' catalogues irrespective of whether the book is really a book which is useful to the library or not. I repeat I have a great deal of sympathy for the publishers and I allow them to know something of the case, but I do not share the feelings of the noble Lord who spoke last that the libraries are likely to suffer in this respect. The librarian gets a catalogue, the books that are likely to be of use to the University are picked out, and then they are written for. The question is how to put that in words. I do not think you can impose any legal sanction, and I do not think it is any use talking of arbitration in this connection, but I do think we should gain something if we imposed a certain amount of moral responsibility on the librarians in this respect.

I have obtained a copy of the words which my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell suggested, and which seem to me to be better adapted to bring this forward than the words of the noble Lord opposite. I will read them to the House in order that the House may catch the sense of them, explaining again that the words do not propose to put any legal obligation or restriction on the libraries, but merely to make it necessary that the librarian should consider the value of the book before applying for it. The proposal is, after line 25—this does not touch the Welsh case, which is dealt. with separately later—to insert: A written demand, except in the case of the National Library of Wales, shall be sent direct to the publisher of the took demanded, and shall contain a statement by the librarian of the library for which the demand is made that in his opinion the book demanded is s citable and needed for the purposes of the library, and shall be signed by him or one of his subordinates authorised by him. I confess I do not think that is imposing an undue burden upon the librarians of these University libraries, considering that they are getting the books free. I feel that it is a hardship that the publishers should not have the protection of some such principle as that, and, speaking for myself, I suggest to your Lordships that the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell afford a solution of this matter which preserves all that the Universities set value on, and at the same time gives the publishers some consideration in the very difficult and expensive obligation which has been placed upon them.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

We are in rather a difficult position because we have on the Paper an Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me for which so far not a single good word has been said by anybody except by himself. We then have the proposal of Lord Gorell, who took part in the debate ten days ago and moved an Amendment which I had the honour of opposing, and which was rejected by a majority of two to one in your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord accepts the decision of the House given on that occasion, but out of the kindness of his heart he suggests certain words which he recommends to us as possibly ameliorating the difficulties of the situation. Then the noble Viscount representing the Government, speaking not for the Government but apparently as an independent member of your Lordships' House, says that he favours the words of the noble and learned Lord, but apparently does not propose them himself, and he really asks us to agree to words which nobody has proposed. In what position are we, therefore? Are we considering the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Montagu, or are we considering an Amendment upon that Amendment which several noble Lords favour but which no one proposes?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am quite willing to propose it.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Does my noble friend abandon his Amendment?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am quite prepared to abandon my Amendment and accept. the words proposed by Lord Gorell, because I feel that they would be more suitable, and would carry out, although perhaps in a minor degree, the same object that I have in view.

LORD GORELL

I did not think that I was entitled to move an Amendment at this stage and I only suggested the words for the consideration of your Lordships, thinking that they might afford some means of meeting both sides.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

If the House will give me leave I will withdraw my Amendment, and also the second Amendment standing in my name— Page 11, line 12, after ("thereto") insert the following new subsection: (7) In the event of a book being claimed by the Librarian of either the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the University Library, Cambridge; the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh; or the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, which the publisher objects to give on the ground that it is unsuitable for the library for which it is claimed, the publisher may appeal to an independent person nominated by the Treasury, whose decision shall be final. Notice of appeal shall be made to the Treasury through the Clerk of the Stationers' Company, and the Treasury shall, if required, appoint an arbitrator once in each year for the purpose of deciding all appeals of which notice shall have been given and I will propose instead an Amendment in the words suggested by Lord Gorell.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Then I suppose I am to understand that my noble friend has withdrawn his own Amendments and that he has substituted for them the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gorell?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Yes.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

In that case I hope your Lordships will not accept the new Amendment. I take this line on two broad grounds. In the first place, it seems to me a most undesirable thing that on the Report stage of tins Bill there should be introduced a change vitally affecting these four great libraries of which they have had no notice. The Amendment of the noble Lord was only placed in my hands an hour or so ago; it has never been discussed in the House of Commons, and it played no part in the proceedings of that House at any stage of the Bill. Something approaching it was for the first time suggested to your Lordships' House ten days ago and was rejected by a majority of two to one, and we are now invited, in this haphazard, irregular, and almost undignified manner to accept it at the last moment.

I venture to hope you will not look at this Amendment, and I do so for another reason, which will, perhaps, be of greater weight to those who do not share my views. It is that in practice the Amendment would not secure the objects which Lord Gorell desires. His words are that a written demand shall be sent direct to the publisher of each Look, containing a statement by the librarian of the library for which the demand is made that in his opinion the book demanded is suitable and needed for the purposes of the library, to be signed by him or one of his subordinates. Here we come to what is a fundamental misconception of the objects for which these libraries exist. The noble Viscount opposite spoke of the ease of determining what was and what was not necessary for a University library. The whole point is that these University libraries are not merely University libraries but are national libraries; and in addition to being unwilling, as we are, to rely on the British Museum because of the difficulties, pointed out by one noble Lord, that are experienced by students in coming up to the metropolis, there is the great danger that attaches to a single national library, a danger which we all know was experienced in Paris in the year 1871 when the Bibliothèque Nationale was within an ace of being destroyed by fire. In consequence of these drawbacks to the existence of a single national library in this country we have always thought it desirable, and still think it desirable, to keep other national libraries in Scotland and Ireland and at the two great Universities.

The noble Lord says, why should not the librarian make a demand for the books which in his opinion are suitable? What is the answer to that? It is that, regarding his library as a great national repository of literature, he will make a demand for every book. He cannot do anything else. How can be discriminate? The noble Lord in his Amendment seems to contemplate that the librarian is a man who has time to go through all the catalogues of books that come out, and mite out the names of those that, may appear to him to be suitable for his library. I may point out that the librarian in these cases is one of the hardest worked men in the world; he has to give assistance to students of all nationalities, and has no time to look through the names of 50,000 or 60,000 books as they come out in the course of the year. I may also point out that titles of books are most deceptive. It is almost impossible from the title of a book to judge of what it really is. There is another point that may be put. Even supposing your librarian had the time and even supposing he were a man particularly gifted with powers of discrimination, are you to trust him to judge of works which appear to him to be perhaps worthless or of little value to-day, and yet may turn out of very great value at some future date? The trash of one generation is sometimes the treasure of another, and some of the books which have now the highest value are books which were condemned and in all probability would have been rejected when published. I am sorry to say anything which might appear to cast a reflection upon the University of Cambridge, for which my noble friend behind me has so well spoken, but it is a fact that the Cambridge University Library in the year 1818 rejected, presumably as trash, to use the words of my noble friend Lord Montagu, Beethoven's Sonata for violin, Miss Austen's "Emma," Byron's "Siege of Corinth," Shelley's "Alastor," and Scott's "Antiquary." I dare say similar mistakes were made by the Bodleian Library of that day. It shows how liable librarians are to err, and I should not like to submit any of these libraries to the risks of similar mistakes being made in the future. Is it not better, on the whole, that these libraries should retain the privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed, there really being no alternative method which you can set up?

I would ask your Lordships to believe that those who value the privilege of a University library have given full consideration to the question whether discrimination is possible. Many of us have been thinking over this matter in the last ten days, and I venture to say every one of us has come to the conclusion that, in the first place, you cannot fix on a tribunal or an arbiter, and, in the second place, even if you could, you cannot find a criterion of discrimination such as you desire or which would be of any value. The publishers have hitherto taken up the position that it is the cost to which they object; but, as Lord Balfour so pertinently pointed out, that seems to have been waived now, and the question which remains is, Are we or are we not to admit this great mass of literature? I think it ought to be brought in; it may occupy space, and storage is expensive; but some day it may be of enormous value. Anyhow it is already there, and if the British Museum were to disappear to-morrow we have the other libraries to take its place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adhere to the decision you came to ten days ago, and that you will not accept this Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I would point out that there is nothing in my Amendment which would prevent the library agent in London acting in future for the Bodleian and other libraries exactly the same as he acts to-day. He would pick out the books which he thought important for the library and send to the publishers for them. That would be part of his duty. At the present moment he has to sit down and demand everything, and everything has to be sent to him. That I maintain is a great hardship on the publishers. As regards expense, may I repeat that by my Amendment as well as by that of Lord Gorell the libraries would, on demand, be able to get any books they chose, Therefore I think I was justified in bringing this subject forward, and I think your Lordships will recognise that the publishers have been quite reasonable and have taken up a public spirited position. Having said that, I have nothing to do but formally withdraw my Amendment, for I have no wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division the result a which I have no doubt would be against me.

Amend/neat, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17:

Posthumous Works.

17.—(1) In the case of a literary dramatic or musical work, or an engraving, in which copyright subsists at the date of the death of the author or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, at or immediately before the date of the death of the author who dies last, but which has not been published, nor, in the case of a dramatic or musical work, been performed in public, nor, in the case of a lecture, been delivered in public, before that date, copyright shall subsist. till publication, or performance or delivery in public, whichever may first happen, and for a term of fifty years thereafter, and the proviso to section three of this Act shall, in the case of such a work, apply as if the au hor had died at the date of such publication or performance or delivery in public as aforesaid.

(2) The proprietorship of an author's unpublished manuscript after his death shall be !whir; facie proof of the copyright being with the proprietor of the manuscript.

LORD GORELL

This clause was introduced at my suggestion in Committee. The noble and learned Viscount accepted it subject to a consideration of the drafting, and the object of the two Amendments standing in my name is to place it in a proper form. I think the clause as originally accepted was too wide. It might have given rise to the difficulties pointed out by the noble lord, Lord Courtney, with regard to lectures. The proposal now is to cut it down so as to confine it to the acquisition of manuscripts under testamentary disposition, which would give rise, I think, to fro difficulty and would make the clause inure intelligible. As it is proposed to alter it, subsection (2) would run thus— The proprietorship of an author's manuscript after his death where such ownership has been acquired under a testamentary disposition made by the author and the manuscript is of a work which has not been published nor performed in public nor delivered in public shall be primâ facie proof of the copyright being with the proprietor of the manuscript. That would eliminate difficulties that may arise under wills where manuscripts ale bequeathed to one person and the executor claims that the copyright still remains with him as representing the testator.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, leave out ("unpublished").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 15, after ("death") insert ("where such ownership has been acquired under a testamentary disposition made by the author and the manuscript is of a work which has not been published nor performed in public nor delivered in public").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GORELL

In subsection (2) of the clause as it at present stands I beg to move that the second word—namely, "proprietorship"—should be turned into "ownership," and the word "proprietor" in the third line should be turned into "owner."

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, leave out ("proprietorship") and insert ("ownership").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 16, leave out ("proprietor") and insert ("owner").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24:

Existing Works.

24.—(l) Where any person is immediately before the commencement of this Act entitled to any such right in any work as is specified in the first. column of the First Schedule to this Act, or to any interest in such a right, he shall as from that date be entitled to the substituted might set forth in the second column of that schedule, or to the same interest in such a substituted right, and to no other right or interest, and such substituted right shall subsist for the term for which it would have subsisted if this Act had been in force at the date when the work was made and the work had been one entitled to copyright thereunder:

Provided that—

1. (a) if the author of any work in which any such right as is specified in he first column of the First Schedule to this Act subsists at the commencement of this Act has before that date assigned the right or granted any interest therein for the whole term of the right, then at the date when but for the passing of this Act the right would have expired the substituted right conferred by this section shall, in the absence of express agreement, [-ass to the author of the work, and any interest therein created before the commencement of this Act and then subsisting shall determine; but the person who immediately before the date at which the right would so have expired was the owner of the right or interest shall be entitled at his option either—
   1. (i) on giving such notice as hereinafter mentioned, to an assignment of the right or the grant of a. similar interest the rein for the remainder of the term of the right for such consideration as, failing agreement may be determined by arbitration; or
   2. (ii) without any such assignment or grant, to continue to reproduce or perform the work in like manner as theretofore subject to the payment, if demanded by the author within three years after the date at which the tight would have so expired, of such royalties to the author as, failing agreement., may be determined by arbitration, or, where the work is incorporated in a composite work and the owner of the right or interest is the proprietor of that composite work, without any such payment;
   The notice above referred to must be given not more than one year nor less than six months before the date at which the right would have so expired, and must be sent by registered post to the aiding, or, if he cannot with reasonable diligence be found, advertised in the London Gazette and in two London newspapers:
2. (b) where any person has, before the twenty-sixth day of July nineteen hundred and ten, taken any action whereby he has incurred any expenditure or liability in connexion with the reproduction or performance of any work in a manner which at the time was lawful, or for the purpose of or with a. view to the reproduction or performance of a work at a time when such reproduction or performance would, but for the passing of this Act, have been lawful, nothing in this section shall diminish or prejudice any rights or interest arising from or in connexion with such action which are subsisting and valuable at the said date, unless the person who by virtue of this section becomes entitled to restrain such reproduction or performance agrees to pay such compensation as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "author" includes the legal personal representatives of a deceased author, and the expression "composite work" means any work in which works or parts of works of various authors are incorporated.

(3) Subject to the provisions of section nineteen sub-sections (7) and (8) and of section thirty-three of this Act, copyright shall not subsist in any work made before the commencement of this Act, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this sect ion.

LORD CORELL

The Amendments standing in my name to this clause are drafting Amendments. The word "composite" is used in two places in paragraph (ii) of proviso (a), and the word "collective" is used in the rest of the Bill. It has been suggested that "composite" should be changed into "collective" in both places.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 5, leave out ("composite") and insert ("collective").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 6, leave out ("composite") and insert ("collective").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GORELL

My next Amendment is to strike out from subsection (2) the words "and the expression composite work' means any work in which works or parts of works of various authors are incorporated." I move this in consequence of the change already made in the clause.

Amendment moved—

Leave out lines 34 and 35.—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to}

Clause 31:

Abrogation of common law rights.

31. No person shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any literary dramatic musical or artistic work, whether published or unpublished, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or of any other statutory enactment for the time being in force.

LORD GORELL

The words which I propose to add to this clause have for their object the reservation of rights arising from trust or confidence. I think no objection is made to this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 7. after ("force") insert ("but nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating any right or jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or confidence").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

^*LORD GORELL moved to amend the definition of "collective work"—

"Collective work" means—

1. (a) an encyclopedia, dictionary, year book, or similar work;
2. (b) a newspaper, review, magazine, or similar periodical; and
3. (c) any work written in distinct parts by different authors.

by adding at the end, after the word "authors," the words in his Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to the definition clause consequent upon the alteration in Clause 24 with regard to the word "composite."

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 28, after ("authors") insert ("or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated").—(Lord Gorell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment in Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be read 3^a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 227.)