Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, on H.R. 19853, to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright: June 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1906.United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
History
Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, on H.R. 19853, to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright: June 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1906.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Patents
Copyright -- United States
Lithographs, as I say, are something entirely different from any other
production, and I do not think--and I hope the committee will agree
with me--that they are entirely and specifically included. Lithographs
are not included under that term.
Senator MALLORY. How about engravings?
Mr. MALCOMSON. Engravings are prints. The lithographic process is
something different from the mere printing from an engraving. The
lithographic process is a very peculiar and a very interesting one. It
would take too long for me to go into it and describe it, but it is
entirely different from printing. The use of the colors, the manner in
which the ink or the color is transferred from the stone to the paper,
is not the mere act of printing. The color, I will say in brief, is
held there by, as it were, grease. Grease forms a material component
in the practicing of the lithographic process.
The matter of lithographs has always been mentioned. The subject of
lithographing has always been mentioned in previous bills, and not
only that, but in this bill the lithographic process is specifically
mentioned, and I shall come to that next. But the suggestion now is
that there is a sufficient difference between lithographs and all
other prints and pictorial illustrations to warrant the word
"lithographs" being inserted there.
Mr. CURRIER. Then you would insert, after the word "prints," in line
4, on page 4, the word "lithographs?"
Mr. MALCOMSON. Yes, sir. That is my proposition. I do that because
particularly in a late decision of great importance, made by the
circuit court of appeals in our second circuit, they have used this
language----
The CHAIRMAN. That is the decision that has already been put in the
record?
Mr. MALCOMSON. I think it has. It has been handed in to the committee.
A printed copy of it has been loaned to me, and I will read an extract
from it to show the pertinency of my remarks about interpolating this
word "lithograph:"
But in view of the fact that the law of copyright is a creature of
statute and is not declaratory of the common law, and that it
confers distinctive and limited rights which did not exist at the
common law, we are constrained to hold that it must be strictly
construed, and that we are not at liberty to extend its provisions,
either by resort to equitable considerations or to a strained
interpretation of the terms of the statute.
I think that I am warranted, in view of that late decision, in asking
the committee to interpolate that word "lithograph."
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say to that suggestion, Mr. Putnam and Mr.
Solberg?
Mr. PUTNAM. I prefer that a suggestion as to phraseology in a section
that has been so very carefully considered by our general legal
advisers, these two committees of the bar association, should be
submitted to them for their opinion as to its necessity and effect;
and I think it would not be helpful to the committee to have me give
an offhand opinion upon it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account