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
It matters not whether the subject-matter of the record is otherwise
copyrightable or not. If the piece played is copyrighted as a musical
composition it can not be reproduced on a sound record, in accordance
with the bill, without the permission of the composer. A Paderewski,
however, may play the copyrighted selection, and a record of his
rendition of it, with all his personality and individuality thrown into
the piece, should be entitled to a copyright on a sound record for
reproducing purposes.
This is true, also, of the voice of a Caruso or a Melba singing either
a copyrighted or uncopyrighted piece. It is true, also, as a further
illustration, of the recitation by Henry Irving of "Eugene Aram's
Dream." What is here copyrighted in these records is the individuality
and personality of the rendition by the performer. It is the picture of
the voice or of the instrumentation as, for instance, a copyrighted
photograph is a picture of a person or thing.
Should another performer play the same piece played by a Paderewski the
personality of Paderewski would be absolutely wanting, and the same
difference between the two performances of the same composition would
be in the respective sound records as would exist at the actual
performance of the respective pieces. The same differences between
Caruso's rendition of a selection from Rigoletto and a concert-hall
singer's rendition of the same would exist in the sound record and the
reproduction therefrom as would exist in the actual singing of the
selection. This is true regarding the personality of every voice and
instrumentation recorded.
A large portion of the selections, musical and recitational, on
talking-machine records are not copyrightable or copyrighted. These
records, however, with all their originality, personality of the
recitationist or singer, and peculiarity of arrangement, etc., should
be copyrighted, and the private competitor prevented from purloining an
artistic and characteristic production.
So-called talking-machine records in this respect differ quite
materially from the mechanical organ and piano for the reason that a
so-called talking-machine record is an exact record of all the
modulations, and all the characteristic articulations of the voice, as
well as of all the characteristics of an instrumentation. In other
words, it is an exact picture of all the merits and demerits of the
original, and the original is reproduced with an exactness, so that
frequently, at a distance, in the present perfected state of the art,
the reproduction may very well be mistaken for the original.
This record of the voice and instrumentation for sound reproducing is
an art which was not commercially available or perfected when the
earlier copyright laws were passed, and therefore was not included.
The following were submitted by Mr. Pettit at the meeting of June 8,
1906, embodying his proposed amendments to the bill:
JUNE 7, 1906.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account