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
The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, if the courts, with this attempt to define
publication, have found difficulty and have differed, is it not
because of the different character of the articles that have been
involved in the litigation before the courts?
Mr. BETHUNE. No; it is the same article that I have in mind. There is
one Massachusetts case, a Federal case, where, in the case of a public
exhibition of a painting, the circuit court of appeals in the first
district held that that was a publication of the painting.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Was the exhibition given for hire, for profit?
Mr. BETHUNE. Yes; my recollection is that it was a public exhibition
for hire. Subsequently another case----
Senator MALLORY. It held that that constituted publication?
Mr. BETHUNE. That that constituted publication.
Senator MALLORY. It did not define what publication was any more than
that?
Mr. BETHUNE. No; it simply decided that that particular public
exhibition was a publication of the work.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it decided that in that case special
acts constituted a publication?
Mr. BETHUNE. Yes, sir. Now, the Federal courts in New York State have
held the contrary view in respect of a public exhibition of a painting
for hire (in the Workmeister cases). Those cases will probably go up
to the Supreme Court, but they may not.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the argument or the reasoning of the court in
the latter decision?
Mr. BETHUNE. The Massachusetts case was distinguished, if my memory is
correct, on the fine point that in one case there was a
reservation--in the one case the artist made some reservation in
respect of the use of the painting when he loaned it to the
exhibition, and in the other case he did not; but it is just those
fine points which we want to eliminate.
Senator MALLORY. From what you say, I think it would be well for us to
avoid the word "publication" and state just what we want without using
the word "publication" at all, if we are going to give rise to diverse
decisions and litigation. I think we had better express it, perhaps,
in the language which you have--"after sale or exhibition for hire"
and "public exhibition."
Mr. BETHUNE. Well, there you do limit it.
Senator MALLORY. Just express it in those words.
Mr. BETHUNE. There you do limit distinctly what would be, in effect,
publication, though you do not call it so, and that we do not want.
The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad if you would submit your proposed
amendment to the committee later.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I understand that Mr. W. A. Livingstone,
representing certain reproducing interests, and Mr. McDonald,
representing the National Photographers' Copyright League, wish to
have a note recorded--not to argue a point, but simply to have a note
recorded in the minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. LIVINGSTONE, ESQ., OF DETROIT, MICH.
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