On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    m ==4 1348 The Publishers' Circular Oct....

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    The International Literary

    M insp . ired Bernaerts by their , had deliberations himself . declared Their history to be

    was well known . It had been from time to time written hy their indefatigable secretary ,

    assisted which they b y did M . not Pouillet intend . It should was cease a history / but

    which they intended should continue until , they ^ j had broug _ —^^ ht into __ universal __ _ agreement ^ -j

    such refractory countries as Russia and the United States .

    Herr Carl W . Batz spoke as the representative of Germanyand was followed by M .

    Huertas ( Spain ) , , M . Wouvermans ( Belgium ) , Dr . Max Nordau ( Austria-Hungary ) , M .

    Herman , Morel ( Switzerland ) , M . Armand Ocampo (\ Argentine Republic ) M . Dumaresq

    ( France - ~ X ) , and O M . Chaumat X ( representing , the JFrench Ministry of Justice ) . M . Eugene

    Pouillet also replied . Mr . John Leighton , F . S . A . in the course of a speech on the

    piracy , of works of art , said he was , perhaps , the only member present X of the Art Copyri X •/ g Oht

    Committee who , about thirty years ago , codified the Acts relating to painting , engravingand photography . Since then he had

    assist , ed at the Antwerp Congress , and last year at Pariswhen the International Congress

    sat at the School , of Fine Arts . From the long experience he had had / he should advocate a

    union x . of the whole of , the arts , literary and artisticmusical and dramatic .

    On Monday , the proceedings were continued under the presidency x •/ of M . Louis Ratisbonnc ,

    and M . Eugene Pouillet , avocat of the Paris Barreviewed the Berne Convention on the

    rights , of authors , with special regard to the rig hts of translation . The development xof a

    national literature was hampered by the possioi of bilit the y of . chefs r . hefs ever - - d d y opuvres apiivrps one being or af foreign foreign able to writers wri avai ters l himsel with wit . h - f

    out loosening his own purse ,-strings . Why , asked M . Pouillet , should publishers X run the

    risk which always attends the production of a new work when they can publish one the success of which is already confirmed ?

    Therefore the Congress of London was asked to affirm the following G > proposi X Xtion : * That

    translation is only a mode of reproduction , and that the right of reproductionwhich

    constitutes literary property , necessaril , y includes the right of translation . '

    In the evening the Lord Mayor entertained the delegates and a number of other guests at dinner in the Egyptian Hall of the

    Mansio ' n House . (_»•/ X On Tuesday ^ the Congress resumed ita

    sittings in the theatre of the Society of Arts , John StreetAdelphiwhen the subject of

    Copyright in , the United , States was ably treated in a paper by M . Lermina , who expressed the

    profound regret of the Association at the result of the discussion of the International Copyri X tl g <~ - > ht

    Bill by the American Legislature . 126 members voted against the third reading , while 98 were in favour of itand there were 103 abstentions .

    Thirteen m ^ m ^ a . Bills m ^ r f c KJS'te , with _ . « the . « same object ¦« . & _¦& had been ¦_ brought forwardand 23 public discussions had

    taken place , always , with the same result , namely , the absolute rejection of every measure

    affording protection to authors who were not I American . The opposition was determined by

    two cilabl special e antagonism motives to —in Eng the — -j land first which p .. lace - _ —__ , irrecon country mt % im

    -^— - — , _ ^^ - ^^ . ^ A . v A » the was second specially an interested internal - . ___ in strugg the ^ —— matter le between , and , the in

    East and the , West of America — — _ — — _ itself — — . . - ^ . ^^ The v ^ ^ ^^ most bitter detractors of the proposed AH law be-^ 1 ^ B a A B ^ B . ^ B ^ B a ^_ _

    longed to regions the * ^ least blessed with intelindustrial lectual characteristics - and where , authors which and were publishers strictl W y

    practically , had no existence - - . For — j the --- _ .-w- - -- ^ con ^ ^^ ^^ Pf - stituents stituents or of the the representatives representatives or of Hansas Kansas .

    ri Kentuck ghts of y , intellect Missouri had , Ohio no real , and and Texas tangible , the ,

    of being the . They security made of authors little , both whom of the they dignit treated y - — . -r— and -V

    as speculators and monopolisers , — as — soon — . as they — — - — claimed the reward of their labours . On the

    other hand , writers might congratulate themselves upon having been defended by the

    representatives of the States which constituted the intellectual elite of the country . New YorkNew —

    Jersey , Boston , and Philadel p hia had strugg , led ~ for rig ht and justice v , and it would __ be _ _ to them _ that

    the victory would be due if it should ever be gained . Analysing the arguments against the Copyright Billthe paper cited those of

    one of its X «/ greatest CJ opponents , / X XT , Mr . Hopkins , of Illinois—according to whom an author created

    nothing . He simply used as a means of production the elements with which his predecessors

    had furnished himand drew from books and libraries ideas which , he merely set — in

    circulation over again . Mr . Hopkins added besides that a writer who was really worthy of the

    name did not work for money . It was only fairupon this pointremarked _ _ the _ paper jj—jto

    than , k Mr . Hopkins L for , that mark - - of esteem _ , j , but at the same time to observe that a writer ,

    the even ri t g ht to one live mos by t his wor work thy of just the as name any , other had

    human _ j being . Mr •/ . Hopkins did not seem •/ to notice that in refusing to an author the right

    of remuneration he was closing the door of a literary career to every one without fortune and

    without patrimony . It was the doctrine of silencing the poor in all its cruelty . Other arguments were that the interests of the

    author were antagonistic to the interests of the public generally , because the remuneration

    claimed would tend to increase the price of books 4 What . is Mr there . Payson in common , of Illinois between , had us asked and ,

    other countries ? They are only interested in us because we are a source of profit to them . '

    profit X It was b Eng y •/ the land law , and . Wh Eng y ds land hould alone America , that favour would

    the publishers of that land of feudality \ As to authorsthere was no need to speak of them .

    They were , paid at home ' . America X owed them nothing . The Copyright Bill had no other

    object than to open to foreigners the vast market of the American reading public / andf

    moreover , without exacting any correspon £ 2 jl , ding , advantage in return . And one orator added

    author that , in in order Eng to land insure it protection was necessar to y a that foreign he

    should have an [ Eng , lish abode and should take an oath of allegiance to the Queen . Had not

    fantastical any one , asked statements M . Lermina ? Americans , replied knew to those that

    in most countries of Europe their rights were

    M ==4 1348 The Publishers' Circular Oct....

    m == 4 1348 The Publishers' Circular Oct . 15 , 1890

• Citation
  • Publishers’ Circular (1880-1890), Oct. 15, 1890, page 1348, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/pc/issues/tec_15101890/page/10/