Part 27 (1/2)

Mr. PUTNAM. Can you tell us whether in case the word ”lithograph” is put in there, it might be necessary to put in the words ”etching” and ”engraving?”

Mr. MALCOMSON. No.

Mr. PUTNAM. You make an entire distinction, as I understand it?

Mr. MALCOMSON. Yes; an etching and an engraving would come under a pictorial ill.u.s.tration, without any question. An etching is a pictorial ill.u.s.tration of a subject, certainly, and an engraving is a pictorial ill.u.s.tration of a subject; but a lithograph, when the word is used subsequently in the law, it seems to me should have a place in the section which provides protection for certain subjects.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I find here that in the dictionary, under the noun ”print,” is this definition:

1. An impression with ink from type, plates, etc.; printed characters collectively; printed matter; as, small print; the print is illegible.

2. Anything printed from an engraved plate or lithographic stone----

Mr. MALCOMSON. I agree with you that the courts might hold that that was sufficient to cover it--that the word ”print” would cover a lithograph, and I should contend so before the court; but it is this late decision which leads me to feel that, in so much as it is not going to do any harm, why should we leave it out? Why should we leave it out?

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other gentlemen to be heard now?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. A. Beverly Smith, speaking for the Reproductive Arts Copyright League, and particularly for certain groups of lithographers, simply desired me to say that he thinks also that the word ”lithographs” should go in, but that it should go in in a separate subsection, and should be coupled with the word ”posters.” On the other hand, I ought, to complete the record of this day, to call your committee's attention to a communication from Mr. Ansley Wilc.o.x, which has been presented to the committee. He was here in behalf of an establishment that gets out lithographs, and particularly posters, and he was at the conference particularly concerned about the protection of that material. He writes, and his letter has already gone down to be put in the record, or I should read it; but substantially this, that he considers the specifications of those subsections as very liberal and fully covering all that he is interested in. This is simply for your information.

Mr. A. BEVERLY SMITH. May I correct the statement of the Librarian, Mr. Chairman? I do not think it is necessary that the word ”lithographs” should go in there.

Mr. PUTNAM. I beg pardon, then. I thought you did.

Mr. A. BEVERLY SMITH. I agree with the statement made to you by the Librarian regarding consultation with your legal advisers as to whether or not it should be put in. If you decide to put it in, I think it would be much wiser not to couple it with prints and pictorial ill.u.s.trations at all, but to make a separate cla.s.sification.

And if you do decide, after consultation, to put lithographs in, I think that that will also require the word ”posters” to be put in. I personally do not believe that either one is necessary to be defined separately.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, June 8, 1906, at 10 o'clock, a.m.)

COMMITTEE ON PATENTS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

_Friday, June, 8, 1906_.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a.m., conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents.

Present: Senators Kittredge (chairman), Smoot, and Latimer; Representatives Currier, Campbell, Chaney, McGavin, Webb, and Southall.

Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Solberg, yesterday, when Mr. Cutter was testifying, I asked him this question: ”Can you import two copies of an unauthorized edition?” He said, ”Yes, sir.” I asked, ”Can you do that to-day?” He answered, ”Yes, sir; we can now.” I asked, then, ”A fraudulent reprint, for instance?” ”Yes, sir.” ”There is absolutely no restriction, as you understand it, to-day?” ”There is no restriction at all, as I understand it, to-day.”

I would like to ask you if you understand the practice to be as Mr.

Cutter states?

Mr. SOLBERG. The prohibition of importation was introduced into the copyright law by the act of March 3, 1891, and it was a prohibition of importation additional or extra to that which is supposed to have existed in copyright law against any unauthorized copies. The law as it stood prior to that provided that these unauthorized copies could only be permitted importation upon the consent of the copyright proprietor. That is, the author himself or the copyright proprietor could import even a fraudulent copy.

Mr. CURRIER. That was prior to 1891?

Mr. SOLBERG. Yes. But in the act of March 3, 1891, it is stated, in connection with the typesetting clause, that copies of books not printed from type set within the limits of the United States or from plates made therefrom shall not be imported: and then certain exceptions are introduced, and one is an exception directly on behalf of the individual buyer. The other exceptions are on behalf of libraries, which consist in paragraphs of the free list of the tariff act taken over into the copyright law. It is therefore a matter of interpretation of the law what the interpolation of these exceptions means. Now, I can not authoritatively give that interpretation.