The consolidation of the British copyright law, not only in the United
Kingdom but in the Dominions, and its amendment so as to include the
recommendations of the Berlin International Convention of 1908, were the
objects of a government bill introduced into parliament by the president
of the Board of Trade on the 26th of July 1910, discussion on which was
reserved for a later period in the year. The passing of this bill,
though the date of it was uncertain owing to the peculiar circumstances
of English politics at the moment, was practically assured by the facts
that, apart altogether from the crying need for a revision of the
English law, the draft had previously been considered and accepted, not
only by a Board of Trade Committee which reported unanimously in favour
of the recommendations of the Berlin Convention, but also by an Imperial
Conference. The bill for the first time brought British copyright
entirely under statutory law and consolidated and amended all previous
enactments; it adopted the suggestions of the Imperial Conference
(attended by representatives of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New
Zealand and Newfoundland, other interests being covered by home
representatives of the Foreign Office, India Office, Colonial Office and
Board of Trade) as to providing for its extension by their declaration
to the Dominions; and with its enactment a great simplification of the
British law of copyright came in sight, though for historical reasons
the details given above of the law as unamended must still remain of
value.
Briefly, the new points of importance, apart from the placing of all
copyright on a purely statutory basis and the inclusion of literary and
artistic copyright within one arrangement, were as follows. All
compulsory formalities of registration were abolished. The length of the
period for which copyright lasted was extended to the life of the author
and 50 years after. This reform was qualified, however, by a clause
intended to protect the public from its abuse, and providing that after
the author's death, if the work was withheld from the public or
published at too high a price, or if the reasonable requirements of the
public were not satisfied, a licence might be granted to publish or
perform it. These changes applied to all the subject-matters of
copyright, which were now put on the same level and treated uniformly.
In certain cases, already discussed above, protection was extended: e.g.
translations and lectures, original adaptations and arrangements, works
of artistic novelty, including architectural designs; and the right to
dramatize a novel or "novelize" a drama was conferred in each case on
the author. Musical works were protected against unauthorized
reproduction by mechanical means without payment; but protection was
also extended to the mechanical record when authorized.
In including all sorts of intellectual product the bill followed the
recommendation (resolution 6) of the Imperial Conference as to the
definition of copyright (Parl. Paper Cd. 5272): "the Conference is of
opinion that, subject to proper qualifications, copyright should include
the sole right to produce or reproduce a work, or any substantial part
thereof, in any material form whatsoever and in any language, to
perform, or in the case of a lecture, to deliver, the work or any
substantial part thereof in public, and, if the work is unpublished, to
publish the work, and should include the sole right to dramatize novels
and vice versa, and to make records, &c., by means of which a work may
be mechanically performed." As to architecture and artistic crafts the
Conference recommended (resolution 9) that "an original work of art
should not lose the protection of artistic copyright solely because it
consists of, or is embodied in, a work of architecture or craftsmanship;
but it should be clearly understood that such protection is confined to
its artistic form and does not extend to the processes or methods of
reproduction, or to an industrial design capable of registration under
the law relating to designs and destined to be multiplied by way of
manufacture or trade."
As to the application of the new period of copyright to existing works,
the Conference recommended (resolution 10) "that existing works in which
copyright actually subsists at the commencement of the new act (but no
others) should enjoy, subject to existing rights, the same protection as
future works, but the benefit of any extension of terms should belong to
the author of the work, subject, in the case where he has assigned his
existing rights, to a power on the part of the assignee at his option
either to purchase the full benefit of the copyright during the extended
term, or, without acquiring the full copyright, to continue to publish
the work on payment of royalties, the payment in either case to be fixed
by arbitration if necessary."
The Conference was also of opinion (resolution 4a) that, under the new
Imperial Act, copyright should subsist only in works of which the author
was a British subject or bona fide resident in one of the parts of the
British Empire to which it extended; and that copyright should cease if
the work were first published elsewhere than in such parts of the
Empire.
The sensible basis on which the new bill was framed, and the authority
it represented, commended it, in spite of many controversial points, to
the acceptance both of the public and of the various parties concerned.
But nobody who had ever wrestled with all the difficulties of
international copyright, as complicated by the law in the United States,
would suppose that it was the last word on the subject. What the bill
did was to bring British legislation into better shape, and to amend it
on certain points which had worked unjustly. The great distinction
between the requirements for British and for American copyright still
remained, namely, the American manufacturing clause. Perhaps the most
notable innovation was the clause enabling a licence to be granted for
the publication of a copyright work where the owners of the copyright
had not exercised it for the "reasonable requirements" of the public.
Some such clause was clearly called for when the period of monopoly was
being extended; but the interpretation to be put upon the occasions
which would justify such interference might well be difficult. It may
perhaps be suggested that this innovation pointed to a reconsideration
of the true relations of "publishers" and "authors" (in the widest
sense) in respect of copyright, which sooner or later might be
approached from a different point of view. The new clause was intended
for the protection of the public from the mishandling of an author's
work after his death, while greater protection was given him during his
life. From a purely business point of view, the question might well be
whether a publisher or other party not the author should have a
copyright at all, and whether equity would not be satisfied if copyright
vested solely in the author and his family, with liberty to any one to
"publish" on fair terms, consideration being had to an original
publisher's reasonable claims and existing contracts. The advisability
of any such advance on the principle now asserted must depend rather on
experience of actual business and the working of the clause; but even
under the procedure provided by the bill of 1910 it would equally be
imperative for a publisher who owned a deceased author's copyright to
show that he had given or was giving the public valuable consideration
for his monopoly, in order to uphold it against any one willing, on
payment of a reasonable royalty, to serve the public better.
AUTHORITIES.--For special points see W. A. Copinger's _The Law of
Copyright in Works of Literature and Art_, 4th ed., by J. M. Easton
(1904); or T. E. Scrutton's _Law of Copyright_ (3rd ed., 1896). See
also E. J. MacGillivray, _A Treatise on the Law of Copyright_ (1902);
Richard Winslow, M.A., LL.B., _The Law of Artistic Copyright_ (London,
1889); A. Birrell, _Copyright in Books_ (London, 1899); B. A. Cohen,
_Law of Copyright_ (London, 1896); L. Edmunds, _Copyright in Designs_
(London, 1908); Knox and Hind, _Copyright in Designs_ (London, 1899);
W. Briggs, _Law of International Copyright_ (1906); W. M. Colles and
H. Hardy, _Playright and Copyright in all Countries_ (1906).