New-York daily tribune., 1854-08-28
RIGHTS OF AUTHORS.


RIGHTS OF AUTHORS.
Years ago, The Erening Post was accustomed TO
deny to AUTHORS any property right in their own pro-
ducOns. All that the author could sell or claim, &C
coropg to tba journal, the right Of first issuing
his work-a right of which it was impossible for
either egszed lowless pracyto deprive him--but,
so soon as it should into the market any body
might snatch copy reprint it, food tue bookstores
with half price edition, and thus deprive tue author
of any compensation for his labor. This theory (or
which the world is probably indebted to the active
and subtle but eiratic brain Of the late William
LeggetD always seemed to us the most coherent and
plausible form Of the anti copyright doctrine. IL
you admit authors property right at all tits absurd
to draw barrow, capricious circle around him, aud
say he shall have such right within that circle, bat
none at all outside of it, If Mr. Bancroft or Mrs.
Stowe has sny rebtul property in his or her literary
productions then that property cannot justly be lin
tied TO this country but must be commensurate with
the use made Of those productions If the Harpers
or any publishers of kindred principles and practices
have moral right to seize the first attainable copy
Of BulWer's or Dickenss new work and food the
market with reprints of it as fast hundred c)m-
pOsitOrs aid dozen steampresses can produce them,
to the sei0Us injury If not utter ruin of the
fair trader who has bought Of the author, so
far as the latter can give it, the exclusive
right Of printing said work in this cOuotry
then they may with equal justice seize the latest
production of Irving or Headley, Grace Greenwood
or Fanny Fern, and treat it in like manner. The
Law cannot alter the essential morality of an act
cannot make knavery honest honesty cuIpabls-its
aim is rather to conform to and indicate the line
h ;re-;c frny ;uiu uctioa
does Dot always succeed in so doing Mr.. II C.
CaIey's argument against international Copyright
from the assumption that the makers of popular
b, obs are not truly authors-that they steal their
ideas from Kant and humboldt, Comte aud Ar,go-
is also if good for any thing good against all copyright
for such works as those of Dickens, Thackeray and
Jcrrold, and not merely for restricting such copy.
right TO two three islands. For if Thackeray
ia not truly the author of VANITY Fair" there is
no reason why any body should pay him for writing
it; but if he IS the author, then Miss Snooks of
Bond st., if she chooses to read it, is under us
clear moral obligation to pay him for his labor in
producing it as Miss Snikius of Plccadlly.
We get a, the gst of this whole Copyrgh. question
by asking uhat it is that the auhor and yu5sher agrse
10 sell in selling printed copies of given work. Here
is new story +! Dickens, for instance which some
enterprisipg Amercon publisher has paid a couple of
thousand dollars for advance sheets of, and which be
is thus enabled to issue ahead of all rivals So he
publishes in due season and offers for sale-wbatl
The right to reprint on him and sell at half price
Suppose you went into his shop aud said, Sir, hand
:" me copy of Hard Times quick; / want it to
reprint as to have it in market at half price to-
" morrow would lie be likely to sell it for that
purpose Wouldhe not rather say to you "Sir Ihave
copies of the work fer sale; and | will gladly sell
you one or more to read or lend but l reserve to
myself the right of multi ying copies, and cannot
sell you for that purpose. In parting with his
doubted property, has he not right to make such
reservation Is he not perfectly understood as making
it in selling copy And is not the reprinting on him
from copy so sold an act essentially unjust and dis
honest Thus it has always seemed to U.s. and We eau
get the subject into no light that gives it different
aspect
Tie Erening Post Of 1854 we rejoice to see has
outgrown the crotchet which formerly disfgured its
lucubrations concerning the Rights of Authors. In
commenting ON he recent decision Of the British
House of Lords denying to Foreign Authors a Com
mon Law protection of COPyri!hs, it says;
I'VE can form estimate OF the number of American
books copyrighted in England but they must form no in
significant part Of the book trade Of Great Britain The
English sales nave cefaH. been greatly relief by
American writers and this decision will cut off a very sub
sara portion Of the income of several of the more em
rtEt of them.
"n one poin. Of view we cannot but contemplate this
decision with satisfaction. IL will rally all the anhor-n.
teres of the country in united effort bring about such
modification OF the laws of Great Britain and the United
States as will secure 20 authors reasonable compensation
for their praied pNperty The injustice Of present
state OF the law 10 liierar, men, is too papabe beques-
TONED Interests have grown up in this country aii in
FL gland based upon different corsrncti1n of the law
hE dec
Gently announced All parties suffering by it will az once
We naturally presume commence 10 agtate for treaty
ne passage OF such laws as the exgency demands Had
This decision been given before the Senate took action upon
tie treaty negotiated by Mr. Everett while Secretary of
State for al copyright &c may be doubted
whether that treaty would have been rejected We trust
ihis administration will open negotiations again with the
British Embassy upon the subject dnd see IL something
cannot be agreed upon in which the Senate will conclr
We trust The Post will learn that the international
Copyright Treaty referred to has not been rejected by
the Senate, but is in good condition to be taken up
and ratified next winter,