The New York herald., 1874-12-22
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
AN EXPOSITION OF THE LAW AS 1T STANDS
SOME SHARP COMMENTS.

The communication In recent ISSUE OF your
paper on international Copyright offers q
statement OF our law In relation to foreign
dramatists so entirely erroneous that do not
wonder that to the writer OF that communication
at seems to be law inconsistent and az variance
with ltsellp and ssparadoxical and absardu Nor
do wonder that the same Interpretation given
by the same writer in recent number OF the
London AtsenguDs led an "Authorn TO pronounce
our copyright laws In this respect q .cur osity
and a stuitihcation In themselves.n shall en- !.
deavor to show that these forcible expressions
applicable not 70 the law, but to the careless
Interpretation given by your correspondent
The communication In the AthenGun referred
to, which appeared at a tine when numerous
English correspondents OF that periodical were
discussing with more zeal than learning the
American copyright laws In their relation to Eng.
lish authors, informed the English public that there
were 1.-TWO American decisions, the effect of which
Is to give to English authors lat all events Eng
Ish dramatic authors) In the United states pre-.
cisely the same protection that they would realize
II citizens or II they could copyright with us -
and 1t was added that ut is difficult 10 what
further protection he (the English dramatistl
could gain by operation OF an international act.n
This language is not ambiguous. It states clearly
that under the two decisions mentioned English
dramatlsts, II not all the authors OF England have
''precsey the same protection" for their works In
the United States that is enjoyed by our own
dramatists.
The soundness OF this proposition having been
questioned, the author. Mr.. J. A. Morgan, In your
issue of yesterday reiterated 1t, and adds new
revelation as follows:-"Frst. that an alien dra-
matte author In this country receives precisely the
same protection in his literary property as the
citizen receives in hts; and second, that by ne
giecsing to comply with our copyright laws he can
actually enjoy greater privileges OF protection
IN his literary property than he could by
complying with them.n The cases cited In
support Of this doctrine in the Athenouna were
Palmer vs. DAILY and Grove vs.. Aiken. But there
is no such copyright case reported as Palmer VS..
Daily. There Is reported case OF DAILY vs.. Palmer,
but 1t has nothing to do with the point under
consideration. The cases of De Witt VS.. Palmer,
and Grove vs. Aiken, are brought forward as au.
thortty for the assertion "that an alien dramatic
author In this country receives precisely the same
protection In his literary property as the citizen
receives in his" Perhaps the most satisfactory
way OF pointing out the inaccuracy and absurdity
OF these assertions will be to make an accurate
statement OF the privileges accorded to foreign
dramatists IN our courts and then to point out
briefly the rights secured to resident dramatic
authors.
In the first place, then, 1t ts clearly established
that no foreign literary author. whether dramatic
or otherwise is entitled to copyright in the United
States unless he be resident here, with the inten-
tion Of making this country his place OF permanent
abode. This stern veto against foreign
ers mas been prominent provision In
all our copyright legislation since 1900 Nor has
the plain meaning or the different acts In this re-
spect been materially modified by the courts
Nevertheless, in half dozen recent cases the
rights OF English dramatigfq va hon tod
by our courts. Three OF these cases were brought
by Miss Laura Keene against Wheatley, OF Phila-
delphia Moses Kimbal, OF the Boston Museum,
and John s. Clarke. then OF New York, for repre-.
senting without authority the comedy OF "Our
American Cousn," the manuscript Of which she
had purchased from Tom Taylor, of London. An
other was the action brought by Miss Kate Bate
man against Aiken, OF Chicago, for representing
without authority "Mary Warner" which had
Tom Taylor, and which she held in manuscript;
and another was the suit which Ii. d. Palmer
brought against De Witt Tor piracy Of Robertson's
play" But these cases had nothing to 90
with the copyright laws. The WORKS In con-
resident in England and sold to managers or eX.
elusive representation IN the Unlted States. The
plays were represented lr M in this country from
were not copyrighted except that an invalid
copyright had been taken out on sour American
either In England or The United States. Having
been publicly represented In this country by au.
managers without authority. In ali but one the
rights OF the English author were affirmed not,
however, under the copyright law, but on the
ground that the plays were In manuscript and had
never been published by authority. II was not
statutory, put common law protection OF literary
law secures to every author, native or
foreign, the exclusive control and enjoyment
of his unpublished writings and makes no dis.
Ilncton between literary and other property.
The material facts IN the cases above mentioned
were not seriously disputed by the defendants;
but their defence was placed upon the ground that
the pubic representation Of manuscript play was
publication which justified any rival manager in
reproducing 1t without authority. In more than
one OF these cases the Court lntlmated That rival
manager might lawfully reproduce man uscrpt
to do so through the memory OF any person who
mad witnessed Its authorized public performance;
but not II the play had been obtained by stem
oRraphy, notes or other "unialr means.n do not
say that these cases have decided that rival
manager may thus lawfully Summon TO his aid the
sion or q manuscript play without paying Tor IT..
This absurd doctrine was elaborately discussed in
these cases and recognized In two or three by the
Bench; but the direct issue was not before the
Court, since 1t did not appear that in any case
excepting perhaps one) the play had been OBJ
talned by means OF memory. This common law
protection then Is all that foreign dramatisL re-
ceves In our courts; he has no rights unaer the
statutes.
Now what are the privileges OF an American
dramaist2 In the FIRST place, as long as his plays
are In manuscript and uncopyrghted, he Is upon
the same footing as foreign writers. Both have
the same common law right OF literary property in
their manuscript works. Both have the same
remedies. The law makes no distinction between
them. But see what additional privileges Con-
gress has given TO nome authors. In 1866 an act
was passed by Congress 10 enable dramatic au-
thors 10 copyright their plays, SO o secure TO
themselves not only the exclusive privilege OF
publication but also the sole right OF representa-
tlon. This statute, however, was Tor the exclusive
benent OF citizens, and no such privilege WAS ex-
tended 10 a foreign oramatist. Now let us see
whether, as Mr.. Morgan asserts, "an alien dra-
mallc author IN THIS Country receives precisely
the same protection In his literary property as
the citizen receives In his" A foreign DRAMA
his play, must keep IL. in manuscript,
ana In representing II from manuscript must
dread the tenacious memories OF his patrons. He
cannot circulate printed copies, either abroad
In this country, aud enjoy this source OF profit;
for the moment the play Is published with his CON-
sent his entire rights OF property are gone and no
caunot prevent Others either from printing 1t or
representing IT upon the stage. And the same Is
true OF an American who mas bought manuscript