New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-29
THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT.
A LETTER FROM THE HON. RHyERDY
JOHNSON

AND NR. JUSTICE YATES OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
FOR INrrRSATIoNaL COPYEIGHT
To the Ed,fOr OF Ire Tribune.
SIZE: Several letters Of Nr. Charles Reade pub
lshed in TIE TRIBUNE have been read BY me with
great interest The subject of which they trat Is IN
important one IL. in truth, embraces one of tho
main objects for which governments constituted
the projection Of property. II is now universally
admitted by all jasi and reasonable men as sefeI-
dent propositions that life liberty. and the pursuit
Of happiness arc rights which man cannot ALLEVIATE,
or forfeit, except for crime. That these rights
not be fully enjoyed unless they are associated with
the tight TO be protected in the prop'rty which he
may acquire is proposition equally self-cyident
The questions then which propose briefly to con.
sler and which form the topics OF Mr. Resde's
rcsponGcHcc, arc:
First: Whether an anthor has at common Law
property in his productions
Secoud. Whether he loses il by publishing and
selling.
ILid. Whether it is denied To him by the Copy
right laws of England and the United stales
These questions were before the Court of KnSs
Bench in the case Of Miller and Taylor, reported in
It'll Burrough, and aftcrwad before the House d
Lords in the of Donaldson aot- Beckett, subsan-
italy reported in the volume.
AN AUTHORS RIGHT TO HIS THOUGHTS.
Tn the fist case three of the Judges-Lord Mans
field Justices illcs and Ashton-dec ded in favor u
the authors night each of the questions, Justice
Yaies being tho only disscnteut. The grounds OF
hi, dissent will examine. lie lays it down a.
clear principle that there cannot be property in any
thing which is without cOrporeal or visible sub
stance and that this cannot be SAID OF an authors
own productions, they being not material but IDEAL
The unsoundncss of this view seeins to me TO he
transparont II is tue that the thoughts of an
e tbn,so upg1 IN, in nr fai
have not AZ far as the world is concerned any mato-
rial existence. But they are. notwithstanding, his
own, ard it would be unjust in any Government to
deprive him of tue right to them in any way that
he MY think proper. Being his own before they arc
written out 10 tic cease to be- his own when they
are so writtcnl When they thus appear they have
that visible poIeai substance which MI. Justice
Yates considers essential to the idea OF property.
They are not then merely IDEAL hut tangible aud TO
De seen or ali men. To Adopt the metaphor Of tho
learned Judge, they arc then mot like bird in the
Gaze bat like bird out OF the cage" aud when IN
hat condition ho admits they are his. and that
40 man has ri Iht to deprive him Of them. Ills
words are that when reduced to writing the author
is " Tie solo proprietor of any copy and has night
to decide whether he Will print not and conse-
auently if any one prints without his authority las Il
u trespasser. This necessarily demonstrates That
the COPY has "A material and visible existence and IL
propcrty as trespass cannot be committed upon that
which is ideal and invisible.
Az OpiNiOS DY LORD M.NsFfRLD
The views taken by tho majority of the Court In
Miller and Taylor are. In my opinion commandlhgy
persuasive. | will quote few words from the
opinion of Lord Mansfield. Upon the first question
he considers the right of property before publication
TO he clear. Everything that originally appeared IN
tho Court of Chancegy applicable to the Question
proves that. in tho Judgment of English Jnr>'S, an
author had properly in his works before pubhcaion'
And this right of property, LIS lordshp says. Is
agreeable to principles of right aud wrong. tho hit
ness of things, convenience and policy, ana thofo-
fore that il should DO protected. In the Subsequent
case in tho House of Lords eight Of the eleven
Judges whose opinions requested by that body.
concuIrtd with the opinion OF the majority of the
Court in Miller and Taylor upon the hrSt question.
and his lOrlship. being member OF the House. con
cured with the eight but did not. because he "asa
member give a separate opinion.
EFFECT or PUBLICATION on AUTHORS RIGHTS.
Second. II an author. before publication, hw
pr perty in what he has written, does he lose II ny
publ cation, or by selling his inaDnscnpt' lha
urpurrty should be lost or forfeited merely because
Of its usc resorted to for the purp Sc of making 1T OF
more value, is simply absurd. Or what value Is IL 10
him so long as il remains in his own study, or OF
what value is il to the pubc' Does he write Tor ms
own amusement and instruction. or has he u noblef
ami l. il not his object 10 benefit the world by ex
tending throughout its limits tho tr and tic
Il fusion of a knowledge of that which heavon has
enabled him 10 create, How is he to do this il he Is
denied the pecnniary reward which such Sene-
factor should receiver Are his days ard nights de-
voted tO study h. 90 without compensation IL he
10 be- deprived of the fruits of bis labor and possibly
to die Of starvation in miserable garnet deserted
and degraded - far genins can te degr0de' oi -
it not the imperative duty of his government to
guard by appropriate laws against such an outrage
upon justice and humanity! Are the pubic only to
be the beneciaries of his laborious tn and IL he 10
be cast as worthless weed awayf No honest man
will hesitate to say-"NO, 10, Thousand Tunes.
nor
If by publishing them himself. his property in hs
works il not lost. il is because he has an exclusive
right to his manusc pit. And what wonid TINT riSh'
be worth If ho liad not the authority to sell the
manuscript. and to vest III the purchaser all the
rights, regarding IT, belonging 10 himself Tho in-
qury takes with it its answer. Like every othor
species of property it should be clothed with all tho
protection which makes property of any value.
LITERARY PROPERTY UNDER STATUTE LAW
Third If lie has a night Of property at common
law and does not lose il by publication or "a e. is 1t
taken fl ON him by the copyright laws Of England 81
of the Uned States. and If it is, Is such u result
Just and cXpedenti
In Miller and Taylor 1t was held by three of the
Judges that tie" uteOf Anne dill not eAtlngush
or limit the right. bat afforded only cumulative
remedy against it, violation. THIS not approved
by the House Of Lcrs in the Of Donaldson and
Beckett the judges. including Lori Mansfield, beng
equally divided. In my judgment but for the differ
ent opinion expressed 10y some of the ablest judges
of England SHOULD think it u be very obvious that
a t,r-t