The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-03-26
A QUESTION OF ooPYRIeHT.


The Soldiers Monument Commission sued
out restraining order against The People, on
Saturday, to prevent it from selling copies of
the paper containing the excellent cut of the
proposed magnificent work that is to- adorn
the capital of the State, and testify to the
future generations the artistic ability Of
Bruno Schmitz, the wisdom and the public
spirit of the members of the commission, and
the glorious deeds of the heroes who gave
their lives and services to preserve the gov
eminent. It is also in contemplation, we
understand, to enter suit under the copyright
law. This seems to be an il-considered and
very short-sighted proceeding for number of
reasons
When the selection of design was first
made, of course the immediate desire of all
enterprising newspapers was to secure a cut
of the proposed structure. The Journal was
among the first to make application to the
commission. The commission, however, de-
termined to have the electrotypes made them
selves, and furnished to all newspapers desir-
ing them simultaneously, Friday, of this
week, being agreed upon as the day when the
cuts should be supplied. To this the Journal
willing to consent desiring to meet the
wishes of the commission; but by strange
faulty photographs were taken and put on
sale first. and a beautiful, large size sketch,
made by the artist and designer, publicly ex-
hibited in the show window OF Lieber's Art
Emporium. This, of course, destroyed what
ever secrecy there may have been about the
monument, made the design public property
and opened it to the public view. The pub
LEGATION of cut in a newspaper could not
have added much, if anything, to the pub
Lefty thus given to the design by the action
of the commissioners themselves.
To presume that the publication of a cut in
a newspaper would interfere with the sale of
photographs is nonsense; if SC, why exhibit
the design in public show window? or why
agree that there should be simultaneous pub
LEGATION in the newspapers Friday nextf
Surely the commission did not think that all
the photographs they hoped to sell would be
sold before that day. AS matter of fact and
common sense, the printing of the outlines of
the monument in the newspapers will only
stimulate the desire to secure photographs for
permanent keeping in the home, and this was
the idea of the commission in proposing that
there be simultaneous publication, which
has been antici pated only by few days, and
by reason of the bad judgment of the com
mission, which did not provide the cuts for
the newspapers before so long and wide pub
licity was officially given by photographs and
sketch. In these days of sharp newspaper
competition the commission might have
known that the design would be printed some
where by somebody. As a matter of fact, we
understand photograph was last week sent
to an art paper in the East.
Still another suggestion is pertinent: We
have no idea that a suit for infringement
lection of private in terests. and skill and ge-
MUS. The design is not copyrighted by Mr..
Schmitz; the design was no longer his when
accepted under the terms of the competition.
The commission can have no proprietary inter-
est in the monument or the design. It is public
work, TO be paid for out of the public treas
ury from the taxes collected from all the peo-
pie. There is private right or interest
contravened. How copyright be
maintained is hard to see, either by
the spirit or the letter of the law. Judge
Woods, doubtless, was compelled to issue the
restraining order on the face of the facts pre-
scented; but a more useless, ex pest facto order
could be scarcely imagined. Thousands of
copies of the paper had already been sold; the
only effect was to prevent the sale of few
hundreds. possibly, upon the streets yester-
day, and put the paper to temporary annoy
ance and the costs of defending the action.
This is not business nor good Judgment On
the part of the commission.