The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-11-30
REPORTERS ARE AUTHORS"

They Originate" Their Reports and
Own the Speeches They Reproduce
Good Reasoning, Bad Law.
If the object of copyright is by pro-
tecting authors to encourage the pro-
duction Of literary work OF permanent
| value, it would seem to follow that the
author who produces better literary
work Is more, not less, entitled to pro-
| lection than the author Of inferior lite
rary work.
| Now, if reports are literary work at
| ALL Is not the more accurate report bet
| ter literary work and of greater per-
| manent value than the less accurate?
| The object of a report being to repro
| duce what the speaker said, 1t would
| surely appear TO most people that a
| full report which gave the ipsissma
verbas was better work, more worth
preserving, and therefore more entitled
| TO protection than summarized report
which did not even pretend to repro
duce the language used by the speaker,
but aimed merely at reproducing with
more or less fidelity the substance of
the speech in the reporters own Ian
guage.
The Court of Appeal has taken diff
ferent view of the intention of the law,
and holds that, whereas a summarized
report may he entitled to protection
full report cannot be- on the ground
that the reporter who makes sumna-
rized report in his own language" is an
author within the meaning of the act
whereas the reporter who makes far
more accurate report of what was ac-
tually spoken is not. This distinction
appears to be founded on the quality OF
originality" which is assumed to be
inherent in the one kind of report. but
not in the other. This point will be
dealt With later on. Meanwhile, 1t
would appear that a reporter might on
one and the same occasion report two
speeches. and might be entitled to copy
right in one of his reports and not in the
other. 1t is evident that in such state
of the law there can never be any
knowing when copyright can be claimed
in a report and when 1t cannot To
deny that reports of speeches, whether
verbatim or summarized. are literary
work and consequently to exclude them
one and all from the benefit Of the act,
would be intelligible; but to draw dis
tinctions among reports founded on
their greater or less fidelity, and to say
that a summarized report is entitled to
protection, while full. or so-caled
verbatim, report is not, seems unreason-
Oh IN, I'D it,o,,n IN, NY
tce The essential difference between
the two kinds of reports is always a
varying quantity, in many cases diff
cult to determine, and such as it is OPP
crates to the disadvantage Of the better
work
Arguments from analogy are proven
bially dangerous, but | feel TEMPTED to
try one nevertheless. Suppose 1t were
argued in a case of artistic copyright
that the plaintiff, portrait painter,
was only a copyist: that his work was
not original" that the portrait itself
was only valuable because it represent
"a the person portrayed and had no
merit Of it's own; that a portrait paint
er was not an artist within the meaning
of the act, and therefore not entitled to
protection. What should we say?
Should we agree with this contention?
And, further, would it be any consola-
ton to that portrait painter to be told
that If he had simply made rough |
sketch from memory of his subject he |
would have been able to claim the pro- |
lection OF the law, but as his work was |
a mere piece of copying--the kind of |
work that Holbein, Rembrandt and |