The San Francisco call., 1906-08-10
Fair Authors Not in Accord
on Question of Titles.

amazement, she discovered that the
same title had been appropriated and
advertised as that of a serial which
is soon to begin in a cheap weekly
publication with which authors who
nave arrived" would scarcelw care to
have their titles or their names aSso-
ciated She wrote to the editor of the
cheap weekly, calling his attention TO
her prior use of the title and sug-
gesting that he should invent some
other for his serial He replied that
there was no copyright in titles and
refused to alter it, She then wrote TO
the Society of Authors to see if she
had any legal redress. She was told
there was no absolute copyright IN
title, but there is a right of property.
And if any one could prove loss or
damage by another persons use OF it,
one had a claim against the user.
Was anything ever so preposter-
ous?" asks the indignant Rita" IF
the book is the authors property,
surely the title which really constitutes
the existing form of the book and Is
is exponent to the public, should also
belong to the author. The fact OF its
being a portion of his or her published
work should include il in legal rights
with the work published. To prove
damage or loss is a different matter
entailing also the publication OF agree
ments and statements. To damage
speaks for itself, l should say, in the
stealing or appropriating OF what IS
another's, and the consequent vexa-
tion and confusion caused by the theft.
Cannot Miss Corelh preserve her
right to Gods Good Man'l Can Hall
Caine lay no claim to The Chris
tian' or John Strange Winter TO her
Dickens and Thackeray or Miss Brad
don or Wilkie Collins no right TO hold
their celebrated titles as their own if
some penny journal or provincial
serialist chooses to steal them? It
seems indeed as if the idiotic law of
copyright was sorely in need of re-
vision, and 1t behooves all authors to
combine and insist upon such a revi-
sion of that law as would keep their
property in their own hands"
On the face of it, it would seem
that Rita makes out a good case for
the granting of a copyright in titles
But there is another aspect of the
question which, when considered, will
probably deter well-known authors
from responding to her appeal 10 join
her in taking some steps TO amend
this very serious wrong" Such a
copyright would apply equally TO the
works of all authors-the stories of
the obscure as we'll as the novels OF
authors ofvestablished reputation. And
the difficulties which the latter now
have to contend with to invent title
that has not been previously used by
some popular writer would be infn-
itely increased. They would have to
make sure that it had never been used
by any of the vastly larger number of
authors who never achieve reputa-
tions. 1t would necessitate search
somewhat similar to that which now
has to be made before patent can
be obtained. OF the making OF books
there is no end, but of the making of
titles-new titles that is-an end
would be speedily reached. The
result would be that novels would
have TO be issued with no other titles
at all than the names of their authors
The remedy would prove worse than
the disease
Besides the really great authors
stand in no need of such protection
The veriest hack would never dare,
for instance, to appropriate one Of
Kipling's titles-"The Light That
Failed" for example. AS for Dickens.
or Thackeray, Rita" has really no
need to worry lest the titles of their
books should be stolen. Great Ex-
pectations," Vanity Fair" and all the
rest of them are assured of protection
against such desecration for all time