The Washington herald., 1916-01-16

The Author, organ OF the MetropOn-
tan Society OF Authors, Playrights and
Composers, published In London, Eng
land. has recently made an expose of a
remarkable situation In this country Of
interest not only to authors. but 10 the
newspaper reading public, especially In
Washington. The article reproduced be-
low appears in a recent issue of The Au-
thor, under the caption. Miss Mabel
Herbert Urner and the Hearst Publica-
uons:"
The following curious case has arisen
In America Miss Mabel Herbert Urner
wrote series of stories under contract
In the Hearst papers, entitled The Mar
ried Life of Helen and Warren" When
she severed her connections with the
Hearst papers she then began TO write
for the Mcclure Syndicate. Shortly aft
erwards the stories were continued In the
Hearst papers, The same title and the
same characters were used, and in some
cases, according to the statement be-
fore us, incidents unfinished in the for
mer stories were finished in the new col
lection. The following is a paragraph
that appears under Miss Mabel Herbert
Crners new story, which IL a continue
ton by the original author Of The Mar
Hed Life Of Helen and Warren"
Owing to the great success OF the
tempts have been made to initiate them
and trade upon their popularity The
most hagrant example of this is by the
Hearst publications. Owing TO a dis
agreement with them In regard to the
number Of stories which she should fur
nish them weekly, Mrs Mabel Herbert
Harper mabel Herbert Urner) severed
her connection with them and turned her
stories over to the Mcclure Newspaper
SNnNlcatf TheV in he
papers. as one would eNpect-for awhile.
In a short time, however. a series under
the same title, with the same characters
and as closely a copy as possible of the
original. appeared In the Hearst pubIica-
tons.
Quotes New York Comment.
why did Mrs. Harper allow the i'm
position to continue?' asks the New York
Courier and International Topics in an
editorial comment on this affair, headed
Is Literary Piracy Dead?'
why did she not bring the Hearst
publications to time it goes on. by
invoking the strong arm of the law?'
The answer is that the law does not ap-
ply to this sort OF case. The new series
Of stories did not infringe the copyright
OF the old. since they did not reproduce
any incidents in that series. They do not
infringe any copyright OF the new stories
that Mrs. Harper is writing. for the
same reason. You cannot copyright n
title or a name, and such trade right as
there is in a title happens TO belong 10
the original publisher OF the stories. The
fact that for a large public the titles OF
the originals had come to mean stories
by Mrs. Harper Is OF no legal weight.
Suitable credit must of course. be given
TO the publisher who lent the force Of his
influence 10 helping create and spread
the demand for the Stories The credit
for the popularity OF the chara cters il
thus fairly to be divided between author
and publisher. But this cannot Justify
any attempt TO mislead the public and 10
capitalize the popularity won by the
stories. by printing a second series mas
quer8ding under the title of the first
Whatever the moral rights in the
case IL is clear that Mrs. Harper is
legally helpless. II is possible, how
ever, to warn the public against the
imposition that is being practiced IN
this particular instance, and to put
authors upon their guard in respect of
the characters they create. Writers
should take care to see that a suitable
clause is inserted in contracts. reserT-
ing to themselves the exclusive right
to such CHARACTERS, even after the con-
tract has expired Mrs. Harper and
the Mcclure Syndicate are certainly
entitled to the sympathy and the sup
port of the reading world"
Acquired No Property.
In this paragraph one statement
needs special comment-"You cannot
copyright a title or a name, and such
trade right as there is in a title hap
pens to belong to the original pub
Usher of the stories" 1t should be
stated that the original stories under
the Hearst contract were copyrighted
in the name of the Hearst organiZa-
tion; that an author should sell his
copyright is in itself a serious error.
but the owner Of the copyright would
not necessarily, therefore, acquire any
property in the title. II is true that in
Great Britain there is. speaking gen