CORRESPONDENCE
AMERICAN COPYRIGHT
(To the Editor of The London Mercury)
Sir,—In the second number of The London Mercury I note a reference in an Editorial Note to the status of the copyright relations between America and Great Britain.
You emphasize the unsatisfactory status of the American copyright law. It is the case, as you point out, that the provision inserted in the original International Act which went into effect in 1891, and in the amended Act which became law in 1909, makes it a condition that any book, whether by an American or an English author, must, in order to secure copyright protection in the United States, be published in an edition "wholly manufactured" within this country. It has also been the law up to within the past fortnight that the American edition must be brought into the market within a term of not less than sixty days from the date of publication in Great Britain.
This Act, as amended in 1912 and again in December, 1919, represents the largest measure of copyright protection that it has thus far been found practicable to secure for transatlantic authors. The fight to secure any measure of recognition for the property rights of foreign authors had continued from 1837 (when my father organised the first Copyright League) to 1891, when a provision for international copyright first found place in the American statute. I succeeded my father as the Secretary and executive of the International Copyright League.
As a representative of this League (which at that time comprised authors as well as publishers) I took to Washington in 1886 the draft of a Bill which, if enacted, would have enabled the United States to become a member of the Convention of Berne. After four years of effort with two successive Congresses, I was obliged to report to the Copyright League that there was no possibility of securing favourable attention for any international copyright measure that did not make provision for American manufacture.
The Book Manufacturing Union, comprising typesetters, printers, binders, etc., had made clear to Congress that they would block the enactment of any measure that did not include the manufacturing requirement. In this position they were supported by the other unions which had no direct interest in, and in fact no knowledge of, the matter at issue. The unions have, wisely, probably for their own interests, held increasingly to the policy of giving a general support to a claim made by any one union or group.
Our League took the position that it was wiser to secure such measure of recognition for literary property as was then practicable rather than to leave without protection the books of transatlantic authors, and the authors and publishers of Great Britain were in full accord with this decision.
We are obliged to report that the unions have to-day a stronger influence over Congress, and as a rule over the executive, than they had in 1890. There is no possibility of securing the cancellation of the manufacturing requirement unless, or until, the book manufacturing unions can be persuaded to give their assent. There has been an increasing effort to this end, and we hope yet to be able to make clear to the book manufacturing trade that the American printers and binders are now quite strong enough to secure their full share of the work done, and that they do not need this special restriction in their favour.