thousand have been sold; we are therefore ruined if we go to law. I applied for an injunction to prevent a person from exhibiting a copy of my work (Belshazzar's Feast) in a sort of diorama, in Oxford street, a most infamous piece of painting, and the public were given to understand that I was the painter. I endeavoured to stop the exhibition by an injunction, but was referred to a jury: the plagiarist is not only safe from prosecution, on account of the expense of such prosecution outweighing all the advantages that can be derived from a verdict; but, as in this case he even comes into the field with a cheaper production, supported by all the effect of the advertisements, and other expensive means of publicity that my own performance had led me to adopt, he not only robs me of my ideas, but establishes a lucrative trade on the effects of my pecuniary outlay; . . . if then, in the case of pirated copies of my engravings, I do by chance obtain a verdict from a jury, I can only recover the amount of what I can prove the defendant to have actually sold, which is my sole compensation for the thousands that are known to have been sold, but which it would be impossible to prove by evidence, since open-book accounts of such transactions are never kept. Or, in the case of a picture being copied for a dioramic or other exhibition, suppose that, on applying for the injunction, his honour is not able to distinguish the difference between a picture of Belshazzar's Feast and a piece of lace, and leaves it for a jury to decide whether a diorama is to be considered a painting, or a copy coming under the meaning of the Act; all the satisfaction I obtain is heavy law expenses, with the certainty of an enormous increase if I hazard an action. The above cases are surely enough to prove that there is no efficient protection." Next of SCULPTURE: 3. Of Original Sculpture, Models, &c. By the 38 George III. cap. 71, the sole right of making copies of new models, busts, statues, "or any work in which the representation of any human figure or figures, or the representation of any animal or animals c. 71. 38 Geo.III. Godson, 305. c. 56. shall be introduced, or any new cast from nature of any part or parts of the human figure, or of any part or parts of any animal," is vested in the maker or proprietor thereof for the term of fourteen years, provided the name of the maker and the date of publication be put thereon. Persons making copies without the written consent of the proprietor, duly attested, may be sued for damages in a special action on the case. This Act was found to be so defective, that it was actually held to be no offence to make a cast of a bust, provided it were a perfect fac-simile of the original. It 54 Geo. III. was the purpose of the 54th Geo. III. c. 56, to remedy these defects, and to give double costs in actions for piracy, together with an additional term of fourteen years in case the maker or original proprietor of such models, busts, statues, or casts, "or of such subject being matter of invention in sculpture," should then be living, and should not have sold his copyright. Omissions of this Statute. Bronze. Such works of sculpture, then, as can be brought within the terms of the enacting clauses of the Act last mentioned have copyright for half the present period of books and prints, or fourteen years, with a contingent right on the inventor's surviving that term, not for the remainder of his life (as in the case with books) but for a second term of fourteen years only. But it will be seen that a large and increasingly important class of works are wholly excluded, even from the protection accorded by this statute. For example, a model of arabesque scrolls, or of foliage of any description, however costly and beautiful the design, may be Arts' Evid. pirated with impunity. In clocks, candelabra, and the I.Q. 592-3. like, works of this kind continually occur. Mr. J. Buonarotti Papworth, the eminent architect, states that piracy is common in works of architectural ornament; Ib. 1253-9. that artists will not execute a fine design on their own account, well knowing that as soon as they have sold Architectural Ornament. one plaster cast of it they have no further hope of Ibid. benefit; and hence he traces the absence of original in- Q. 1253-9. vention in vases, tablets, foliages, &c. of which England produces so few worthy of notice. The absence of protection induces builders and manufacturers to erect a style of ornament which can be executed by workmen alike unpossessed of theoretical knowledge, and devoid of practical accuracy. Ib. 102-7. Nor is the want of protection for the models employed Iron. in the various kinds of iron manufacture to be passed without remark. It is stated by a partner in the house of Stewart, Smith, and Co., of Sheffield, that about £1,500 a year has been expended by that firm in the production of models for stoves and fenders alone; that of some of these Sir F. Chantrey had expressed his high admiration; and that "there is no protection at all for the inventor." This witness exhibited a model of a stove-grate which he stated had cost £50 merely for labour, and continued— "We have sent out such a thing as that on Monday morning, and Ib. 145. it has been to Manchester and back again to Sheffield, and pirated copies returned to Manchester before Saturday night. The piracy has come to such an extent, that unless there is some protection we must give up invention altogether. . . If we had protection, I should not myself hesitate in expending £200 or £300 in the production of a model for a stove-grate to morrow." But, under the present law, the costliness and practical inaccessibility of the remedy bring the nominally protected artist and the absolutely unprotected artist to about the same level. All the witnesses examined by Papworth, the Arts' Committee are agreed that, by reason of this ut combined expensiveness and uncertainty, designers are 1466; deterred from attempting to protect themselves, even 1762. when they come within the express provisions of the &c. &c. statute. Mr. John Henning, the modeller of the Cockerell, W. Wyon, well-known imitation of the Panathenaic frieze, states, that "As soon as the casts are issued, whoever lays hands on them may, with very little trouble, take models in sulphur, wax, or plaster, and multiply them to any number-there being no protection, but in an action at law. I think," he continues, "such property as much my own as my clothing. The originals exist in the Museum, open to all who desire to make studies of them, and this would be honorable strife, who could do best; but what hand or I pass now to the large class of artistical design, comprehended under the general term of PATTERNS. The 27 Geo. III. c. 38, entitled, "An Act for the encouragement of the Arts of designing and printing Linens, Cottons, Calicoes, and Muslins, by vesting the property thereof in the Designer, Printer, and Proprietor for a limited time," gives to every person who shall invent, design, and print, or cause to be invented, designed, and printed, and become the proprietor of any new and original pattern for printing linen, cotton, calico, or muslin, the sole right of printing or reprinting the same for two months from the day of first publishing, such date, with the name of the proprietor, to be duly printed on the fabric; and any person reprinting it without the written consent of the proprietor, attested by two witnesses, is made liable to an action on the case for damages to be brought within six months. This Act was to be in force for one year, and to the end of the then next session. The 29 Geo. III. c. 19, recites the former Act, and continues it up to July 1, 1794. And by the 34 Geo. III. c. 23, the term is extended to three months, and the Act made perpetual. Silk. The protection thus afforded extending only to printed cottons (and to them imperfectly), several manufactures, which are now of the highest importance, enjoy no protection whatever. The consequences hence resulting are especially noticeable in the silk and lace manufactures. In the former, the patterns most in use are almost entirely copies of French patterns, or slight variations from such. Mr. James, an eminent Spitalfields manufacturer, states, that there is but a very small degree of talent employed in Spitalfields in the production of patterns. "We are," he says, "almost destitute of Arts' taste in that department. I am not acquainted 365-380. with any drawer of patterns who is an educated artist. We have no protection for patterns." Mr. Smith, of the firm of Harding and Smith, states, "that the French silk manufacturers usually bring them as many as two hundred new designs in different fabrics ready made, and he adds "The English manufacturers experience much difficulty in this respect. They more commonly ask us for designs or patterns, or they enquire if we know what the French are likely to produce. We have very few and sometimes none submitted to us by our own manufacturers. If we incur expense, our design is too frequently pirated in a different quality." Evid. I. Ib. 450. See ante, pp. 19, 20. Evidence of Mr. Morand of Mr. And Mr. Howell, of the firm of Howell and James, states, Ib. 417. that he can scarcely procure a good designer or a good pattern drawer in England; adding, that the superiority in the French shawls is in the design, not the materials. The same is said to be the case with respect to ribands, gloves, and what are called fancy articles in general.* In regard to the lace manufacture, there appears to be an additional difficulty arising from the circumstance On this subject, the evidence of Mr. Robert Harrison, of the firm of Brydges, Campbell, and Harrison, may also be consulted with advantage. See Rep. I., 455, et seq. rison, M.P. Samuel Smith. Lace. |