Chapter XIV: Appendix (7)

As to what is a musical composition, the term defines itself. But the phrase "dramatico-musical compositions," as used in the American code, bristles with perplexities, not altogether solved by the definitions of the Copyright Office Rules, above cited. It means, of course, music and drama in association, but in this combination the definition of the dramatic side is peculiarly difficult. Whether a dance, ballet or other choregraphic work, with or without music, is included, is a mooted question. In 1892, in Fuller _v._ Bemis, where the plaintiff sought to protect a skirt dance of which she had filed a description for copyright as a dramatic composition, Judge Lacombe, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, held that: "It is essential for a dramatic composition to tell some story. The plot may be simple, it may be but the representation of a single transaction; but it must repeat or mimic some action, speech, emotion, passion, or character, real or imaginary. A series of graceful movements, combined with an attractive arrangement of drapery, lights, and shadows, telling no story, portraying no character, depicting no emotion, is not a dramatic composition." This view is adopted in the Copyright Office Rules and defines accepted American practice, but is not consonant with English and international views.

{Sidenote: The new British code}

The new British measure is definitely comprehensive and specific in including as a dramatic work "any piece for recitation, choregraphic work or entertainment in dumb show the scenic arrangement or acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise, and any cinematograph production where the arrangement or acting form or the combination of incidents represented give the work an original character."

{Sidenote: Protection of playright}

It is evident that the methods for securing copyright for published dramatic and musical works are in general the same, with exceptions noted in this chapter, as for literary works, that is, publication with copyright notice and registration with deposit promptly after publication of two copies of the best edition then published, with a fee of one dollar. Copyright in the specific sense is, however, of less importance to the dramatic or musical author, as has already been pointed out, than playright or performing right, which is also covered and protected specifically by the code of 1909, though in less accurate, definite and satisfactory provisions, involving in some respects serious questions. The right at common law or in equity to prevent the copying, publication or use of an unpublished work and to obtain damages therefor, is specifically confirmed (sec. 2), and this applies especially to unregistered manuscripts.

{Sidenote: Protection of unpublished work}

The method of registration of an unpublished work to secure playright or performing right, as previously stated, is absolutely simple, consisting solely in the registration of a claim and the deposit of one copy of the work in manuscript or other unpublished form, with a fee of one dollar. The law is clear and satisfactory as to the punishment, after such registration, of infringement of playright or performing right, but it is not clear as to the date from which such protection starts, and whether protection is for an indeterminate period up to publication (practically in perpetuity if no publication be made), or for the statutory term. This is because the relations of publication and first performance are inferences only and specifically defined in the law. The Copyright Office issues a certificate for twenty-eight years, but without reference to initial date, which would be presumably the date of the certificate. The Copyright Office will doubtless, under this precedent, issue renewal certificate for the second term of twenty-eight years. The trend, and in several instances the letter of the law, shows publication to mean the multiplication or reproduction of printed or other copies and their public offering, sale and distribution, and indicate that performance, whether privately or publicly and for profit, is not publication. The new Copyright Office Rules specifically hold that: "Representation on the stage of a play is not a publication of it, nor is the public performance of a musical composition publication." Judicial decisions on this point both in England and this country are confusing if not contradictory. In the absence of specific provision in the law for renewal of term in unpublished works, the view that the grant of the statute is for protection under the common law rather than a statutory and limited grant of privilege, is defensible and may be upheld by the courts, should a case arise. No case is likely to arise for twenty-eight years from the time of first copyright, under the act, of an unpublished work; but the dilemma will then present itself to the author whether he should apply for a renewal term and thus accept the limitations of the statute, or rely upon the original registration as a protection in perpetuity up to the time of publication. Possibly before that time this difficult point may be made clear by supplementary legislation.

{Sidenote: Indeterminate protection}

The most serious argument against the view that unpublished works may be protected indeterminately, is founded on the provision of the Constitution authorizing Congress to grant protection for limited terms, as to which the view may be upheld that Congress is not here making a grant, but is offering statutory protection to the inherent right of an author in an unpublished work.

In any event the author has clear rights for twenty-eight years from the date of publication or the date of first performance, whichever the earlier. In case of publication, it is altogether probable that the playright or performing right will be construed by the courts to lapse at the end of the copyright term and renewal thereof of the published work, and in case a "book of the play" or libretto of an opera is printed for sale within a theatre in connection with the performance, that will undoubtedly constitute publication and such copies should be copyrighted.

{Sidenote: Printing and performance}

The doctrine that performance is not publication was upheld by the N. Y. Court of Appeals in Palmer _v._ DeWitt in 1872, in which the assignee of the manuscript and playright of Robertson's drama "Play" was granted an injunction against the printing of the drama, although it had been publicly performed, but not printed, in London. The same doctrine was applied in the Illinois Supreme Court in 1909 in Frohman _v._ Ferris. But publication abroad, by the printing of a drama unless protected under the international copyright provisions, has been held to forfeit the common law playright transferred with an unpublished manuscript, by the decision in Daly _v_. Walrath in 1899, by Judge Bartlett in the N. Y. Supreme Court, when an injunction was refused against the performance of Sudermann's "Die Ehre," translated as "Honor," because the author had printed the play in Germany despite a contract with the American assignee to refrain from publication. In the case of Wagner _v._ Conried in 1903, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, Judge Lacombe declined to enjoin a production of "Parsifal," holding that the publication of a printed edition by Schotts in Germany had forfeited playright, since the reservation by Wagner in his contract with Schotts of the acting rights was not applicable in this country. The printing of a dramatic manuscript solely for the use of the players is not publication, as was held in French _v_. Kreling, in 1894, by Judge Hawley in the U. S. Circuit Court in California, where Farnie's opera "Falka," of which the musical score had been published, but the libretto printed only for the singers, was protected as an unpublished manuscript.

{Sidenote: English confusion}

{Sidenote: Specific English provisions}

The English law as to dramatic and musical copyright and playright and performing right, has been most confusing if not contradictory, and authorities differ, as do MacGillivray and Scrutton, in its interpretation. Whether public performance constitutes publication or whether they are separable and separate events has been diversely treated in the laws, by the judges and in legal text-books. The dramatic copyright act of 1833, known as Bulwer-Lytton's act, a clumsy attempt to clear up earlier uncertainty, provided that the author of "any tragedy, comedy, play, opera, farce, or any other dramatic piece or entertainment, composed, and not printed and published," shall have "the sole liberty of representing in any part of the British Dominions"; "and the author of any such production, printed and published," shall, "until the end of twenty-eight years from ... such first publication" or for life, have "the sole liberty of representing ... as aforesaid." The general copyright act of 1842 specifically applied this previous act also to "musical compositions" and enacted "that the sole liberty of representing or performing ... any dramatic piece or musical composition" shall "endure ... for the term in this act provided for ... copyright in books," that is, for forty-two years or life and seven years; and the provisions of the act as to copyright and registration were extended to representing or performing, "save and except that the first public representation or performance of any dramatic piece or musical composition shall be deemed equivalent in the construction of this act to the first publication of any book." The "copyright (musical compositions) act" of 1882 added the requirement, that in the case of a musical composition, to retain the performing right, notice of reservation should be printed on the title-page of every published copy, and the act further provided that the proprietor of the performing right, if the owner of the copyright be another person, may require him to print such notice of reservation, for neglect of which he shall forfeit twenty pounds.

{Sidenote: Probable effect}

Thus common law rights, it would seem, in an unpublished and unperformed dramatic or musical work were given, pending publication, statutory protection, apparently in perpetuity, from the date of composition. Publication of a dramatic or musical composition in printed form ensured copyright protection as a book for forty-two years or life and seven years; and performing right was protected for forty-two years from "the first public representation or performance of any dramatic piece or musical composition" or life and seven years, whichever the longer.

{Sidenote: Publication prior to performance}

It had been the view of many English authorities that publication in printed form as a book before the first public performance forfeited performing rights, which opinion was shared by the Royal Copyright Commission as voiced in the report of 1878 in the digest of Sir James Stephen, who said: "The exclusive right of representing or performing a dramatic piece or musical composition cannot be gained if such dramatic piece or musical composition has been printed and published as a book before the first representation thereof." But in the later case of Chappell _v._ Boosey in 1882, in respect to John Oxenford's play of "The bellringer," which had been printed and published previous to performance, it was held in the Court of Chancery that publication as a book before performance does not take away performing rights. On musical compositions, however, the performing right is forfeited on publication in print unless notice of reservation is printed on the published copies. There remain the difficult questions whether when publication precedes performance the statutory protection of the performing right extends beyond the forty-two years from publication and whether copyright and playright should be separately registered. It has been the practice of English dramatists to give a so-called "copyright performance" at a minor theatre, in which actors walk and talk through the drama and the public is invited to pay a shilling at the box office--and sometimes given half a crown apiece for the purpose; which performance, though probably not necessary to fulfill any legal requirement, permits registration of first performance at Stationers' Hall and gives useful public notice to possible infringers.

{Sidenote: The new British code}

This uncertain and confused situation will be remedied under the new British measure by the inclusion under "copyright" of the right "to perform ... to deliver, in public" and the making of the copyright term the "life of the author and fifty years after his death," which together afford the simplest and most complete protection of playright as incident to copyright.

{Sidenote: British international protection}

The international copyright act of 1844 contained the provision "that neither the author of any book, nor the author or composer of any dramatic piece or musical composition ... which shall ... be first published out of her Majesty's dominions, shall have any copyright therein respectively, or any exclusive right to the public representation or performance thereof, otherwise than such, if any, as he may become entitled to under this act,"--a provision inserted probably for advantage in negotiating reciprocal conventions with other countries. This provision was applied in 1863, in the case of Boucicault _v._ Delafield, to a British author whose play had been first printed and published as well as performed in America. In Boucicault _v._ Chatterton in 1876, the Chancery Division held that the prior performance of "The Shaughraun" in New York was publication and deprived the author of playright in England,--which again seems incompatible with the doctrine upheld in the later case of Chappell _v._ Boosey, above cited. Great Britain is the only country in the International Copyright Union which has declined to accept the declarative interpretation made in Paris in 1896 of the Berne convention of 1886, declaring that performance does not constitute publication. Thus if a dramatic or musical work is first publicly performed outside the British dominions, the performing right is extinguished therein, unless protected under the international copyright acts, though first publication outside the British dominions of a work first publicly performed within them, may not extinguish the performing right.

{Sidenote: Statutory ambiguity}

The confusion of judicial interpretations, as to the relations between performance and publication, in international as well as domestic copyright, was invited by the unfortunate draftsmanship in the copyright act of 1842, in which the clause making first performance "equivalent in the construction of this act to the first publication of any book" may be taken either in a comprehensive sense or merely as defining the starting-point for performing right as well as for copyright in the specific sense.

{Sidenote: What is public performance}

The question of what is public performance is of some importance, especially in Great Britain, where playright is not infringed except by representation in a place of dramatic entertainment and where it has been held that any place in which a dramatic piece is publicly performed is for the time a place of dramatic entertainment. A public performance is probably one to which the public in general is admitted either by sale of tickets or by invitation; and this would probably include a performance given before a society to membership in which the public might be admitted, although a performance limited to a certain class of the public might not be construed as a public representation. Where "Our boys" was performed at Guy's Hospital, London, by an amateur company, for nurses and others connected with the hospital specially invited, it was held in 1884, in Duck _v._ Bates, that though a performance may be public where the public are present, although no money is taken, yet the production in question was not a public representation. In this leading case, important as a precedent for America as well as in England, the decision was made by Justices Brett, M. R., and Bowen, L. J., Justice Fry dissenting, and the Master of the Rolls, in an elaborate opinion, discussed the relations of private and public performance, as a question of fact: "In order to entitle the author to penalties there must be a representation which will injure the author's right to money; such, for instance, as a representation which, although it is not for profit, would attract persons who are willing to pay money, and would induce them not to go and see a performance licensed by the author.... The representation must be other than domestic or private. There must be present a sufficient part of the public who would go also to a performance licensed by the author as a commercial transaction.... I wish to say, by way of warning, that those who go beyond the facts of the present case may incur the penalties of the statute."

{Sidenote: Manuscript rights}

Common law rights in an unpublished manuscript of an unperformed work, cover both copyright and playright. In 1894, in Gilbert _v._ Star, while the comic opera "His Excellency" was in manuscript and under rehearsal, Justice Chitty in the Court of Chancery granted an injunction against a newspaper report of the plot and incidents on the common law ground that its communication to the newspaper involved a breach of contract, thus confirming the right of an author to full control of his manuscript work for copyright as well as playright, upheld in Prince Albert _v._ Strange in 1849. But a dramatic author cannot enjoin a drama, however similar, completed before the publication or performance of his own work, as was decided in the case of Reichardt _v._ Sapte, in 1893, where the author of "The picture dealer" was denied relief against the closely parallel play "A lucky dog," which was proved to have been completed in 1890, though not performed until after the writing and presentation of the author's play in 1892.

{Sidenote: American cases}

The right of control of an unpublished dramatic manuscript under common law was strengthened in Herne _v._ Liebler, in 1902, by the decision of Judge Ingraham in the N. Y. Supreme Court, which upheld the right of the plaintiff to prevent sub-license of a play beyond the terms of the contract by a licensee, who had agreed to keep the manuscript unpublished and use it only under specific limitations. In the case of Maxwell _v._ Goodwin, in 1899, where the plaintiff's play of "Congress" had been rejected by the defendant, who afterward produced a play "Ambition," also founded on scenes in Washington, Judge Seaman in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois overruled the defendant's contentions that there was no playright under common law in an unpublished manuscript and that there was no inherent property right in ideas or creations of the imagination apart from the manuscript in which they are contained or the language in which they are clothed; though an injunction was denied on proof that the defendant had not read the plaintiff's manuscript and that the actual author of "Ambition" had no knowledge of the plaintiff's play.

{Sidenote: Unpublished orchestral score}

In 1883, in Thomas _v._ Lennon, where Gounod's "Redemption," of which the orchestral score was unpublished, had been rewritten for orchestra from a published non-copyright piano arrangement, Judge Lowell, in the U. S. Circuit Court in Massachusetts, ruled against this as an infringement of the unpublished work on common law grounds--but this decision has not been considered good law.

{Sidenote: Dramatic work by employee}

Copyright in dramatic work can be obtained, as in the case of encyclopaedic and like works, by the employment for hire of a dramatic author, as was fully established in the case of Mallory _v._ Mackaye in 1898, by Judge Wheeler in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, where Mackaye had contracted for a salary of $5000, that all inventions and plays by him within the ten years of the contract should belong to Mallory, and was restricted accordingly from the independent production of "Hazel Kirke."

{Sidenote: Copyright term}

The duration of copyright in dramatic and musical compositions is the same as for books, in the United States (twenty-eight years with renewal for twenty-eight years more), in Great Britain (under the new code life and fifty years), in Australia (forty-two years or life and seven years, as hitherto in Great Britain), and in Canada and Newfoundland (twenty-eight years with renewal for fourteen years more),--as also in most other countries, the new term for those in the International Copyright Union which have accepted the convention of Berlin, being life and fifty years. But in the case of a "dramatico-musical" work, where the libretto and the music are by different authors, the respective terms may end at different dates, as was held in 1905, and upheld in 1909, by the German courts as to the opera "Carmen" under the Franco-German convention limiting copyright to thirty years after death. Bizet, author of the music, had died in 1875, but one of the three librettists was still living, on which facts the court held that the musical score, but not the libretto, was free from copyright. Under the new British and Canadian measures, which include the unusual provision that the copyright term in a work of joint authorship shall be determined by the first instead of the last death, the result would be to the contrary effect.

{Sidenote: Registration}

Registration in the United States, as also in Canada and Newfoundland, through the deposit of copies, is entirely the same for a dramatic or musical composition as for a book. Registration in England of a dramatic or musical composition under the act of 1842 (sec. 20) was to be made at Stationers' Hall, as in the case of a book, by recording in statutory form the title, the time and place of first publication, or for performing right, of first public performance, and the name and abode of author and of proprietor. But the same law (sec. 24) provided that protection of performing right in a dramatic piece should not be dependent upon entry in the registry and, by including in the definition of a dramatic piece (sec. 2) a "musical entertainment," evidently included musical compositions in this exemption, and thus made registration optional. This view was upheld in 1848 in Russell _v._ Smith, when the song "The ship on fire" was protected as a "dramatic piece," though it had not been registered. The new British measure omits all requirements for registration of any works. Registration of any copyright, performing right or assignment is required in Australia as a prerequisite for legal action.

{Sidenote: Assignment}

Assignment or grant of a dramatic or musical composition, as of a book, may be made (sec. 42) by an instrument in writing, acknowledged, if in a foreign country, (sec. 43) before a consular or diplomatic officer, and must be recorded (sec. 44) in the Copyright Office within three months, or if made in a foreign country, six months, in default of which it is void as against any subsequent purchaser. Assignment in Great Britain must be in writing, and previous to the new code with entry at Stationers' Hall, in the case of performing right as well as of copyright. It should be noted that playright does not pass with copyright _ipso facto_, though the new code as adopted by the House of Commons has no specific provision on this point. But it is most desirable that in any transfer of copyright or playright the exact nature of the right transferred should be defined in the writing. A partial assignment, or license, of performing right as well as of copyright may be made, and will be protected by the courts. The right to grant a specific license, and to enforce its limitations, was upheld in 1892 in Duck _v._ Mayen, in an English court by Justice Day, who held that where the defendant had obtained license at the price of one guinea to play "Our boys" for charity at a music hall, but performed it elsewhere, though for the same charity, the usual royalty of five guineas must be paid. Assignment in Canada and Newfoundland must be in writing in duplicate copies, of which one must be deposited in the office of copyright.

{Sidenote: Parody}

The general principles as to infringement and fair use, treated fully in another chapter, apply to dramatic and musical compositions, as already illustrated above, but some special applications may here be noted. That a parody or burlesque may not be an infringement, though including some quotations from the work parodied, was decided in 1903, in Bloom _v._ Nixon,--where Fay Templeton had given a parody or imitation of another actress's singing of "Sammy" in the "Wizard of Oz,"--in the U. S. Circuit Court in Pennsylvania by Judge McPherson, who held that as this was essentially an imitation of personality, it was not an infringement of copyright: "Surely a parody would not infringe the copyright of the work parodied merely because a few lines of the original might be textually reproduced." The judge added: "No doubt the good faith of such mimicry is an essential element; a mere attempt to evade the owners' copyright ... would properly be prohibited" as "doing in a roundabout way what could not be done directly."

{Sidenote: Infringement by single situation}

There may be infringement of dramatic copyright in the use of a single scene or situation, as already set forth with respect to novels, provided this is of dramatic character. In 1892, in Daly _v._ Webster, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Lacombe, held that the railroad rescue scene in Brady's "After dark" infringed the copyright of Daly's "Under the gaslight," which contained the similar situation of the rescue of a person on a railroad track before an approaching train. Though there was little dialogue in this scene, the court held that while mechanical appliances are not entitled to copyright, a series of events dramatically represented are copyrightable. In the subsequent suit for damages, Daly _v._ Brady, the U. S. Supreme Court in 1899, through Justice Peckham, upheld this decision, and held also that such a situation constituted an integral part of the copyrighted drama and should therefore be protected against infringement. That there may be infringement of a dramatic composition without the use of scenery or costumes was incidentally decided in Russell _v._ Smith, where the song "The ship on fire," sung dramatically without these accessories, was protected as a dramatic piece.

{Sidenote: Protection of title}

While the title of a dramatic or musical composition, like that of a book, cannot be copyrighted as such, the courts seem disposed to emphasize the title as an integral part of a play, perhaps more than in the case of a book because the advertising of another play of like name, especially in the case of one of long run and wide popularity, may mislead the public and involve unfair competition. This protection was upheld as a matter of common law in Aronson _v._ Fleckenstein in 1886, by Judge Blodgett in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois, when the use of the title "Erminie" was held to be unlawful, though the operetta originally designated by the title had not been copyrighted. But in Glaser _v._ St. Elmo Co. in 1909, the U. S. Circuit Court denied relief where the title of Miss Evans's novel, then out of copyright, was used for a second and unauthorized dramatization. There may be danger to copyright or playright when a work is published or performed under a title differing from that under which it is copyrighted; but the change of a descriptive sub-title has been held to be immaterial. In the case of Daly's play "Under the gaslight," which in the copyright entry bore the sub-title "A romantic panorama of the streets and homes of New York," but in printed form the changed sub-title "A totally original picturesque drama of life and love in these times," the defendants in Daly _v._ Webster alleged that this change made the copyright invalid, which contention was negatived by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held in 1892 that the sub-title was merely descriptive and not an essential part of the title--a principle later applied by Judge Lacombe in Patterson _v._ Ogilvie, in 1902.

{Sidenote: Names of characters}

In the case of Frohman _v._ Weber in 1903, in the N. Y. Supreme Court, where the proprietor of the play entitled "Sherlock Holmes" sought to enjoin another play "The sign of the four," in which the name Sherlock Holmes designated the leading character, Judge Clarke held that this did not constitute unfair competition and denied a preliminary injunction.

{Sidenote: Persons liable for infringement}

{Sidenote: Principal in control}

The question of the person liable for the infringement, especially of playright, is one of some difficulty. In general, while any one participating in a piratical performance, as an actor, is technically guilty of infringement, it is usually the person or persons responsible for and profiting by the performance who should be sued. The question of responsibility is one of fact, and the early English decisions seem confused and even contradictory. The person who has the initiative and control of a performance, particularly if he is directly the employer of the performers and has authority to discharge them, may be, _par excellence_, the infringer even if he does not know that the performance is piratical. In 1886, in Monaghan _v._ Taylor, the defendant was held liable for infringement because a singer employed in his music hall sang a copyright song, though the defendant did not choose or pass upon the number. Thereafter in the "copyright (musical composition) act" of 1888, it was provided that "the proprietor, tenant or occupier of any place of dramatic entertainment" shall not be liable, "unless he shall willfully cause or permit" a performance, "knowing it to be unauthorized." The courts seem disposed to acquit a mere agent of responsibility. In 1893, in French _v._ Day, Gregory, _et al._, it was held by Justice Kennedy as to a performance of "The miner's wife" asserted to be an infringement of "Lost in London," that the proprietor of the theatre, Day, "who merely used Gregory," the manager, "as his mouthpiece," was the responsible defendant. The new British code holds liable any person who for profit permits a place of entertainment to be used for an infringing performance unless he were not aware and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting it to be an infringement.

{Sidenote: Protection against "fly by night" companies}

{Sidenote: State legislation}

In the prevention or punishment of unauthorized performances by irresponsible private companies, the chief obstacle in the United States was the difficulty of reaching the "fly by night" companies, as they were called, as they flitted from state to state, and from one court jurisdiction to another. To remedy this difficulty, an important protection of the performing right in dramatic works was assured by the act of January 6, 1897, obtained largely through the efforts of Bronson Howard, as president of the American Dramatists Club. This act provided penalty of $100 for the first and $50 for each subsequent unlawful performance, and imprisonment for not exceeding one year, when such unlawful performance was willful and for profit; and also that an injunction issued in any one circuit might be enforced by any other circuit in the United States. This was in consonance with successful efforts to obtain the passage of state laws to protect dramatic and musical works, aside from the federal copyright law, obtained by the Dramatists Club between 1895 and 1905 in the states of New Hampshire, New York, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Michigan. These varied in form in the several states, though of the same general purport. The New York statute, for instance, adds to the penal code a new section as follows: "Sec. 729. Any person who causes to be publicly performed or represented for profit any unpublished, undedicated or copyrighted dramatic composition, or musical composition known as an opera, without the consent of its owner or proprietor, or who, knowing that such dramatic or musical composition is unpublished, undedicated or copyrighted and without the consent of its owner, or proprietor, permits, aids or takes part in such a performance or representation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The texts in all the states are given in full in Copyright Office Bulletin No. 3, 1906, "Copyright enactments of the United States," pages 105-115.

{Sidenote: Remedies under present law}

The American code of 1909 enacts (sec. 28) that "any person who willfully and for profit shall infringe any copyright ... or who shall knowingly and willfully aid or abet such infringement, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," punishable by "imprisonment for not exceeding one year or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or both, in the discretion of the court"; and provides (sec. 25, fourth) damages "in the case of dramatic or dramatico-musical or a choral or orchestral composition, one hundred dollars for the first and fifty dollars for every subsequent infringing performance; in the case of other musical compositions, ten dollars for every infringing performance"; and also provides (sec. 36) for injunction operative throughout the United States.

{Sidenote: Musical protection in England}

{Sidenote: Acts of 1902-1906}

In England the protection of musical properties under the acts of 1833-42 and 1882-88, had become so difficult that English music publishers threatened to cease printing new original works because of the freedom with which they could be pirated. Under the provisions of 1833, as reenacted in 1842, every infringing performance of a musical composition, as of a dramatic piece, involved liability to "an amount not less than forty shillings or the full amount of the benefit or advantage arising from such representation, or the injury or loss sustained by the plaintiff therefrom, whichever may be the greater damage," in addition to costs. The "copyright (musical compositions) act" of 1882 (45 & 46 Victoria, c. 40) had required that the right of public performance should be reserved by printed notice on each published copy and provided for a penalty of twenty pounds where the proprietor of the publishing copyright neglected, after requirement from the owner of the performing right, to print such notice. The "copyright (musical compositions) act" of 1888 (51 & 52 Victoria, c. 17) provided that the penalty or damages for every unauthorized performance of any musical composition shall, in the discretion of the court, be "reasonable" and may be less than forty shillings for each such performance, or nominal, and that the proprietor, tenant or occupier should not be liable unless "willfully" causing or permitting such unauthorized performance, "knowing it to be unauthorized,"--but the act specifically excepted "any opera or stage play" from its provisions. The protest of the musical composers and publishers led to the passage of the "musical (summary proceedings copyright) act" of 1902, which authorized a constable to seize without warrant pirated copies hawked or otherwise offered for sale, on the written request and at the risk of the copyright owner or by direction of the court, and provided for their forfeiture and destruction or delivery to the owner on the decision of the court. A Musical Copyright Committee, for the consideration of these vexed questions, was appointed by the Home Office and made a report in 1904; and a further "musical copyright act" of 1906 continued the provisions stated and provided also for the seizure of plates as well as copies of pirated musical compositions and for the summary punishment of the offender by fine not exceeding five pounds and, for a repeated offense, by fine not exceeding ten pounds or imprisonment not exceeding two months, possession being proof of fraudulent intent unless the copies bore the name of a printer or publisher. Both these acts were applicable only within the United Kingdom. These provisions, in addition to those for injunction and adequate costs, have bettered the condition of musical properties in England, and they remain unrepealed, except as to requirement of registration, under the new British code as adopted by the House of Commons.

{Sidenote: Playright in other countries}

In most countries playright in the case of dramatic or musical works is specifically covered in the copyright statutes or protected in connection with copyright, although in Austria, Russia, Denmark and Norway, in the case of music, special notice of reservation is required, while in Australia special reservation of the performing right must be made on publication in print of drama or music.

{Sidenote: International provisions}

In general, performance is differentiated from publication, and while in some countries, as above indicated, publication in printed form, especially of a musical work, may waive the exclusive right of performance, performance is generally held not to constitute publication. This view is expressly set forth in the interpretation made at Paris, 1896, of the Berne convention of 1886, whereby section 2 of the interpretative declaration defines "published works" as "works actually issued to the public." "Consequently, the representation of a dramatic or dramatico-musical work, the performance of a musical work ... do not constitute publication." The Berlin convention of 1908 repeats the same language in article 4, prefacing it with the definition that "by published works ('_oeuvres publiees_') must be understood, according to the present convention, works which have been issued ('_oeuvres editees_')"--the English text here given being the official translation of the U. S. Copyright Office.

{Sidenote: Foreign protection of arrangements}

In most foreign countries which include musical compositions under subjects of copyright either as covered under "literary and artistic works" or by specific mention, the general principles as to arrangements and adaptations hold in such countries. Several countries, as Belgium, specify however "the exclusive right of making arrangements on motives of the original composition," Brazil, Luxemburg, Mexico, Nicaragua and Tunis following this precedent in nearly identical language. Germany specifically protects the "sole right of making extracts from musical works and arranging for orchestra or in parts." Spain specifies among its prohibitions "the total or partial publication of melodies, with or without accompaniment, transposed or arranged for other instruments or with different words." Hungary specifies that "every arrangement of a musical work, published without the consent of the author, which cannot be considered as a composition in itself," is an infringement. Where, however, the author of a work permits or licenses an adaptation or arrangement, or an original adaptation or arrangement is made from a work in the public domain, that is properly a separate subject of copyright, as is specified in the statutes of Colombia, to the effect that "variations, etc., on a theme or air which is public property, constitutes property. Transpositions are similar to translations of literary subjects."

{Sidenote: International definitions}

Dramatic and musical works were specifically included under the protection of the International Copyright Convention of Berne, 1886, by the definition in article IV of "literary and artistic works" as including "dramatic or dramatico-musical works; musical compositions with or without words." In the Berlin convention, 1908, the same general term was defined in article 2 as including "dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choregraphic works and pantomimes, the stage directions ('_mise en scene_') of which are fixed in writing or otherwise; musical compositions with or without words." "Adaptations, arrangements of music, etc., are specially included," in the phraseology of article X of the convention of 1886, "amongst the illicit reproductions to which the present convention applies, when they are only the reproduction of a particular work, in the same form, or in another form, with non-essential alterations, or abridgments, so made as not to confer the character of a new original work"; and practically the same language is repeated in article 12 of the convention of 1908. On the other hand, "adaptations, arrangements of music," etc., are protected as original works without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original work, in article 2 of the convention of 1908.

The German law of 1901 permits, however, extract from or other use of musical compositions in adaptations or arrangement under specified circumstances, as for family, social or other gratuitous performance, under the limitations of the law, which exception seems to be permitted also under the law of 1910.

{Sidenote: National formalities}

Throughout the countries of the International Copyright Union, first publication in any of these countries and compliance with its formalities entitle the author to playright as well as copyright in all the other countries within the Union, with some exceptions to be noted. Thus in Switzerland the conditions of performance must be given at the head of the printed play; and the law stipulates that the author may not require as royalty more than two per cent of the gross profits, and a performance at which the admission fee is reckoned to cover only cost of production or a performance for charitable purposes, is not considered an infringement of playright. In Italy a play performed, but not printed and published, must be submitted in manuscript for inspection within three months of first performance, together with a declaration reserving the playright; a printed book or play should be deposited with accompanying notice of reservation within three months, or the proprietor cannot obtain damages until such deposit, and failure to deposit within ten years abandons copyright protection. Italian proprietors of music sometimes refrain from printing and publishing music, with the intent of maintaining copyright and playright indefinitely.

{Sidenote: Specific reservations or conditions}

In Luxemburg and Sweden, reservation of playright must be stated on printed copies, as is also the case as to music in these countries and in the other countries elsewhere cited. In Sweden, the term for playright is less than for copyright in the printed work, being for life and thirty years only. In Sweden and Norway, the author protecting his rights by first publication in these countries, must be a citizen of one of the countries within the International Copyright Union or must acquire rights through a publisher therein; though in the other countries of the Union, this question of nationality is immaterial. In Norway and Denmark, there must be reservation of right of recitation, but in Norway this lapses in any event at the end of three years, provided the recitation does not take the shape of a dramatic performance. In Holland and the Dutch Indies, reservation of playright must be given, and printing within the country has hitherto been required to protect a published work. In Hungary, the author of a play must give his name on the title-page or in the announcement of the play, and protection is extended to foreigners who have been for two years rate-payers and residents in Hungary, as well as those whose countries have reciprocal relations. In Finland, the author's name and reservation of playright must be given on the printed copy, and protection is extended to foreigners on condition of residence and publication in Finland.

Most of the smaller European countries and many South American countries, including playright under copyright, base protection on reciprocal protection of their citizens in other countries, while protection of performing rights in Brazil requires notice on printed plays of the reservation of royalty for performance. In many oriental countries, as Egypt, China, etc., protection is afforded to some extent in the consular courts.

{Sidenote: Pan American Union}

In the Pan American Union, the Buenos Aires convention of 1910 specifically includes dramatic and musical works as literary works, without special provisions.

XII

MECHANICAL MUSIC PROVISIONS

{Sidenote: "Canned music" contest}

As the international copyright provision with the manufacturing clause was the central feature of the copyright campaign culminating in the law of 1891, so the provision for the control of mechanical music with the compulsory license clause was the central feature of the contest culminating in the act of 1909. This came to be known as the "canned music" fight, and arguments pro and con consumed the greater part of the hearings before the Committees on Patents. The solution finally reached was in the provisos added to the musical subsection (e) of section 1 of the bill, which in full is as follows:

{Sidenote: Mechanical music provisos}

{Sidenote: Compulsory license}

"(e) To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition and for the purpose of public performance for profit; and for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) hereof, to make any arrangement or setting of it or of the melody of it in any system of notation or any form of record in which the thought of an author may be recorded and from which it may be read or reproduced: _Provided_, That the provisions of this Act, so far as they secure copyright controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, shall include only compositions published and copyrighted after this Act goes into effect, and shall not include the works of a foreign author or composer unless the foreign state or nation of which such author or composer is a citizen or subject grants, either by treaty, convention, agreement, or law, to citizens of the United States similar rights: _And_ _provided further, and as a condition of extending the copyright control to such mechanical reproductions_, That whenever the owner of a musical copyright has used or permitted or knowingly acquiesced in the use of the copyrighted work upon the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, any other person may make similar use of the copyrighted work upon the payment to the copyright proprietor of a royalty of two cents on each such part manufactured, to be paid by the manufacturer thereof; and the copyright proprietor may require, and if so the manufacturer shall furnish, a report under oath on the twentieth day of each month on the number of parts of instruments manufactured during the previous month serving to reproduce mechanically said musical work, and royalties shall be due on the parts manufactured during any month upon the twentieth of the next succeeding month. The payment of the royalty provided for by this section shall free the articles or devices for which such royalty has been paid from further contribution to the copyright except in case of public performance for profit: _And provided further_, That it shall be the duty of the copyright owner, if he uses the musical composition himself for the manufacture of parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, or licenses others to do so, to file notice thereof, accompanied by a recording fee, in the copyright office, and any failure to file such notice shall be a complete defense to any suit, action, or proceeding for any infringement of such copyright.

{Sidenote: Damages}

"In case of the failure of such manufacturer to pay to the copyright proprietor within thirty days after demand in writing the full sum of royalties due at said rate at the date of such demand the court may award taxable costs to the plaintiff and a reasonable counsel fee, and the court may, in its discretion, enter judgment therein for any sum in addition over the amount found to be due as royalty in accordance with the terms of this Act, not exceeding three times such amount.

{Sidenote: Public performance}

"The reproduction or rendition of a musical composition by or upon coin-operated machines shall not be deemed a public performance for profit unless a fee is charged for admission to the place where such reproduction or rendition occurs."

This provision, though somewhat involved in form, tells its own story, and there has thus far been no occasion for judicial construction.

{Sidenote: The compromise result}

In the series of discussions before the Committees, the friends of copyright argued for the exclusive and unrestricted right of the musical composer to control absolutely the mechanical reproductions of his work, while the representatives of "canned music" argued at first that mechanical reproduction should be permitted without reference to copyright, and later that there should be entire liberty to make reproductions of a musical work on the sole condition of a specified payment to the copyright proprietor. The provision as actually adopted was a compromise upholding the negative right of the author to prevent mechanical reproduction, but requiring him, in the event of a grant of authority to any one manufacturer to reproduce his work mechanically, to extend that privilege to any other manufacturer on payment of the specified royalty. This scheme is practically modeled on what was known as the Pearsall-Smith royalty plan, which, as proposed for books, was stoutly fought by the proponents of the copyright act of 1891, throughout that memorable copyright campaign.

{Sidenote: Judicial construction}

In the case of the White-Smith Music Pub. Co. _v._ Apollo Co., in which the AEolian Co. was supposed to be the real complainant, the representatives of the musical author were, in 1906, denied protection against the mechanical music rolls made by the defendant, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judges considered themselves "constrained" by the necessity of strict construction to decide that "a perforated roll is not a copy in fact of complainant's staff notation," while saying "that the rights sought to be protected belong to the same class as those covered by the specific provisions of the copyright statutes." It was presumed by many during the copyright campaign that the Supreme Court would make a broad construction of the statute, but that court held, February 24, 1908, in an opinion written by Justice Day, that the considerations adduced "properly address themselves to the legislative and not to the judicial branch of the Government" and that "as the act of Congress now stands, we believe it does not include these records as copies or publications of the copyright music involved in these cases." Justice Holmes, while not dissenting, added a memorandum to the effect that "the result is to give to copyright less scope than its rational significance and the ground on which it is granted seems to me to demand.... On principle, anything that mechanically reproduces that collocation of sounds ought to be held a copy, or if the statute is too narrow, ought to be made so by a further act, except so far as some extraneous consideration of policy may oppose." While the judges thus felt "constrained" to deny relief, their strong language in defense of copyright control doubtless had its effect upon the legislative authorities in the framing and the passage of the new code.

This decision was confirmatory of an earlier decision, in Stern _v._ Rosey in 1901, of Judge Shepard in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, that the mechanical reproduction of two copyrighted songs could not be prevented under the existing law.

{Sidenote: Punishment of infringement}

Specific and elaborate provision is made for the punishment of infringers under the mechanical music proviso (sec. 1, e) by sec. 25, e:

{Sidenote: Notice to proprietor of intention to use}

"Whenever the owner of a musical copyright has used or permitted the use of the copyrighted work upon the parts of musical instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, then in case of infringement of such copyright by the unauthorized manufacture, use, or sale of interchangeable parts, such as disks, rolls, bands, or cylinders for use in mechanical music-producing machines adapted to reproduce the copyrighted music, no criminal action shall be brought, but in a civil action an injunction may be granted upon such terms as the court may impose, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover in lieu of profits and damages a royalty as provided in section one, subsection (e), of this Act: _Provided also_, That whenever any person, in the absence of a license agreement, intends to use a copyrighted musical composition upon the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, relying upon the compulsory license provision of this Act, he shall serve notice of such intention, by registered mail, upon the copyright proprietor at his last address disclosed by the records of the copyright office, sending to the copyright office a duplicate of such notice; and in case of his failure so to do the court may, in its discretion, in addition to sums hereinabove mentioned, award the complainant a further sum, not to exceed three times the amount provided by section one, subsection (e), by way of damages, and not as a penalty, and also a temporary injunction until the full award is paid."

{Sidenote: Copyright Office form and fees}

The Copyright Office provides a special form (U) on a blue card for registration of "notice of use on mechanical instruments," in which the copyright owner of a musical composition gives notice that he "has used or has licensed the use of said composition for the manufacture of parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically such musical work." The recording fee for such notice, as fixed by the statute (sec. 61), is twenty-five cents for the first fifty words and twenty-five cents additional for each additional hundred words.

For recording and certifying the license referred to (sec. 1, e) the statute provides (sec. 61) for a fee of one dollar for not over three hundred words, two dollars if not over one thousand words and one dollar for each additional one thousand words or fraction thereof over three hundred words.

{Sidenote: The constitutional question}

The actual fixing of a specified price, as that of two cents or a halfpenny on each reproduction, is a feature quite new in law, American or English, and involves a serious constitutional question. Congress has granted to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and state legislatures to specified authorities, as public service commissions, power to regulate prices; and the U. S. Supreme Court, in 1909, confirming the N. Y. Court of Appeals in the Consolidated Gas Co. cases, upheld the application of the sovereign power of the state to limit the price of gas to 80 cents per 1000 cubic feet, as sold by a corporation enjoying a public franchise. In this compulsory license provision of the copyright code, Congress has gone further in two directions: it has fixed a royalty price, not by definition or limitation of a "reasonable" price, but absolutely, and it has applied this provision not to a corporation enjoying franchise privileges, but to the individual owner of property created by his own labor.

{Sidenote: English law}