Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 24

Currier, in a gallery, and took a side view, a front view, a view standing up, a view sitting down, a view with his chin turned up, and a view with his nose turned out. In such a case there would be no change save in pose. But we send artists all over the world. We had an artist in the j.a.panese army during this war, and with the Russian army, and in the South African war, and in Cuba, and in the Boxer war.

Our negatives are largely snapshots of moving objects and things. We may get one distinguished general in one snapshot, the next negative we make will show another distinguished general.

If we go to a great parade to make negatives, as we did at the Czar's coronation in Russia, we are liable to get more than 500 different negatives, and they all differ in something besides pose and composition. You will see that a clause of that kind will make it absolutely impossible for us to take advantage of it, although any gallery artist could take advantage of it with success and safety.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you the form of an amendment which you propose?

Mr. REMICH. No. I have not framed any amendment. An exemption of the stereoscopic manufacturers from the $1 fee would be perfectly satisfactory to us.

Mr. CURRIER. Not the exclusion of the entire fee? You do not mean that?

Mr. REMICH. Not at all; we are perfectly willing to pay our 50-cent fee, although it amounts to a tremendous sum in our business, because we take so many negatives. To show the extent of our business, permit me to say that we have over 17,000 different subjects in stock ready for delivery. We have over 160,000 different negatives at the present time, and are importing them constantly and making them in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I asked the question was because the language here indicates that the exception you propose should be inserted with much care.

Mr. REMICH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And I will be glad if you will draw your proposed amendment and insert it in the record.

Mr. REMICH. It seems to me it is going to be a difficult thing to make an exception. What is the necessity of an advance in the fee? Why is there any necessity for a change of the fee when in England, as I understand it, they charge only a s.h.i.+lling for doing this work, which is one-half of what we pay, and when, in point of fact, we are getting a handsome surplus--as the report of the copyright office shows, over $130,000 profit in the last six years? The office is not intended as a revenue producer. It is simply designed to protect the manufacturing interests of the country by copyright.

Of course to the man who is producing a painting or a valuable book which he may sell and obtain in royalties $50,000 on, it does not make any difference. Some men have told me they do not care; they wish the copyright fee could be $75, because larger fees for copyrighting would tend to keep out a lot of fellows. But we have a great big industry which is employing a large number of people which would be ruined by these additional charges.

The CHAIRMAN. Your suggestion, then, is to reduce the fee prescribed in section 60 from $1 to 50 cents?

Mr. REMICH. Yes; leave it exactly as it is now; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you present at the hearing yesterday?

Mr. REMICH. I was not present; no.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Putnam commented upon the situation, stating that the fee under existing law was 50 cents, and the fee for certification was 50 cents, and the only difference between the existing law and this bill upon that subject is that in all cases a certificate is to be issued, making the entire fee $1.

Mr. REMICH. You can see the effect of that. In my experience in connection with the view business, for twenty years, we have had occasion to get but five certificates. Think of that. We have paid $2.50 in the whole time, whereas under this bill we shall be compelled to take a certificate at an expense of half a dollar with every negative that we copyright, whether we want it or not.

Mr. CHANEY. How many times have you gotten certificates now?

Mr. REMICH. I say, that in all my experience with the view business--and I have been connected with it ever since I married Mr.

Kilbourn's daughter and went into the firm in 1890, sixteen years ago--we have had only five certificates.

Mr. CHANEY. What is the object of your having those certificates?

Mr. REMICH. We took them simply because we had a few views pirated, and in the litigation we wanted to show the fact that they were legally copyrighted by a certificate from the office. But this law is going to compel us to take out thousands of certificates that will be of no earthly use to us. This extra expense will practically drive us out of business. This is no "pipe dream," but an absolute fact.

Senator MALLORY. You do not object to the 50 cents for the fee and 50 cents more for the certificate?

Mr. REMICH. Not at all; only we do not want to be compelled to pay half a dollar each for thousands and thousands of certificates that are of no earthly use to us.

Mr. CHANEY. I take it that the purpose of this law is to provide a notice in some form or other for everything, and this is in that nature.

Mr. CURRIER. No; this is not in the nature of a notice. This certificate gives no notice to the public.

Mr. REMICH. They would have to come here and dig out the records if they wanted to find out about that. The only argument that I have heard in favor of this suggestion is that it will diminish the amount of work that will have to be done in the copyright office. If they can make one certificate cover twenty views or twenty-five views or a hundred views, they will not have to make so many certificates. Is there any good reason why my business should be ruined to accomplish such a result when there are plenty of people that want to work in the office and when the present revenues are amply sufficient to pay for all the work done? In my town we are exempting property from taxation and offering big financial inducements to bring manufacturing interests into our town, because they are going to employ more labor.

I do not suppose Was.h.i.+ngton has reached the point where it has so much population that it does not want more men and women employed in Was.h.i.+ngton, performing honest day labor and earning good money to be expended in the city.

Senator MALLORY. What is the reason a.s.signed for uniting these two fees in one; do you know?

Mr. REMICH. I was not here, and I did not hear the reasons.

Senator MALLORY. I was not here, either, so I do not know.

Mr. PUTNAM. For the benefit of the Senator I might explain that the idea was this, Senator: That the office will hereafter furnish the certificate in all cases as a matter of course, which heretofore has been furnished only when requested; and that in furnis.h.i.+ng it it should charge for it as heretofore, making the charge therefor $1.

Senator MALLORY. Still, the certificate is not necessary except where it is desired to prove the fact that the copyright has been secured.

Mr. PUTNAM. It was with the idea that it was a precaution that the copyright proprietor ought in reason to take.

Senator MALLORY. I have no doubt that there are many persons situated as this gentleman is who do not want any certificate except in very rare cases.

Mr. REMICH. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent do you now issue certificates?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Register, to what extent is that done?

Mr. SOLBERG. For last year the total of registrations numbered 116,000, and of those 28,087 were certificates.

Mr. REMICH. That is about one-fifth.

Mr. SOLBERG. It should be remembered that requests for certificates additional to the certificate paid for at the time of registration are constant, and in addition to fees submitted to secure certificates, constant inquiry is made of the Copyright Office and answered at some service cost as to what entries have been made by particular firms.

They ask us "just what entries did we make in May last?"

The CHAIRMAN. What were the gross receipts of the Copyright Office for the last fiscal year?

Mr. SOLBERG. The receipts--this is for the calendar year, Senator, those being the latest figures which I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. SOLBERG. The fees for the total calendar year were $78,518, of which the certificate fees were $14,043.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the expenses of the office?

Mr. SOLBERG. The total expenses of the office can not be given. The comparison given here is between the appropriations for service only, and I could give you that for the year.

Mr. PUTNAM. That is for the fiscal year. In this case we have had to take the last fiscal year, with your permission.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOLBERG. The fees for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, were $78,058. The appropriations for service during the same period were $74,662.46--the appropriation expended for service, but the only element covered is service cost. It does not cover printing, stationery, or any supplies, nor the printing of the catalogue of entries, which include all registrations made at any fee, even if no certificate is paid for. That is estimated at $25,000 per year--the printer's estimate for printing. If that is included with all other expenses, the fees do not cover the total expenses of running the office.