Arguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives Part 25

Mr. CHANEY. By how much?

Mr. SOLBERG. I have not been able to ascertain the exact figures for printing, but I should suppose that the balance might be some thousands of dollars against the office.

The CHAIRMAN. You have some figures, Mr. Remich; you made some statement earlier in your remarks upon that subject.

Mr. REMICH. Yes, sir. I took this leaf from the report, and I will read it. This is the last year's report of the office:

The earned fees paid into the Treasury for the year ($78,518) exceeded the amount expended for salaries, which was $74,600.37.

The additional expenditures during the year for stationery and other supplies can not at this date be obtained from the chief clerk of the Library, but for the first six months of the year they amounted to but $309.63, and the year's contingent expenditures, therefore, should be under $1,000. The yearly average for the last five years has been $954.29.

Then they say:

The appropriations for 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and the first half of the fiscal year 1906 include the sum of $25,740, to be used in bringing up the arrears of work prior to July 1, 1897, which amount should therefore be deducted from the total sum for appropriations for service as not properly a charge upon the current work of the office, leaving the excess of fees earned over appropriations used for service $125,675.39 for the eight and one-half years.

The copyright fees are not, however, the most valuable a.s.sets of the office. During the year the articles deposited and credited numbered 213,498 articles. This large deposit of books, periodicals, maps, music, engravings, photographs, etc., includes many articles of considerable value which the Library of Congress would otherwise be required to purchase, and these articles therefore represent an annual acquisition of property to the value of many thousands of dollars.

Mr. CHANEY. But they do not produce any money.

Mr. REMICH. They do not produce any money--that is so; but they save you making an appropriation. This saves the Appropriations Committees of both House and Senate from appropriating money each year to buy these things that you would otherwise have to buy to place upon the shelves of the Library. Now, I want to do my share, and I want my business to do its share, toward supporting this Government. But I do not think, in view of this report, that there is any good reason why this great, rich Government should place this increased burden upon our industry.

Mr. CHANEY. Do you not argue unfairly when you undertake to bring in the Library as against the proposition?

Mr. REMICH. I am not trying to bring in the Library as against the proposition. Every author has to file two copies of his book, and they are placed in the Library. I say that if they did not do that, Mr.

Putnam, the Librarian, would have to take money out of his appropriation and buy these books. I should suppose that that would be so. Otherwise he would not say that they were of great value. I am willing, if they want to make a certificate of every view we have and send to us, for any convenience of the office, to take them; but to force us to pay for thousands and thousands of certificates, which will make it impossible for us to make a profit in the manufacture of our goods at the close margin under which the business is conducted under our contracts, would be a hards.h.i.+p, and I do not believe you want to drive us out of business in that way.

Mr. CHANEY. We certainly do not want to drive you out of business.

Mr. REMICH. It seems to me that it would have that effect.

Mr. CHANEY. But I take it that the Librarian's purpose was to try to make this thing pay its way.

Mr. REMICH. I have no doubt about that. Mr. Putnam and Mr. Solberg have told me that by this consolidation of subjects many certificates could be saved. I should be glad to comply with their suggestion if our business was of such a character that we could do this series work; but you can see the difficulties.

Mr. PUTNAM. We want to be as clear as possible, and to meet this difficulty. Let me ask you this: Do you not do any series work, or is it only that you do not do work in a series under this limitation as to pose or composition?

Mr. REMICH. We do not do that cla.s.s of work.

Mr. PUTNAM. If the words "only in pose or composition" were stricken out, would there be a material reduction in your fees? In the first place, it seems to me that it would be convenient for us to know--how many copyright entries do you make in the course of a year?

Mr. REMICH. I can not tell.

Mr. PUTNAM. Have you any idea?

Mr. REMICH. It varies with different years.

Mr. PUTNAM. Would it run up into thousands?

Mr. REMICH. Some years I think it does.

Mr. PUTNAM. If you were privileged to register under one fee works in a series----

Mr. REMICH. But what would be a "series?" That is the question.

Mr. CURRIER. Representing the same subject.

Mr. PUTNAM. Representing the same subject under the same t.i.tle with only slight variances, but not the variances described here as "only in pose or composition." What we would like to know is, would it enable you to enter a great many of these articles under one fee that you now enter separately?

Mr. REMICH. That depends upon what you call the same subject.

Mr. CURRIER. Is seems to me that you would have to introduce the word "general;" that is, make it read "the same general subject."

Mr. REMICH. If you introduce that who will decide what is the same general subject, except the courts? It would encourage law suits.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be the Librarian, would it not?

Mr. REMICH. His decision would not be final. The law says we can go to the courts and test his construction.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be the Librarian, so far as your fees were concerned?

Mr. REMICH. Yes; but we do not want to pay a fee unless it is to be registered in such a way that the court will hold that we have a legal registration. We have an artist in San Francisco; and if we could register under one entry all the views that he will take in San Francisco while he is there, which will probably be 500 different subjects, for half a dollar, we would like to do it. But what subjects that he takes in San Francisco can we include as a series and have protected? He will take the Pacific Hotel, showing its ruin and present condition, and he may take a Chinese camp, and he may take the Flood Building, and so on. How many can we get into a series and have the court protect us when we come to try a case? That is the difficulty.

Suppose this said you shall enter under a series all churches in Paris--under one entry fee, for 50 cents--that we may enter all negatives that we take of churches there. How will you describe it in your entry upon the book? Suppose we go to Rome, where they have 365 Catholic churches; they are not grouped in any way; we can not pose them. How will you describe the 365 views? Will you describe them as 365 views of the churches of Rome, or will you specify them under one head? You can see the difficulties, gentlemen.

Mr. PUTNAM. Do you not publish those in series for selling purposes sometimes?

Mr. REMICH. No. In selling we do this: We have a pictorial ill.u.s.tration of the Holy Land. It includes perhaps fifty pictures, but it covers the whole of the Holy Land. One is taken in Jerusalem, one in Jaffa, and one at Damascus, for instance. We should be glad to comply with any law that will protect us and not inject doubts into our business and encourage piracy.

Mr. CURRIER. Mr. Webb desires to know if this amendment would take care of your matter: "Insert after 'seal,' in line 6, page 37, the words 'provided only 50 cents shall be charged for each stereoscopic view filed and registered.'"

Mr. REMICH. That is all right. And if we want a certificate in our business, we will come and, as the old lady said, "heave down our 50 cents and get it."

Mr. PUTNAM. "_Provided_, That in the case of stereoscopic views the certificate should not be furnished unless required, and in that case the fee shall be," etc.

Mr. CURRIER. And in such case no certificate shall be issued unless the regular fee is paid.

Mr. REMICH. That is perfectly satisfactory; but any attempt to define by series is sure to be unsatisfactory.

Mr. CURRIER. I think you may be right about this matter of series.

STATEMENT OF A. BELL MALCOMSON, ESQ.

Mr. MALCOMSON. I intend, Mr. Chairman, to be brief. The remarks that I shall make are pertinent more to correct the law so as to make it more definite than for any other purpose. I have prepared a short statement of just what the changes I propose are. The matter is one relating to lithographs. I represent Mr. McLaughlin, or McLaughlin Brothers, who are probably the largest lithographers in the country. Mr. McLaughlin has spent millions in perfecting that art in this country. He, unfortunately, is abroad at the present time, and has asked me to be here to represent him.

Lithographs have always been mentioned in the former copyright bills.

A lithograph is something different from any other production of a picture or of any pictorial ill.u.s.tration. But in this case it has been thought by the framers of the bill that the words "print or pictorial ill.u.s.tration" would cover lithographs.

The CHAIRMAN. Please refer to the section of the bill that you wish to call attention to.