Luminous-Lint - for collectors and connoisseurs of fine photography
HOME  BACK>>> Subscriptions <<< | Testimonials | Login |

HomeContentsVisual indexesAdolphe Braun

 
  
Standard
  
  
Adolphe Braun 
International Copyright of Photographs 
1888, 24 August 
  
Magazine page 
Google Books 
 
LL/34811 
  
In the section "Talk in the Studio" in "The Photographic News", Vol.XXXII, No.1564, August 24, 1888, p.544.
 
International Copyright Of Photographs. The case in which A. E. Whitehouse, of the Hyde Park Gallery, was summoned by C. Hauff, the London agent of Adolphe Braun and Co. (see page 528 of our issue of last week), came on again for hearing on Wednesday, at the Westminster Police-court. Mr. Mann appeared for the prosecution, Mr. R. C. Glen was counsel for the defendant. Mr. Mann's contention was that the Act of 1862, which spoke of copyright works of a British subject, incorporated the old Act of 1844, and the Order in Council thereunder, dated 10th January, 1852 (made in consequence of the Convention between the Knglish and French Governments) giving reciprocal rights to authors of both countries. Mr. D'Eyncourt pointed out that if this was the case, the preamble of the 1862 Act was inconsistent. It referred to copyright of British subjects. That was the first Act which alluded to photographs. Mr. Mann said he further relied on the recent Act of 1886, which carried into effect the Convention of Berne incorporated in an Order of Council of November 28th, 1887. This gave to the author of a literary or artistic work, first produced in one of the foreign countries of the Copyright Union, the same right of copyright as if the work had been first produced in the United Kingdom. Mr. William F. Benham, solicitor, gave evidence of the purchase of the alleged pirated photographs, and stated that the defendant did not have them in stock at first, his assertion being that they had not been printed owing to the wet weather. After the sale, and when served with a subpoena to produce the negatives, which he promised to do, he said that all the dealers did very much the same thing, and he supposed Messrs. Braun proceeded against him through spite, an assertion which was denied. He also said that he was only conducting the business for the trustees of the late firm, of which he was a member. A partner in the firm of Braun and Company, from Paris, and Mr. Hauff, the London agent, swore that the photographs put in evidence were piracies, and that they had been copied from reduced negatives. Other formal evidence was given as to registration, and at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution Mr. Glen said the pictures were produced before registration, and upon an authority of a decision in the Court of Appeal no penalties could be taken in respect of the sale of such after registration. The case was further adjourned for evidence on behalf of the defendant. 
 

 
  
 
  
HOME  BACK>>> Subscriptions <<< | Testimonials | Login |
 Facebook LuminousLint 
 Twitter @LuminousLint