Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Principles adopted by the Royal Academy of Sciences on Literary and Artistic Property, Amsterdam (1862)
Source: Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling Letterkunde, 1862, pp. 345-359; Bijzondere Collecties, Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam, UBM V.V. 65-1862
Citation:
Principles adopted by the Royal Academy of Sciences on Literary and Artistic Property, Amsterdam (1862), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
8 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
POINTS OR PRINCIPLES
REGARDING THE SO-CALLED
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY,
LAID DOWN PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF THE LITERARY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
IN ITS MEETINGS OF 11 NOVEMBER AND 9 DECEMBER
1861 AND 10 FEBRUARY 1862.
I. The law confers on the writer, the public speaker and the artist the exclusive right to divulge his thought.
II. The right of the writer consists of the exclusive right to determine the time when, the format wherein, the manner in which, the place where, and the limits wherein, he wishes to publish the fruit of his mind.
III. The right of the writer is subject to transfer, be it in full, be it restricted.
Whoever claims to have obtained that right by tranfer, must demonstrate that this transfer took place in a lawful manner.
IV. The right of the writer and his assign subsists:
a. for as long as the writer lives.
b. thirty years after the last revised publication by or on behalf of the assign.
Chapter 1 Page 2
(346)
V. The public speaker, in broader or narrower circle, be it voluntarily, be it resulting from his office, has the same exclusive right as is granted to the writer to the publication of his spoken word or the essay read out loud by him.
Herewith is not shortchanged the right of reporters of dailies and magazines to communicate in print that which is recorded by him of the oral presentation; provided that this communication is made in relation to the entire session, ceremony or event, at which the speech has taken place.
VI. Only he, who has the right to publish a work, has the right to translate it, or cause it to be translated.
The translator, or his assign, has the same right to his translation as the author to his writings.
VII. For collection works, to which several authors have contributed, only the right provided in IVb is granted; with regard to contributions which have been signed by the authors, however, the right set out in Va applies as well.
VIII. For works, of which two or more persons together are the authors, the copyright subsists at least until the demise of the survivor.
IX. For anonymous works or works under a pseudonym the provision of IVb applies.
X. For published letters or bequeathed essays of deceased, the provision of Ivb applies in case those letters or essays are the lawful property of the publisher.
XI. Whatever has been published in print on behalf of the State or the Public Powers is public property, unless the copyright exclusively is reserved by law or regulation.
XII. Citations from a work, of which one does not possess property rights, are only lawful if they
Chapter 1 Page 3
(347)
serve to clarify the opinion or the judgment of the author, and they are used sparingly.
XIII. The right of a drama author is twofold: as regards the publication in print of his work he is equal to any other author: as regards the public staging of his work, he is granted the right that it cannot take place without his permission. This right may also be transferred, in full or restricted, to another on the footing as is provided in III.
XIV. Musical compositions will be taken to be literary products. For the performance of such, which have been published in print, the permission of the creator is not necessary, unless it regards compositions, written for the stage, for which the provisions set out in XIII apply.
XV. Artworks, resting in public places accessible to all intended for general viewing, may be multiplied freely by different modes of reproduction.
XVI. Non-public artworks may not in any mode of imitation be multiplied except with permission of the owner.
XVII. Imitations of artworks by means of another art, inasmuch as they are not public, are taken to be artworks as referred to in XVI.
General provision. No prosecution is instituted for copying, imitation, or unlawful distribution or multiplication except on complaint of the party who deems their right to have been restricted.
Chapter 1 Page 4
(348)
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
ACCOMPANYING THE
POINTS AND PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE
LITERARY AND ART PROPERTY.
The weighty question, to what extent and for how long the fruits of the mind or the products of the wit, are the property of he who has produced them, in recent times has been a subject to attentive consideration in all civilized countries, and has provoked lively interest. Two main regimes, directly opposing each other, are brought up: according to the one, anyone who has expressed his thoughts in audible sounds or visible signs, has the right to freely decide about the revealed concepts, and only the question whether, in the public interest, provisions could, and should, be set to restrict the duration of that right, can prove useful; according to the other, the products of the mind or of the wit remain the property of their owner only for as long as he keeps them to himself; but they fall within the public domain as soon as he has publicized them once.
In the deliberations, to which the "bill
Chapter 1 Page 5
(349)
on the right to copy", about which the Government has asked the opinion of the Academy, has given rise repeatedly within our department, the reported two main regimes are mentioned, but have not constituted a particular subject of dispute. It is true that one of the Members, however much recognizing that the first of those regimes was adopted by almost all civilized nations as a basis of law and international treaties, expressed the wish that the Netherlands would reject such a regime of monopoly, or at least of privilege, which would contain all the disadvantages of the protective regime: this role, according to that speaker, would be appropriate for a country which has always taken the first place on the path of freedom, even if it should thereby put itself in an isolated position. An attempt to swim against the stream, he hoped, might give the signal for choosing a better path.
It is not possible to determine the extent to which the majority of the department may or may not have joined with this viewpoint; indeed, an actual dispute about the question, which of the two systems would be given preference, as has been said, has not been carried on. The Committee responsible for the enlightening of the department, and subject such principles to its assessment as could serve to be taken into consideration with the drawing up of a bill, has already at the start of the deliberations warned against the carrying on of such a dispute about abstracted questions: It has pointed out how, at the congresses held in Brussels and Antwerp about the literary and art property, every time two days had passed in unfruitful disputes about questions, to which answering the most thorough knowledge of jurisprudence seemed to be demanded, yet which
Chapter 1 Page 6
(350)
everyone there, authorized or unauthorized, felt entitled to deal with. It has expressed its conviction that the practical objective, which was to be achieved, would be missed if one were to enter into a debate about theories, and thus open wide a door to speculation, to which no other end could be put than by a vote: and a vote could decide on a case or action, but never on the worth or worthlessness of a principle. The Committee therefore has placed no regime in the foreground: it was enough, in its opinion, that the usefulness of granting a right to literary and art property was recognized.
A usefulness, outside this country nowhere in any civilised country subject to doubt anymore, and also long having been commonly felt, according to the already existing regulations: it is a matter of indicating the provisions which can serve the legislator as guidance, now that there appeared to be a need for the amending and supplementing of those provisions and the entering into agreements with other Powers.
The Committee, in this manner not accepting the debate on the said principles, only stated to want to see recognized and enforced the personal right of the author, the creator, on his product, and it has contemplated hereby not only his interest, but also that of the public. Whoever deprives him of this right, whoever denies him the possibility of the fruit of his labour, effort and time spent, discourages him, scares him off from working longer, with no self-interest, to the benefit of others, compels him, perhaps, to leave a career, in which he could have worked for fame and profit for himself, but also for the education and civilizing of many. From the same point of view,
Chapter 1 Page 7
(351)
the Committee considered the author as lord of his creation: it granted him the right to amend, whatever is susceptible to amendment, to correct whatever is susceptible to correction: to add to his earlier work what later continued studies have taught him: yes, even in some cases, to prevent the further distribution or the reprinting of a work, which seems to him, according to later conviction, to be erroneous or damaging to his name as author. In the opinion of the Committee, the question to be answered by the department could only be this, how that personal right of the author was guaranteed to him, so that the needs and interests of the Public were also borne in mind.
Some members remarked on that which has been brought to the centre by the Committee, that the discussed law, such as it was described by it, at its base was nothing more than a right of privilege that was granted to the author: on which remark the Committee again declared that, however much it was indifferent to a certain extent whether one in the provision, proposed by it in this respect, wished to see the restriction of a previously existing, or the granting of a new right, and with what name they wanted to label that right, provided that only the desired effect was obtained, it could not, however, as starting from the personal right of an author to his work, justify the term "privilege" in this respect. Only to the extent that the right to be determined later was stretched beyond the age of the author and so beyond the limits of his personal existence, it could reconcile itself with the expression introduced by some members of the department.
While it seems that the idea that the discussed right should really be taken to be a granted privilege seems to
Chapter 1 Page 8
(352)
have found acceptance with the majority of the members of the department, it has not been demonstrated that regarding the main regimes any certain feeling prevailed, and it would be risky to enter into guesses in this regard which may meet contradiction. Definite expression of the feelings of the Meeting has been revealed only where it has concerned the approval or rejection of the principles, subjected to the discretion of the department by the commission. It will be useful, in the explanation of those maxims, in the manner in which they finally have been laid down, to report the objections put forward against it by some members. Only this still here: One of these Members took the view that there should be a right of publishers only. The Committee ruled that its mission was not considered responsible for the interests of publishers, book and art dealers. Their rights are subject to the provisions of the general property law: and, as has already been said, to regulate the reciprocal rights of author or artist vis-a-vis the civilized Public belonged to the mandate of the Committee.
[...]
Translation by: Miluska Kooij
Source: Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling Letterkunde, 1862, pp. 345-359; Bijzondere Collecties, Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam, UBM V.V. 65-1862
Citation:
Principles adopted by the Royal Academy of Sciences on Literary and Artistic Property, Amsterdam (1862), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
8 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
POINTS OR PRINCIPLES
REGARDING THE SO-CALLED
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY,
LAID DOWN PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF THE LITERARY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
IN ITS MEETINGS OF 11 NOVEMBER AND 9 DECEMBER
1861 AND 10 FEBRUARY 1862.
I. The law confers on the writer, the public speaker and the artist the exclusive right to divulge his thought.
II. The right of the writer consists of the exclusive right to determine the time when, the format wherein, the manner in which, the place where, and the limits wherein, he wishes to publish the fruit of his mind.
III. The right of the writer is subject to transfer, be it in full, be it restricted.
Whoever claims to have obtained that right by tranfer, must demonstrate that this transfer took place in a lawful manner.
IV. The right of the writer and his assign subsists:
a. for as long as the writer lives.
b. thirty years after the last revised publication by or on behalf of the assign.
Chapter 1 Page 2
(346)
V. The public speaker, in broader or narrower circle, be it voluntarily, be it resulting from his office, has the same exclusive right as is granted to the writer to the publication of his spoken word or the essay read out loud by him.
Herewith is not shortchanged the right of reporters of dailies and magazines to communicate in print that which is recorded by him of the oral presentation; provided that this communication is made in relation to the entire session, ceremony or event, at which the speech has taken place.
VI. Only he, who has the right to publish a work, has the right to translate it, or cause it to be translated.
The translator, or his assign, has the same right to his translation as the author to his writings.
VII. For collection works, to which several authors have contributed, only the right provided in IVb is granted; with regard to contributions which have been signed by the authors, however, the right set out in Va applies as well.
VIII. For works, of which two or more persons together are the authors, the copyright subsists at least until the demise of the survivor.
IX. For anonymous works or works under a pseudonym the provision of IVb applies.
X. For published letters or bequeathed essays of deceased, the provision of Ivb applies in case those letters or essays are the lawful property of the publisher.
XI. Whatever has been published in print on behalf of the State or the Public Powers is public property, unless the copyright exclusively is reserved by law or regulation.
XII. Citations from a work, of which one does not possess property rights, are only lawful if they
Chapter 1 Page 3
(347)
serve to clarify the opinion or the judgment of the author, and they are used sparingly.
XIII. The right of a drama author is twofold: as regards the publication in print of his work he is equal to any other author: as regards the public staging of his work, he is granted the right that it cannot take place without his permission. This right may also be transferred, in full or restricted, to another on the footing as is provided in III.
XIV. Musical compositions will be taken to be literary products. For the performance of such, which have been published in print, the permission of the creator is not necessary, unless it regards compositions, written for the stage, for which the provisions set out in XIII apply.
XV. Artworks, resting in public places accessible to all intended for general viewing, may be multiplied freely by different modes of reproduction.
XVI. Non-public artworks may not in any mode of imitation be multiplied except with permission of the owner.
XVII. Imitations of artworks by means of another art, inasmuch as they are not public, are taken to be artworks as referred to in XVI.
General provision. No prosecution is instituted for copying, imitation, or unlawful distribution or multiplication except on complaint of the party who deems their right to have been restricted.
Chapter 1 Page 4
(348)
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
ACCOMPANYING THE
POINTS AND PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE
LITERARY AND ART PROPERTY.
The weighty question, to what extent and for how long the fruits of the mind or the products of the wit, are the property of he who has produced them, in recent times has been a subject to attentive consideration in all civilized countries, and has provoked lively interest. Two main regimes, directly opposing each other, are brought up: according to the one, anyone who has expressed his thoughts in audible sounds or visible signs, has the right to freely decide about the revealed concepts, and only the question whether, in the public interest, provisions could, and should, be set to restrict the duration of that right, can prove useful; according to the other, the products of the mind or of the wit remain the property of their owner only for as long as he keeps them to himself; but they fall within the public domain as soon as he has publicized them once.
In the deliberations, to which the "bill
Chapter 1 Page 5
(349)
on the right to copy", about which the Government has asked the opinion of the Academy, has given rise repeatedly within our department, the reported two main regimes are mentioned, but have not constituted a particular subject of dispute. It is true that one of the Members, however much recognizing that the first of those regimes was adopted by almost all civilized nations as a basis of law and international treaties, expressed the wish that the Netherlands would reject such a regime of monopoly, or at least of privilege, which would contain all the disadvantages of the protective regime: this role, according to that speaker, would be appropriate for a country which has always taken the first place on the path of freedom, even if it should thereby put itself in an isolated position. An attempt to swim against the stream, he hoped, might give the signal for choosing a better path.
It is not possible to determine the extent to which the majority of the department may or may not have joined with this viewpoint; indeed, an actual dispute about the question, which of the two systems would be given preference, as has been said, has not been carried on. The Committee responsible for the enlightening of the department, and subject such principles to its assessment as could serve to be taken into consideration with the drawing up of a bill, has already at the start of the deliberations warned against the carrying on of such a dispute about abstracted questions: It has pointed out how, at the congresses held in Brussels and Antwerp about the literary and art property, every time two days had passed in unfruitful disputes about questions, to which answering the most thorough knowledge of jurisprudence seemed to be demanded, yet which
Chapter 1 Page 6
(350)
everyone there, authorized or unauthorized, felt entitled to deal with. It has expressed its conviction that the practical objective, which was to be achieved, would be missed if one were to enter into a debate about theories, and thus open wide a door to speculation, to which no other end could be put than by a vote: and a vote could decide on a case or action, but never on the worth or worthlessness of a principle. The Committee therefore has placed no regime in the foreground: it was enough, in its opinion, that the usefulness of granting a right to literary and art property was recognized.
A usefulness, outside this country nowhere in any civilised country subject to doubt anymore, and also long having been commonly felt, according to the already existing regulations: it is a matter of indicating the provisions which can serve the legislator as guidance, now that there appeared to be a need for the amending and supplementing of those provisions and the entering into agreements with other Powers.
The Committee, in this manner not accepting the debate on the said principles, only stated to want to see recognized and enforced the personal right of the author, the creator, on his product, and it has contemplated hereby not only his interest, but also that of the public. Whoever deprives him of this right, whoever denies him the possibility of the fruit of his labour, effort and time spent, discourages him, scares him off from working longer, with no self-interest, to the benefit of others, compels him, perhaps, to leave a career, in which he could have worked for fame and profit for himself, but also for the education and civilizing of many. From the same point of view,
Chapter 1 Page 7
(351)
the Committee considered the author as lord of his creation: it granted him the right to amend, whatever is susceptible to amendment, to correct whatever is susceptible to correction: to add to his earlier work what later continued studies have taught him: yes, even in some cases, to prevent the further distribution or the reprinting of a work, which seems to him, according to later conviction, to be erroneous or damaging to his name as author. In the opinion of the Committee, the question to be answered by the department could only be this, how that personal right of the author was guaranteed to him, so that the needs and interests of the Public were also borne in mind.
Some members remarked on that which has been brought to the centre by the Committee, that the discussed law, such as it was described by it, at its base was nothing more than a right of privilege that was granted to the author: on which remark the Committee again declared that, however much it was indifferent to a certain extent whether one in the provision, proposed by it in this respect, wished to see the restriction of a previously existing, or the granting of a new right, and with what name they wanted to label that right, provided that only the desired effect was obtained, it could not, however, as starting from the personal right of an author to his work, justify the term "privilege" in this respect. Only to the extent that the right to be determined later was stretched beyond the age of the author and so beyond the limits of his personal existence, it could reconcile itself with the expression introduced by some members of the department.
While it seems that the idea that the discussed right should really be taken to be a granted privilege seems to
Chapter 1 Page 8
(352)
have found acceptance with the majority of the members of the department, it has not been demonstrated that regarding the main regimes any certain feeling prevailed, and it would be risky to enter into guesses in this regard which may meet contradiction. Definite expression of the feelings of the Meeting has been revealed only where it has concerned the approval or rejection of the principles, subjected to the discretion of the department by the commission. It will be useful, in the explanation of those maxims, in the manner in which they finally have been laid down, to report the objections put forward against it by some members. Only this still here: One of these Members took the view that there should be a right of publishers only. The Committee ruled that its mission was not considered responsible for the interests of publishers, book and art dealers. Their rights are subject to the provisions of the general property law: and, as has already been said, to regulate the reciprocal rights of author or artist vis-a-vis the civilized Public belonged to the mandate of the Committee.
[...]
Translation by: Miluska Kooij