Terry,  in my googling, after reading about the stationers in
London, I was informed about Parisian attitudes towards
copyright, which got murky during their revolution.  I had no
idea this line of inquiry would be so interesting.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mark Twain's interest in
issues revolving around copyright started Very Early.  I found
what you said about his concerns in the late 1800s fascinating.

I still hope to learn if there were any consequences, or
embarassments, from intruding upon another's copyright
back in 1968.

Regards,
Arianne Laidlaw

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM, L T Oggel/FS/VCU <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yes, for printers (stationers), originally, not authors, although the
> Constitution (1787) specifically says "authors" (and "inventors"), so it
> seems that authors were beginning to get some lasting protection and
> credit back then.
>
> I believe that this practice goes back in England to the 16th c. and
> probably earlier (I forget how far back exactly), to the Stationers'
> Register.  A stationer (a printer--member of the Stationers Company, a
> guild) needed to register everything he printed.  Doing so amounted to
> establishing an early form of copyright, before the actual term was used.*
>  I didn't know that this British practice was also the practice in the
> U.S.that late--so far into the 19th c. (!870).  I also didn't know about
> the U.S. practice of using the district courts for this purpose for a
> while.
>
> Now that I've followed the link that David Davis provided, I see there are
> more details.
>
> I think that this "neglect" of the author (for lack of a better word) in
> the publishing business might be potentially very interesting for us.  It
> might shed some light on Clemens' view of himself and of the value of his
> copyright--it might explain his thinking in 1894.  The way out of
> bankruptcy for him (under the guidance of H. H. Rogers) was to "bank" on
> his copyright.  But Clemens had not thought that way, because in his world
> the author's role was to write and then sell his writing. The idea that
> the value of a book might extend far into the future was not in his
> thinking.  After writing a book and securing protection for the short
> term, the author was finished; the printer/publisher had longer-term
> "rights."  (This might also help explain why he gave away his
> manuscripts.)  Thus, Following the Equator (1897) is copyrighted in
> Olivia's name (his largest creditor).
>
> I don't know if this thinking has validity.  But thanks for the 19th c.
> copyright lesson.
>
> Terry Oggel
>
>
> *Completely as a sidelight, it would be interesting to determine when the
> term "copyright" came into usage.  It was not used in the Constitution,
> but it was used in the Act now commonly called the Copyright Act of 1790:
> "AN ACT for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps,
> charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during
> the times therein mentioned."  The term is used there and it's hyphenated,
> which suggests that in 1790 it was a new word, made up of two existing
> words and now being linked.  After usage became widespread, the hyphen was
> dropped.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Arianne <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: Mark Twain Forum <[log in to unmask]>
> 04/07/2008 04:00 PM
> Please respond to
> Mark Twain Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To
> [log in to unmask]
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Copyright question
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, David, for your advice.  I looked into Google books, just in case
> the Nimmer book was there.  One thing I learned was that there were 10
> volumes of Nimmer on copyright!  Yikes.
>
> Then I googled History of Copyright and had one wonder somewhat clarified.
> Copyright was not originally to protect authors, but those who printed
> something.
> Interesting.  Apparently, here in the US we've tried to protect authors.
>
> I came upon this paragraph which clarified that registering in District
> Couts WAS
> the copyright method up to 1870.  A revelatio:  Thanks to
> http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml
>
> "1870: Revision of Copyright Act
>
> The administration of copyright registrations moved from the individual
> district courts to the Library of Congress Copyright Office. The term of
> protection was not extended in this revision.'
> So the quote I sent you which Bonner put at the bottom of the Jesse Grant
> article
> WAS a copyright notice, but for the publisher, not the author it seems:
>
> "*Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1868, by ROBERT BONNER.
> In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of
> New
> York."
>
> Thank you for guiding me further into this copyright history.
>
> Grateful,
> Ariianne Laidlaw
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:59 AM, David Davis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hi. Copyright rules from that period are outside of my expertise. (And
> > that of most people's, even in copyrightland.  ;-) )
> >
> > The big book of US copyright, which does cover some of this historical
> > stuff, is by Melville & David Nimmer- but you may have to hunt around
> > for it in a law school library.
> >
> > http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/10441.html
> >
> > My understanding is that _articles_ weren't usually thought of as under
> > copyright back in those days. (MT rewrote his materials from the form
> > they had appeared in journals for book publication, yes?) Today we would
> > call them something more like "a work made for hire." I.e., I write it,
> > you pay me, and you publish it in the newspaper/journal. End of
> > transaction.
> >
> > If that guess is close to right, then Daddy Grant or Bonner or somebody
> > _may_ have been trying to preserve what they hoped would turn into book
> > rights on their text.
> >
> > DDD
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Arianne [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 2:13 AM
> > To: David Davis; Mark Twain Forum
> > Subject: Re: FW: Copyright question
> >
> >
> > Many thanks, David.  Does anyone have an opinion (or knowledge!) whether
> > there would
> > be any consequences if someone didn't reespect this primitive version of
> > the copyright?
> > What could Bonner have been trying to protect?  Reproduction of the
> > article?
> >
> > Dana co-authored a biography of Grant which drew from the articles for
> > information about
> > Grant's youth, apparently the only source available.
> >
> > Wondering,
> > Arianne.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM, David Davis <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > Hi. I did ask around, and it appears that, for that early date (the
> > Copyright Office was not taking registrations yet) an author could,  in
> > effect, "timestamp" there work at a courthouse. It sounds like that is
> > what is happening there. Essentially, "Entered in the Clerk's Office"
> > was that era's equivalent of copyright registration.
> >
> > Does that help?
> >
> > DDD
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM, David Davis <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >        Hi. I don't know, but I will ask around and let you know if I
> > find
> >        anything out!
> >
> >        My understanding (which may be wrong) is that copyright was not
> > normally
> >        accorded to articles appearing only in the newspapers in those
> > days.
> >
> >
> >        What are the exact words around - "...registered with the
> > district..."
> >        (Can you give me the whole sentence?)
> >
> >        DDD
> >
> >
> >
> >        ________________________________
> >
> >        From: Arianne [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >        Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:51 PM
> >        To: Mark Twain Forum
> >        Subject: Copyright question
> >
> >
> >        Dear Mr. Davis,
> >
> >        Do you, or does anyone have knowledge about the reality of
> > copyright
> >        protection back in 1868?
> >
> >        Robert Bonner of The Ledger in New York commissioned Jesse Grant
> > to
> >        write
> >        articles about his son, Ulysses.  At the bottom of the first
> > column he
> >        recorded that
> >        they'd been registered with a district something.  Am I correct
> > in
> >        assuming this
> >        was an effort to copyright the articles?   (He did not add that
> >        protection to articles by Greely or H.W. Beecher.)
> >
> >        And if so, what would infringe upon the copyright?   Would there
> > be
> >        consequences?
> >
> >        Charles Dana of the SUN published the Ledger Grant articles in
> > his paper
> >        BEFORE they appeared in the Ledger!
> >
> >        Would this have any legal implications in those days?
> >
> >        All this is significant to me in connection with an issue
> > involving
> >        Twain.
> >
> >        THANKS for any opinions or help,
> >        Arianne Laidlaw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>