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 > > > > > > > > > > >