•
1016 THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 30TH OCTOBER, 1886.
The draft International Convention framed last year at Berne adopted the principle that the exclusive right should exist for a period of ten years from the date of the publication of an authorized translation, which, however, must have appeared complete within three years from the publication of the original work. On this principle the protection would in some cases extend to thirteen years from publication of the original work.
This is the system recommended by the British Royal Commission of 1878.
(c.) To limit the exclusive right of translation to a fixed number of years, absolutely, without the condition that an authorized translation must appear within any fixed period after the publication of the original work.
This system has certainly the merit of simplicity, and it may be claimed in its favour that desire of the author to enjoy the longest period of protection will furnish him with sufficient induce- ment to publish a translation speedily, and thus to supply the public demand within a reasonable time.
The French Delegates insisted strongly on the adoption of the system (a), viz., that of complete assimilation; but although we are personally of opinion that this is the best and most logical plan, we were not prepared to support it as an essential condition to the accession of any State to the Union and the French proposal when put to the vote was defeated by a small majority, on the ground that it would preclude the accession of many States at the present moment. Nearly all the Delegates, how- ever, expressed themselves as theoretically in favour of the principle.
On the other hand, we proposed that no express term should be specified in the Convention, but that complete freedom should be left to the legislation of each country to protect translations in such manner as might best suit the circumstances of each State. This proposal, although it seemed to us extremely reasonable, as satisfying the requirements of all parties, was, however, defeated by a large majority, on the ground that it would be undesirable to admit into the Union any State which did not give the exclusive right of translation for at least ten years.
As a compromise between the conflicting opinions expressed on this point, the system (c) was eventually adopted unanimously, and the period of protection fixed at ten years, without any condition.
Article V of the draft Convention therefore stipulates that authors belonging to any State of the Union, or their legal representatives, shall enjoy in all the other States of the Union the exclusive right of translation for ten years from the date of the publication of the original work. In order to
avoid difficulties as to the exact date of publication, it has been decided that the term of ten years shall commence from the end of the year wherein the publication takes place. And to make clear the question of works appearing in small incomplete parts ("livraisons") a definition of this term has been inserted in the Report of the Drafting Committee on this Article.*
We believe that is a very satisfactory solution of the matter. The period thus fixed only exceeds by two years the maximum now permitted by English law; whilst in some cases it may be less than that recommended by the Royal Commission. The interest of the public seems sufficiently guarded, whilst greater latitude is given to the author for making satisfactory and remunerative arrangements for the translation of his work.
6. Copyright in Translations.
The provisions on this head, which are contained in Article VI, are distinct from the exclusive right of translation. The intention is simply to extend to each particular translation the same protec- tion as is granted to original works. This might, perhaps, have been more clearly expressed in the Article, but the text seems to be legally sufficient, and after much discussion in the Committee it was found difficult to agree upon a more satisfactory wording. No objection apparently exists to the prin- ciple, which is sanctioned by existing British law.
7. The Right of republishing Newspaper Articles.
Considerable difficulty was experienced in reconciling divergent opinions on this point; but Article VII appears to be on the whole satisfactory, it being explained in the Report of the Committee (p. 46 of Records), that, in those countries where the law requires it, the obligation to acknowledge the source whence the articles are derived may be maintained.
8. The Right of making Extracts for Compilations, &c.
•
We regarded the Article on this head which appeared in the draft Project of last year as being exceedingly dangerous, and providing a facile means for wholesale appropriation. We therefore pro- posed its omission, with the view to leaving the matter to be settled by the law of each State. We ultimately consented to the insertion of the existing Article VIII, which carries out our views on the subject.
* "The term 'livraison' means a portion of a work appearing in successive parts, and which does not in itself form a separate publication, but is so indissolubly connected with the rest of the work, whether by the paging, or by its typographical entirety, that the omission of a single ⚫ livraison' would render the whole work incomplete and defective."