31 [ 108 ] 



have been received. Doubtless, many more \voi]l(l be olitaineil, could more 

 direct application l)e made lor them. 



The number of books received under the copyright law has gradually 

 increased each year, but does not yet include more than half for which copy- 

 rights are secured in the United States. In my previous reports I have re- 

 peatedly alluded to this subject. It seems to me very important that it 

 should receive the particular attention of the Board of Regents at the pre- 

 sent time. Existing laws respecting the deposit of copies of books and other 

 articles for which copyrights are secured, have failed almost entirely to fulfil 

 the intentions of Congress. Authors and publishers complain of injustice. 

 The demands of literature are not answered. The institutions intended to 

 be benefited find the boon to be of very doubtful value. In short, no one 

 of the parties interested is satisfied with the law in its present condition. 

 The committee of the board, to whom was referred a special report upon this 

 subject, presented by myself three years ago, was prevented, by the pi'essure 

 of other business upon its members, from entering into an examination of 

 the matter. I beg leave, therefore, to repeat at this time the recommenda- 

 tions of that report, with the grounds upon which they were founded. 



The copyright laws of most nations require the delivery to the govern- 

 ment, or to libraries designated by it, of a copy, or of several copies, of 

 every work for which copyright is claimed. As far as I have been able to 

 ascertain, in Saxony and in Portugal only one copy is demanded ; in France, 

 Austria, Russia, Bavaria, Denmark and Prussia two copies are required ; in 

 the Italian States generally, Holland, Belgium and the United States, 

 three copies ; in England, five copies ; in Svveden, four or five copies. The 

 number in several of these countries has varied at different periods. 



This requirement had its origin in France, as far Imck as lOo?. Its 

 object is two-fold : 



First, the deposit is considered necessary to the complete jiroteclion oj 

 the author. If his copyright be infrin<ved, it may be important for him to 

 be able to produce a certified copy of his work in order that it may be 

 compared with the alleged counterfeit. In no other way can he be sure of 

 finding such a copy than by making the deposit a condition of the copy- 

 right laws. It is like the model of a machine deposited in the patent 

 oifice. Judge McLean, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of 

 the United States, in the case of Wheaton versus Peters, says : "The 

 deposit of the book in the Department of State may be important to iden- 

 tify it at any future period, should the copyright be disputed, or an un- 

 founded claim of authorship asserted." 



The second reason for the requirement is the public benefit. The right 

 of the government to demand copies of the work for this purpose, is a 

 necessary consequence of the established theory of the copyright law. 



The English and American courts agree in resting the right of an author 

 to the exclusive privilege of printing and selling his book, upon the statute, 

 and not upon the common law. "Congress," says Judge McLean, in 

 delivering the opinion of the Supreme Coujt in the case of Wheaton vs. 

 Peters, "instead of sanctioning an existing right, created it." He says, 

 further, with respect to the right of the goverrnnent to (hrniand copies, 

 " No one can deny that when the legislature are about to vest an exclusive 

 right in the author or inventor, they have the power to prescribe the con- 

 dition on which such right sliould be enjoyed." 



