Vol. 19 No. 23
I move—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 2 and 3."
These amendments meet the same point. Under Section 180 one may register an artistic work defining a design, and these two amendments are necessary to make the fees chargable in respect of registration under that section.
I move—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 4."
This is an amendment of importance The addition of these words is also made in another sub-section by amendment 6. The aim of the amendments is that a patent should not be granted if such invention were described in any British specification made up to the passing of the Act and published before the date of the application for the patent. The amendments are to put the matter more in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 19.
I move—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 7."
This is to give a longer period of time for the contingency that is looked to in the sub-section. The applicant might not know until after the grant of the existence of the patent which he desires to have revoked, and it is necessary to enlarge the time.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 8."
This is also an enlargement of time. Seven days was put down, and it was suggested that three weeks should be allowed as the proper time for the completion of the acceptance of the specification. On the part of the Controller-designate of the Patents Office, it is recommended that this should be accepted, as the time was too short.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 9."
Amendment 9 has to be taken with amendment 14. This is to meet the point that patent agents' clerks should be employed as well as patent agents, and the effect of the two amendments is to allow searches by patent agents' clerks as well as by the patent agents themselves. It has been pointed out that a search by a patent agent might cost three times as much as one by his clerk. Amendment 14 allows the establishment of a register of approved clerks.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 10."
This is a desirable amendment owing to a change which has taken place. Records which had previously been in the National Library of Ireland have been and are in course of being transferred to the library in the Office.
I move:
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 11."
This is one of those technical matters that is at the same time of considerable importance to the Bill. It is to make it clear that if British patents are extended to this country, as it is proposed they shall be, they will be extended subject to any modification—for instance, judgments of British courts, where the judgments have been made prior to the date of the Act—but, of course, after extension they will be subject to our courts. It has this meaning—that if a patent is being brought to trial in England that is going to be extended here, and has some change or limitation imposed upon it, that we will take over the patent subject to the limitation.
I move:
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 13."
It was pointed out that in the absence of this amendment there might exist two patents for the same invention—a British patent which by virtue of another section was extended to the Free State, and a new patent with enlarged time taken out in the Free State under the Act. This is to prevent the possibility of that happening.
I move—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 17."
When the Bill was before the Dáil an earlier clause had this same preamble as sub-section (2) of Section 66, "that for the purposes of the duration and extension"—in other words for a limited number of purposes. That was changed in the Dáil, "for all purposes," and, consequential upon that, it is necessary to extend also the application of this section for all purposes instead of for the limited purposes set out.
I move—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 18 and 19."
These amendments go together. They have reference to what is known as the Irish Trade Mark. The first one is in order that the Irish Trade Mark, registered in London as it is at present, might be extended to the Free State. The second one gives the Minister power to take over, if he is advised that it is a desirable course, the Irish Trade Mark. It is not made compulsory.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 21."
This is consequential upon an amendment made in the Dáil to Section 152, sub-section (1) (a). It is simply carrying that forward to sub-section (4).
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 22 and 23."
These are to extend the application by adding "protectorate or territory" after "dominion."
Will the Minister tell us whether India would be included in that? I notice in the Medical Bill the reference, which presumably had a similar intention, is to "British possession, self-governing dominion, or foreign country." I am not quite sure whether even India would be covered by "British possession," but I certainly think it is not covered by "protectorate or territory." I do not know whether the Minister desires to have a link with India in this way.
Yes. Of course we have definitions of "self-governing British Dominions," and we have definitions of "British dominions." As a matter of fact, this was a matter on which we asked advice from the Colonial Office, and were informed by them that the addition of "protectorate or territory" to the word "dominion" covered all the places which we intended to cover, and we distinctly did intend to cover India.
The Colonial Office might have a view of that kind, but the India Office might not. They certainly would resent the view of the Colonial Office on that matter.
At any rate, the matter is clear in this way: That if India does not come under this clause then India has to be dealt with as a foreign country. It only means that instead of having the extension, at one stroke so to speak, of this reciprocal arrangement under this Act to a group, it will have to be extended to places individually, and India might have to be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a foreign country. But the application can be made one way or another.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 24."
This amendment falls into a large group of amendments—24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36 to 45 inclusive, 51 to 64 and 65—which all have reference to the same point. The point occurs best upon amendment 51, which deals with Section 175. If attention is paid to the form of Part 6 of this Bill it will be discovered that a distinction has been made between the application of Part 6 of the Bill to Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the British dominions and protectorates, etc., and thereafter foreign countries were clearly mentioned as a group apart from Great Britain, Northern Ireland, etc. As long as we were members of the British Commonwealth Union, we could immediately, by an agreement made with Great Britain, have got the advantages of the English Copyright Act, of 1911, and have applied by the application of that Act, mutual arrangements with all the groups within the Commonwealth Union. Two amendments which have been passed with regard to translations into Irish, and an amendment regarding compilation for educational purposes, have made it imperative that we should leave the Commonwealth Union. Having left the Commonwealth Union —and it is considered desirable for the purposes of these amendments that we should leave that Union—it is necessary to re-adjust the whole of Part 6, so as to make the application merely to Saorstát Eireann, and thereafter to all those other places as if they were foreign countries. So that the net result of these amendments comes to this: That they delete Section 175, which refers to the extension of this part of the Act to Great Britain, Northern Ireland and other places automatically, and throw everything forward to the procedure under Section 176—that is to say, that by an Order made on the advice of the Executive Council the Governor-General may direct that this part shall apply, and then foreign countries for the purposes of Part 6 must be taken to include Great Britain, Northern Ireland and all the places mentioned. All the amendments I have spoken of are simply clearing out from the section with regard to automatic extension Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the dominions, and putting them into Section 176.
Does that mean that we may secure the advantages of these copyrights by order of the Governor-General?
Yes. It only means that instead of proceeding by certain groups under the Copyright Act of 1911 we keep each one separately.
And that can be done by order?
Yes.
Would the Minister apply that principle to other spheres of legislation?
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:
Section 154, sub-section (1). The following words added at the end of the sub-section:—
"Provided that the Governor-General may by Order made on the advice of the Executive Council direct that copyright subsisting in Saorstát Eireann under the provisions of this sub-section, in works the authors of which were at the date of the making of the work citizens of a country named in the Order with which no convention relating to copyright and binding on Saorstát Eireann exists and in respect of which no Order has been made under the provisions of Section 176 (which relates to power to extend the benefit of this Part of this Act to foreign works) of this Act, shall be subject to such conditions or formalities (if any) as may be prescribed by the Order and to such modifications as regards the ownership of the copyright or otherwise as may appear necessary owing to the law of that country."
This amendment is to meet a point raised by authors in this country with regard to the treatment of their copyright works in the United States. A provision is inserted by which arrangements can be made that when the Governor-General directs an extension of the copyright section to, say, the United States, it should be subject to such modifications and restrictions as seem desirable. It was discovered that there was a loophole, and that non-convention countries like the United States would get copyright in the Free State by having first, or simultaneous, publication here and, consequently, would be exempt from the formalities put upon them under the terms of the order. It would not be right to give copyright here unless certain arrangements for copyright matter, in America, were obtained. The order imposing limitations might be avoided by first or simultaneous publication here. The amendment enables formalities to be imposed, even in the case of first or simultaneous publication here. It enables a bargain to be struck with a country like the United States for fair treatment as regards copyright of Irish authors.
I move:
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 154, sub-section (2). After the word ‘work' in line 56 the following words inserted: "Provided that such right shall as regards translations into the Irish language cease to exist unless the author of the work or his legal representative shall have within a period of ten years from the date of the first publication of the work published or caused to be published in Saorstát Eireann a translation of the work into the Irish language."
This is the amendment really by which we are abandoning the Commonwealth Union. It speaks for itself. It means an adherence to the Berne Convention with the reservation that, if an author has not availed of the right to make translation within ten years from the date of the first publication of his work, translation can be made into Irish, without a breach of copyright.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 154. A new sub-section added at the end of the section, as follows:—
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 174 (which relates to the preservation of existing copyrights) of this Act, paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of this section shall apply to copyright acquired before the 6th day of December, 1921, as well as the copyright acquired since that date under this Act."
This carries the translation point a little further and applies the provisions of the previous amendment to books published in the Free State prior to the Treaty.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 155. A new sub-section added at the end of the section, as follows:—
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 174 (which relates to the preservation of existing copyrights) of this Act paragraph (iv) of sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to copyright acquired before the 6th day of December, 1921, as well as to copyright acquired since that date under this Act."
This amendment does, with regard to the educational compilation amendment put in by the Dáil, just what has been done by amendment 31 in relation to amendment 30. It carries the amendment in relation to compilation a little further and extends it to books published in the Free State prior to the Treaty.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
Section 158, sub-section (2). After the word ‘limitations' in line 18 the words ‘as to place or otherwise' inserted.
Section 158, sub-section (2). The words ‘Saorstát Eireann, or any part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends' deleted in lines 18-19."
These are merely consequential.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
Section 167, sub-section (1). All from the word ‘sub-section' in line 29 to the word ‘copyright' in line 30 deleted and the words ‘Section 156 (which relates to term of copyright)' substituted therefor."
This amendment merely rectifies a wrong reference to a preceding section. A section changed its number.
I move—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
Section 169, sub-section (1). The words ‘or a part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends' deleted in lines 64 (page 62)-1 (page 63).
Section 169, sub-section (1). The words ‘or such part of the British dominions' deleted in lines 2-3.
Section 169, sub-section (7). After the words ‘to a' in line 30 the words ‘British dominion or a' inserted.
Section 171. The words ‘or a part of the British dominions to which this Part of this Act applies' deleted in lines 1-2.
Section 171. The words ‘or such part of the British dominions' deleted in lines 3-4.
Section 173. After the word ‘a' in line 17 the words ‘British dominion or a' inserted.
Section 173. After the word ‘within' in line 23 the words ‘Saorstát Eireann' inserted.
Section 173. The words ‘the parts of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends' deleted in lines 23-24.
Section 173. After the word ‘such' in line 26 the words ‘British dominion or' inserted.
Section 173. The words ‘or the British dominions' deleted in line 27."
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
Section 174. The word ‘Neither' deleted in line 29.
Section 174. The words ‘nor anything contained in this Part of this Act' deleted in line 30.
Section 174. After the word ‘shall' in line 30 the words ‘not save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Part of this Act' inserted."
These amendments re-adjust section 174, and are necessary, as they are consequential on amendments 31 and 32. It is in the matter of an extension of the application of the educational amendments.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
Section 174. In line 32 the words "commencement of this Part of this Act" deleted and the words and figures "6th day of December, 1921" substituted therefor.
Section 174. At the end of the section a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
(2) Section 4 (which relates to repeals) of this Act shall, in so far as it relates to the repeal of the Copyright Act, 1911, be deemed to have had force and effect as from the 6th day of December, 1921, and this Part of this Act shall be deemed to have had force and effect as from that date: Provided that—
(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 163 (which relates to limitation of actions) of this Act an action in respect of an infringement of copyright between the 6th day of December, 1921, and the commencement of this Part of this Act may be commenced within three years after the commencement of this Part of this Act, but not later, and
(ii) The provisions of Section 172 (which relates to the application of this Part of this Act to registered designs) of this Act shall not have force and effect until the commencement of this Part of this Act.
These amendments are rather declaratory. Certain doubt has been raised as to whether the Copyright Act of 1911 has not applied to the Free State in the same way as it did apply to the United Kingdom. It is made clear that it will apply to books published before the 6th December, 1921, and will apply to all books published since. It is fairly clear that is the application, but these amendments are merely declaratory, making the position quite clear. There might be uncertainty in law, as regards books published before the Treaty, if these two amendments were not accepted.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
Section 175. The section deleted.
Section 176, sub-section (1). After the word "a" in line 50 the words "British dominion or a" inserted.
Section 176, sub-section (1). The words "a part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends" deleted in lines 52-53 and the words "Saorstát Eireann" substituted therefor.
Section 176, sub-section (1). After the words "citizens of a" in line 56 the words "British dominion or a" inserted.
Section 176, sub-section (1). The words "British subjects" deleted in line 58 and the words "citizens of Saorstát Eireann" substituted therefor.
Section 176, sub-section (1). After the word "a" in line 59 the words ‘British dominion or a" inserted.
Section 176, sub-section (1). The words "in a part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act applies" deleted in lines 61-62 and the words "within Saorstát Eireann" substituted therefor.
Section 176, sub-section (1). The word "any" deleted in line 3 and the words "a British dominion or a" substituted therefor.
Section 176, sub-section (1). After the words "other than a" in line 3 the words "dominion or a" inserted.
Section 176, sub-section (1). After the words "that that" in line 7 the words "British dominion or" inserted.
Section 178, sub-section (3). The words "or a part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends" deleted in lines 31-33.
Section 178, sub-section (3). The words "or such part of the British dominions as aforesaid" deleted in line 35.
Section 178, sub-section (4). The words "or a British subject" deleted in lines 46-47.
Section 178, sub-section (4). The words "a part of the British dominions to which the benefit of this Part of this Act extends" deleted in lines 47-48 and the words "Saorstát Eireann" substituted therefor.
Section 178, sub-section (5). All after the words "resident in" in line 51 deleted down to the end of the sub-section, and the following words substituted therefor: "Saorstát Eireann if he is domiciled in Saorstát Eireann, and to be resident in any other state or country if he is domiciled in that state or country."
These amendments regulate the position with regard to British Dominions.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 179, sub-section (1). After the word ‘book' in line 56 the word ‘first' inserted."
Doubts have been raised on the phrasing of sub-section (1) Section 179. For instance, the British Museum in England or Trinity College here might be able to demand a double supply of books, one by virtue of this Bill and one by virtue of the 1911 Act. That point can be met by putting in the word "first" after the word "book."
It occurs to me that that is, possibly, open to ambiguity. Could it exclude different editions of the same book?
I do not think so. A new edition is counted as a new publication. I would not say that that is expressly defined here. The matter is defined in the Berne Convention. It has always been definitely recognised that a new edition counts as a new publication. At any rate, if the flaw is there, and I do not think it is, it has always been there. I know that complaint has been raised to that very point, that under the section publishers have imposed on them the obligation of not merely giving the first edition of a book but every subsequent edition.
Then the insertion of this word will not alter what has been the practice?
No.
I move:
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 179, sub-section (1). After the word ‘Dublin' in line 5 the following words inserted: ‘or of any of the respective authorities having control of the three constituent Colleges of the National University of Ireland.'"
This is consequential on the amendment made by the Dáil in the earlier part of sub-section (1). The Dáil inserted the names of colleges which have been in another sub-section, but, in doing so, forgot to put in a proviso allowing, say, the authorities of University College, Dublin, to make application to have arrangements made excepting them having to take publications which they do not want. Amendments were designed to prevent Trinity College having to accept catalogues, comic papers, and other publications which they had not room for. I propose to give the same proviso to other colleges.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 181, sub-section (1). All from and including the word ‘if' in line 30 deleted down to and including the word ‘and' in line 31."
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 182, sub-section (5). The following words inserted at the end of the sub-section: "Provided that ‘lecture' shall not for the purposes of this section include ‘sermon.'"
This amendment is to prevent a register having to be kept of sermons.
I wonder would it be possible to give a definition as to when a lecture is not a sermon?
When it is delivered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Second Schedule, B. Trade Marks (Page 74). ‘Section 123' substituted for ‘Section 122" at 1b, 1c, 2b, and 3b respectively."
This amendment is consequential to a section having changed its number.
