ht in it, it is felt, as a practical matter, that he is
largely interested in the character of the reproduction it is proposed
to make. Hence the courtesy which is usually extended to him.

Owing also to the increased facilities of reproduction, the practice has
become very common of splitting up copyrights and granting licences in
what may be described as very minute forms. It would, of course, be
impossible for a publisher to pay an artist the sum at which he values
his entire copyright, simply that he might reproduce his picture in the
form of a black-and-white block in a magazine, and it has consequently
become quite common for the artist to grant a licence for any and every
particular form of reproduction as it may be required, so that he may
grant the right of reproduction in one particular form in one particular
publication, and even for a particular period of time, reserving to
himself thus the right to grant similar licences to other publishers.
This is apparently not to the injury of the artist; it is probably to
his advantage, and it certainly promotes business.

Photographs.

23. The great obstacle in the way of securing a really good Artistic
Bill has been the introduction into it of photography. It was by a sort
of accident that the photographer was given the same privileges as the
painter in the bill of 1862. The promoters of the bill thought that the
photographer would be protected by the Engraving Acts which covered
prints; but since the photographers feared that, as their prints were of
a different character from the prints from a plate, the Engraving Acts
might not protect them, it was at the last moment decided to put
photography into the Art Bill. The result of this was that the painter
lost his chance of copyright on all works executed on commission.
Legislators feared that if photographers held copyright in all their
works the public would have no protection from the annoyance of seeing
the photographs of their wives and daughters exhibited and sold in shop
windows by the side of "professional beauties" and other people, and
made articles of commerce. So in the case of commissioned works the
copyright was denied to both painters and photographers.

The royal commission which reported on the subject in 1878 proposed two
distinct terms of copyright for painting and photography. The term for
the painter was dependent on his life; that for the photographer was a
definitely fixed term of years f