Variety (March 1959)

P2Sii£fr PltllittS 19 Wednesday, March HE, 1999 Guess Who Invented Copyright? Martin Luther! Research finds in the first stages of music history the phenomenon of the composer and publisher as the same person. Curiously enough early music sheets bear- mostly the name of the publisher only. Very seldom is obligatory phrase: Printed with consent of the composer, visible. Names like Ludwig' Senfl, Willaert, Isaak, Josquin and Conrad Celtes naturally mean nothing to us, but they were pioneers. Today all over the world successful com¬ posers own or operate or share in publishing, either openly or under disguise. Ludwig von Beethoven, in a contract dated May 19, 1795, promised to pay the Artaria Publishing Co. of Vienna, to print three trios for pianq, violin and bass viol. In¬ volved was 212 florins (an immense sum), Beethoven not only paid for the printing, biit also r J "eed to purchase 400 copies -at one florin each. Artaria was permitted to “export” the music sheets, but was obliged to wait two months after first issud before selling the Vienna market. ]_ ■ _ Printing __[ Strangely enough, the middle age laws of uniting pub¬ lishing and printing licenses into one, still prevail in sev¬ eral countries. In Austria, for example, a license to this effect is granted -to persons, who can show a four years apprenticeship and a two years master course in a print¬ ing shop. Only lately, was there a guild for publishers established. Elementary school suffices to obtain a permit from the provincial government. Deeming this not very flattering to the profession, the guild petitioned the government to alter these regulations. 1 _ First ‘Association,’ 1825 1 Music publidling slumped to reach its lowest point in the 18th century. Only an improvement in music-noiation technique induced the firm Breitkopf in Leipzig, Germany (still going strong), to start all over again. It was Immanuel Breitkopf, who in 1760 “started” the profession by paying to the composer a fixed sum for each sold. copy. Shamed, bis competitors began doing like¬ wise. In 1825 came the founding of the Music Publishers Assn., at Leipzig and for the first time, all members agreed to obey strict rulings. For the first time also “arrangements” were mentioned as a value, jump 130-odd years to the present day: Ar¬ rangers are now majesties! J_ Early 4 Angles’ _^_1 Music pioneers knew the value of publicity just as well as the celebrities of today. Conrad Celtes printed a cata¬ logue and annexed a newsheet and “Verschiedenes.” (German word ’“Verschiedenes” derives from “various”). The official news organs of the many governments— there were by far more “independent” countries in exist¬ ence than today—were the first to accept music publisher advertisements. They did a flourishing business. The law¬ makers of file German Union in 1837 had ruled, that any composition, thus advertised, was automatically under copyright. Advance catalogues (Praenumeranten Verzeichnis) had Continued from page 17 ^ iimS ^ the wellknown headlines: Coming soon—reserve a copy . There was mass production quite early, at least rela¬ tive to existing populations. Old regime aristocrats and later middle class million¬ aires “ordered’* music composed and considered it their property. Prince Esterhazy, for example, whose name is so closely connected with Joseph Haydn, did not even permit that a single copy be made. Aristocrats doted upon sponsorship of the arts. Tycoons invited business friends to a soiree with music by a new talent, to impress the guest. Mozart was much exploited. Research long afterwards disclosed'two duets he wrote “privately” for one Michael Haydn and Mozart’s “Requiem” actually bore the name of Count Walsegg as composer, that worthy supposing any¬ thing was for sale. | _ Friends At Cour t _[ Composers were smart (also) in those days. In order to secure protection and sell copies, they “dedicated” their works to Rings, Princes and their offspring. This was carried to the extreme. Hardly an edition, that did not name someone, who controlled the law machinery, and had lots of money, on the presentation copy. Ferdinand I, Roman-German Emporer (1556-64), was the first victim of this custom. He thereby became the first human being morally obliged to purchase sheet music. J _ First Copyright _ | Ferdinand I. granted to Johann Ott of Nuremberg in 1533 a publisher license, mentioning for the first time the duration of copyright The clause read that their works were protected for four years from the date of publication on. There is no information as to just why be decided on the figure four. Jumping to 1891, the “music box” comes to attention: “Innkeepers, whose guests have no good taste in their musical desires might save the expenses of hiring an orchestra by installing a music box. One should, therefore , accept any preventative measure to avoid damages to {he composer . The consent of the composer and author should be necessary for the use of then works on such mechanical instru¬ ments." The above lines were written by the author of the book “Copyright of Music,” Dr. Heinrich M. Schuster. This professor on the German University of Pragrfe as¬ serts, that all music, rendered by chimes, musical clocks, music boxes, barrel-organs and similar “barbaric” inven- \ tions is merely approximative and will never become a , real competition to printed music sheets. He mentions “Aristons” and “Herophons” where holes in disks sub¬ stitute the notes. These public performances were not protected by law. Many years had to pass until it was obligatory for the factories of mechanical music instru¬ ments to obtain the consent of the composer and publisher. j_ ‘Recognizabilty’ __j A significant ruling of the German Court of Justice (in 1888) read: “Since anybody, acquainted with the system of writing- music, is able to recognize the train of ideas by the com¬ poser, a permit must be obtained from him.” That sounds quite a bit ironical, this wording “able to recognize,” but after all, it wasn’t the era of arrange¬ ments and mechanization. Mechanical music, in this case, the music box, we know, is now 100% “recognizable,” to use, the judicial expression. Taste is a separate matter. Every author, composer and music publisher, yes, every¬ body with a fraction of a feeling for justice wishes those collecting agencies, so far outlawed by a mere coincidence from the music box revenues, an early and just “decision.” | _ Mettemich’s Vise Action _[ Much is traditionally owed Prince Klemens Wenzel Metternich. It was Metternich, who submitted to Aus¬ tria’s Emperor Franz I, on April 19, 1832, the memo¬ randum, asking for immediate recognition of the German copyright laws, adding the memorable lines: “In my humble opinion, the law should also prevent illegal reprints of music, copper plate engravings, lithographies and similar products.” Metternich explicitly sponsored punishment for mu¬ sical piracy. The law went into effect in 1840, patent office becoming the competent authority. Austria, itself had been rather slow in music protection. A law issued in 1775, put only “literature” under copy¬ right. However, blame is to be laid to a great extent to the composers themselves. They preferred to sell their works outright to a “sponsor.” Thus those who should have foreseen their own self-interest, were mostly not interested. |_ Angry Din ers_| Two French composers, Gounod and Parizek, had the revolutionary idea of demanding, what we call today, “little rights.” Gounod sued in 1890 a "Geneva, Switzer¬ land, restaurant owner for playing his inusic while he enjoyed a meal, Parizek did the same thing in Paris, where the Brasserie “Ambassadeur” catered guests by open air concerts. Both won their law' suits and the direct consequence was the foundation of a French Collecting Agency. The same sort of experience befell the American Victor Herbert, a founder there of ASCAP. Performance credit points, blanket licenses, separation of “grand” and “little” rights are for the main, accom¬ plishments at la\y of the present century. Some nations have been alert, others laggard. Of course the original notion of collecting monies from public establishments using popular music as part of its “come-on” hardly went beyond the modest hope of some added pocket money for -composers and lyricists, in part¬ nership with their publishers. Today “licensing” far ex¬ ceeds the revenues from direct sales of sheet music and disks. Royalties remain the nub of the basic ownership con¬ cept but collection agencies are the modern heart of popular music. The diet of “genius” today is the quar¬ terly melon. Martin Luther would no doubt be very surprised. Hate-Movies ‘Experts’ ; Continued from page 2 ; as happy news for Mr. Goldwyn and will not unduly disturb Messrs. Holden, Wayne, et aL with their $750,000 salary guarantees phis 20% of the picture’s profits. Hecht is nostalgic for the “early days of Hollywood” ana finds the “new Hollywood, whether corpse or de¬ butante, a bore—a dreamless place barren of grosses and lotus leaves.” A great reporter in his day, Hecht has unearthed “a group of diehards . making a last bid for the family trade with plots about the horrors ■ of incest, nymphomania and kin¬ dred dangers which beset the Re¬ public” — pictures which, unfortu¬ nately, have escaped my attention, not to mention those of the Code Authority. Welles must also have over¬ looked these delectable items be¬ cause his major gape seems to be “the community’s ardent yearnings toward respectability” not to men¬ tion “geod taste.” Like Hecht, however, he is dismayed by the “tepid temperature of the new Hcd-; lywood.” “Rising out of the gawdy ruins of screenland we be^ hold” or rather, he does, “a new, drab, curiously solemn brand of the old foolishness—with less to laugh at and even less to like.” He has what he regards as a “solemn: thought that maybe what is wrong with Hollywood”—give me a heavy thinker over the past 50 years who has not had solemn thoughts about what is wrong with Hollywood— that “the town is overrun with characters who are quite reason-, able facsimiles of today’s people.” Whait primarily offends the aesthetic sensibilities of Mr. Mac¬ Donald, on the other hand, is that “Culture” (he spells it disparaging¬ ly with a big C although culture with a small “c.” oozes out of bis every pore) “is proliferating In Hollywood.” But “the new Holly¬ wood,” he finds, to this extent dis¬ agreeing with his fellow morti¬ cians, “is not so diffe ent under¬ neath the plumage from the old bird.” “Options on ‘Ulysses’ don’t make Hollywood sophisticated” and “the psychological wisdom is <m fond, the same sturdy old model-T as once carried William S. Hart into action.” And whether Mr. MacDonald is trying to damn ns or to praise us one simple-minded reader has not the faintest idea. No Credit Where Dne None of these three, so-called observers, so eager to be clever, so disinterested in being helpful, has a word to say about Hollywood’s amazing capacity -for adjustment. Television, consent decrees, changes in public taste, inflation—all the troubles of J. B.—have descended upon the film capital and left it fundamentally unchanged. The glory that was L. B. Mayer and the grandeur that was Harry Cohn have departed and in their place a horde of independents, equally hungry for lucre and laurels, have taken over the studios, acquired the best tables in the restaurants, attained the top publicity with Louella and Hedda. The major companies are now" turning out one picture where for¬ merly they produced three and spending more money in the process than ever before. Holly¬ wood's heroes and heroines are shooting pictures in every comer, of the .world, but the racetracks, swimming pools and night clubs are as crowded as ever with film celebrities and pretty girls. Pic¬ tures are supposedly more mature than formerly but the writers hur¬ rying to their analysts are as frus¬ trated and guilt-laden, at least con¬ versationally, as ever. Good pic¬ tures—“The Bridge on the River Kwai,” “The Defiant Ones”—are doing well. Good pictures—“12 Angry Men,” “Hot Spell”—are do¬ ing badly. Everyone agrees that business is terrible and that “Around tbe World in 80 Days” and “10 Commandments” will break all previous boxoffice rec¬ ords. Complacency, incompetence, pettiness and nobility, bad taste and beauty are scattered all around only waiting for the man who cares to find them. Maybe Hollywood is worse than it was, maybe it is better. My guess, Messrs. Hecht, Welles and -MacDonald to the contrary, is that it is just about the same. 3-TO-2 FOR DST? Minneapolis Tribune So Reports Against Exhibs Minneapolis, March 17. The Minneapolis Sunday Tribune reported that the vote it took through published ballots for read¬ ers showed a preponderance ,of three to two (13,829 to 9,983) in in¬ var of continuance of daylight sav¬ ing time which hurt the boxoffice in Minnesota the past two summers and which exhibitors and others are fighting. A Minnesota poll taken by the same newspaper showed that 55% of the adults questioned in repre¬ sentative cross-section sampling “like” having DST during the sum¬ mer months and that by a more than two to one margin, they favor of letting the state’s voters decide the issue at a proposed April spe¬ cial election, it reported. The state legislature now in ses¬ sion will vote soon on what to do about the fast time. Jordan s New Ozoner Charlotte, N. C., March 17. Hal H. (Gus) Jordan, who has been closely identified wjth the motion picture industry in the Carolinas for years, has taken over operation of the Pineville Rd. Drive-In Theatre here. Jordan, who also operates the Center View Drive-In Theatre in Dunn, is associated with H. B. Meiselman in the Charlotte enter¬ prise. Jordan was a salesman for the Charlotte branch of Warner Bros. Pictures for a number of years and later became manager of the Allied Artists Co. Charlotte of¬ fice. He resigned this post to move to Dunn and operate the theatre there. Hammer: Five-a-Year (or Columbia _ Carreras and Hinds Set Pact—Now in Gotham To Firm Distribution of Other Product Hammer Film Productions, a British outfit which has specialized in classic .horror pictures, has signed a five-year agreement with Columbia to provide five pictures annually to the American company for worldwide distribution. The deal climaxes a steady rise in the international market for the Brit¬ ish company and marks the first time that a British production firm has come under the wing of an American company. The arrangement with Col is part of the deal which saw Col take over 49% ownership of Ham¬ mer’s Bray Studios outside of Lon¬ don. As a result of the tieup with Col, Hammer has closed its 21- year-old distribution organization. Exclusive Films, leaving the world¬ wide handling of Its pix to Cot and other U.S. distribs. The Col con¬ tract allows Hammer to make two outside pictures annually. The association with - Col and other U. S. companies, according to James Carreras, Hammer’s manag¬ ing director, provides the British company with the type of interna¬ tional distribution that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Only Ameri¬ can companies, with their wide¬ spread foreign offices, can obtain the penetration that is necessary to make the- right impact in the international market, Carreras stressed. “No British distributor can match the international releas¬ ing facilities of a major American company,” he pointed out. Carreras and Anthony Hinds, who shares executive production duties with Carreras son, Michael, are currently in New York to de¬ liver a backlog of pix made s for United Artists, Paramount, Univer¬ sal and Columbia and to discuss with Col officials the operation under the recently-concluded new deal. They’ll also confer 1 with Universal execs on two more pix scheduled for production—a new “Dracula” and “Phantom of the Opera,” story rights of which are owned by U. The rise of the Hammer organiz¬ ation in recent years has been one of the surprises of the industry. Concentrating mainly on horror and action pictures which caught the fancy of the international market. Hammer has developed into one of the foremost suppliers of successful modest budget en¬ tries. It’s estimated that eight of its most recent films grossed a to¬ tal of $18,000,000 worldwide. The films are made in England at an average cost of about $300,000. The most successful of their recent films were “Frankenstein,” “Dra¬ cula” and “Camp on Blood Island,” each of which is said to have grossed $3,500,000 in the interna¬ tional market. The olfcer five av¬ eraged about $1,500,000 each. Set for delivery to UA are “10 Seconds to Hell” and “Hound of the Baskervilles”; to Paramount, “The Man Who Could Cheat Death”;,to Universal, “The Mum¬ my,” and to Columbia, “Yesterday’s Enemy,” the latter being the first under the new deal with Col. Slated for future delivery to Col are “Stranglers of Bengal” and “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide.” The Hammer operation has gained the support of U. S. ex¬ hibitors who have been calling for foreign outfits to make pictures that would appeal to American audiences. The Hammer horror formula apparently has not only clicked in the U. S. but has also scored in countries throughout the world.