works, the Conference recommended (resolution 10) “that existing works in which copyright actually subsists at the commencement of the new act (but no others) should enjoy, subject to existing rights, the same protection as future works, but the benefit of any extension of terms should belong to the author of the work, subject, in the case where he has assigned his existing rights, to a power on the part of the assignee at his option either to purchase the full benefit of the copyright during the extended term, or, without acquiring the full copyright, to continue to publish the work on payment of royalties, the payment in either case to be fixed by arbitration if necessary.”
The Conference was also of opinion (resolution 4a) that, under the new Imperial Act, copyright should subsist only in works of which the author was a British subject or bona fide resident in one of the parts of the British Empire to which it extended; and that copyright should cease if the work were first published elsewhere than in such parts of the Empire.
The sensible basis on which the new bill was framed, and the authority it represented, commended it, in spite of many controversial points, to the acceptance both of the public and of the various parties concerned. But nobody who had ever wrestled with all the difficulties of international copyright, as complicated by the law in the United States, would suppose that it was the last word on the subject. What the bill did was to bring British legislation into better shape, and to amend it on certain points which had worked unjustly. The great distinction between the requirements for British and for American copyright still remained, namely, the American manufacturing clause. Perhaps the most notable innovation was the clause enabling a licence to be granted for the publication of a copyright work where the owners of the copyright had not exercised it for the “reasonable requirements” of the public. Some such clause was clearly called for when the period of monopoly was being extended; but the interpretation to be put upon the occasions which would justify such interference might well be difficult. It may perhaps be suggested that this innovation pointed to a reconsideration of the true relations of “publishers” and “authors” (in the widest sense) in respect of copyright, which sooner or later might be approached from a different point of view. The new clause was intended for the protection of the public from the mishandling of an author’s work after his death, while greater protection was given him during his life. From a purely business point of view, the question might well be whether a publisher or other party not the author should have a copyright at all, and whether equity would not be satisfied if copyright vested solely in the author and his family, with liberty to any one to “publish” on fair terms, consideration being had to an original publisher’s reasonable claims and existing contracts. The advisability of any such advance on the principle now asserted must depend rather on experience of actual business and the working of the clause; but even under the procedure provided by the bill of 1910 it would equally be imperative for a publisher who owned a deceased author’s copyright to show that he had given or was giving the public valuable consideration for his monopoly, in order to uphold it against any one willing, on payment of a reasonable royalty, to serve the public better.
Authorities.—For special points see W. A. Copinger’s The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art, 4th ed., by J. M. Easton (1904); or T. E. Scrutton’s Law of Copyright (3rd ed., 1896). See also E. J. MacGillivray, A Treatise on the Law of Copyright (1902); Richard Winslow, M.A., LL.B., The Law of Artistic Copyright (London, 1889); A. Birrell, Copyright in Books (London, 1899); B. A. Cohen, Law of Copyright (London, 1896); L. Edmunds, Copyright in Designs (London, 1908); Knox and Hind, Copyright in Designs (London, 1899); W. Briggs, Law of International Copyright (1906); W. M. Colles and H. Hardy, Playright and Copyright in all Countries (1906).
COQUELIN, BENOÎT CONSTANT (1841–1909), French actor, known as Coquelin aîné, was born at Boulogne on the 23rd of January 1841. He was originally intended to follow his father’s
trade of baker (he was once called un boulanger manqué by a hostile critic), but his love of acting led him to the Conservatoire,
where he entered Regnier’s class in 1859. He won the first prize
for comedy within a year, and made his début on the 7th of
December 1860 at the Comédie Française as the comic valet,
Gros-René, in Molière’s Dépit amoureux, but his first great success
was as Figaro, in the following year. He was made sociétaire in
1864, and during the next twenty-two years he created at the
Français the leading parts in forty-four new plays, including
Théodore de Banville’s Gringoire (1867), Paul Ferrier’s Tabarin
(1871), Émile Augier’s Paul Forestier (1871), L’Étrangère (1876)
by the younger Dumas, Charles Lomon’s Jean Dacier (1877),
Edward Pailleron’s Le Monde où l’on s’ennuie (1881), Erckmann
and Chatrian’s Les Rantzau (1884). In consequence of a dispute
with the authorities over the question of his right to make
provincial tours in France he resigned in 1886. Three years later,
however, the breach was healed; and after a successful series of
tours in Europe and the United States he rejoined the Comédie
Française as pensionnaire in 1890. It was during this period that
he took the part of Labussière, in the production of Sardou’s’
Thermidor, which was interdicted by the government after three
performances. In 1892 he broke definitely with the Comédie
Française, and toured for some time through the capitals of
Europe with a company of his own. In 1895 he joined the
Renaissance theatre in Paris, and played there until he became
director of the Porte Saint Martin in 1897. Here he won successes
in Edmond Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac (1897), Émile Bergerat’s
Plus que reine (1899), Catulle Mendès’ Scarron (1905), and
Alfred Capus and Lucien Descaves’ L’Attentat (1906). In 1900 he
toured in America with Sarah Bernhardt, and on their return
continued with his old colleague to appear in L’Aiglon, at the
Théâtre Sarah Bernhardt. He was rehearsing for the creation
of the leading part in Rostand’s Chantecler, which he was to
produce, when he died suddenly in Paris, on the 27th of January
1909. Coquelin was an Officier de l’Instruction Publique and of
the Legion of Honour. He published L’Art et le comédien (1880),
Molière et le misanthrope (1881), essays on Eugène Manuel (1881)
and Sully-Prudhomme (1882), L’Arnolphe de Molière (1882),
Les Comédiens (1882), L’Art de dire le monologue (with his
brother, 1884), Tartuffe (1884), L’Art du comédien (1894).
His brother, Ernest Alexandre Honoré Coquelin (1848–1909), called Coquelin cadet, was born on the 16th of May 1848 at Boulogne, and entered the Conservatoire in 1864. He graduated with the first prize in comedy and made his début in 1867 at the Odéon. The next year he appeared with his brother at the Théâtre Français and became a sociétaire in 1879. He played a great many parts, in both the classic and the modern répertoire, and also had much success in reciting monologues of his own composition. He wrote Le Livre des convalescents (1880), Le Monologue moderne (1881), Fairiboles (1882), Le Rire (1887), Pirouettes (1888). He died on the 8th of February 1909.
Jean Coquelin (1865– ), son of Coquelin aîné, was also an actor, first at the Théâtre Français (début, 1890), later at the Renaissance, and then at the Porte Saint Martin, where he created the part of Raigoné in Cyrano de Bergerac.
COQUEREL, ATHANASE JOSUÉ (1820–1875), French
Protestant divine, son of A. L. C. Coquerel (q.v.), was born at Amsterdam on the 16th of June 1820. He studied theology at Geneva and at Strassburg, and at an early age succeeded his uncle, C. A. Coquerel, as editor of Le Lien, a post which he held till 1870. In 1852 he took part in establishing the Nouvelle Revue de théologie, the first periodical of scientific theology published in France, and in the same year helped to found the “Historical Society of French Protestantism.” Meanwhile he had gained a high reputation as a preacher, and especially
as the advocate of religious freedom; but his teaching became more and more offensive to the orthodox party, and on the appearance (1864) of his article on Renan’s Vie de Jésus in the
Nouvelle Revue de théologie he was forbidden by the Paris consistory
to continue his ministerial functions. He received an
address of sympathy from the consistory of Anduze, and a
provision was voted for him by the Union Protestante Libérale,
to enable him to continue his preaching. He received the cross
of the Legion of Honour in 1862. He died at Fismes (Marne),
on the 24th of July 1875. His chief works were Jean Calas et sa famille (1858); Des Beaux-Arts en Italie (Eng. trans. 1859); La Saint Barthélemy (1860); Précis de l’église réformée (1862);
