Illustration: Benecke and Co. Calico print textile design, 1849.
English, as opposed to British copyright laws of the nineteenth century, Ireland and Scotland were treated separately, were deeply flawed for a number of reasons, particularly those concerning textile design. One of the major flaws was the fact that textile design copyright was only available for a three month period, the other major flaw was the fact that copyright during this period was only ever national and never international in its status.
It was common practice for various American textile companies for example, to employ agents in England who would take advantage in the lack of any international consensus on copyright infringement in order to export new textile design work which could be sent across the Atlantic and then rapidly reproduced in the US. The international industrialisation of the textile industry meant that any textile design smuggled out of England could soon be mass-manufactured on any scale with perfect impunity.
Illustration: Inglis and Wakefield. Moultan printed muslin textile design, 1849.
This international trade in creativity with the corresponding loss in revenue for both government and individual company was seen as an outrage by many critics of England's poor copyright laws. However, the fact that English companies had long been guilty of the same 'crime' in France for example was often either deliberately played down or else conveniently ignored. By working for the extension of the copyright laws to incorporate textile design, critics and campaigners in no way limited its own capacity for piracy. With no international copyright framework in place, English companies were still free to copy designs from Europe as they had done for centuries. It is interesting that at no point was the blatant disregard for Indian copyright of original textile design work, which English companies had ruthlessly exploited since the seventeenth century, ever discussed and if it was it was so obliquely mentioned as to be seen as irrelevant to the argument.
In the respect of national rather than international copyright laws, it may seem somewhat puzzling as to the real point of any campaign to change the law which was bound to be ineffectual if not a practical hindrance to much of the English textile industry during this period.
Illustration: Macalpin and Nephew. 'Rosebud' printed chintz textile design, 1849.
When in 1842, the British government extended the law in England pertaining to the copyright of textile designs from three to nine months; it was seen by many critics as a triumph in the struggle towards the improvement in design quality. It was seen that perhaps it would mark the end of low-standard and direct copies being made of original design work. The fact that the original three month copyright law that had been introduced in 1794 had taken a generation to update might well have seemed to have been a call for general jubilation, although as with many British laws it tended to be underfunded, muddled and therefore ineffective. Many victims of copyright infringement found the process of going through the law courts overly long and needlessly expensive and because there was no real international perspective to the law, it remained largely pointless when dealing with the real culprits of textile design piracy, those companies that had their premises outside of Britain.
The English copyright laws regarding the larger world of art and design, which also included book publications, had been relatively widespread in one form or another and had been in existence for over half a century by the time of the extension of the textile design copyright law of 1842. That the same courtesy had not been extended to textile pattern work says much about the status or at least the perceived status of this particular industry amongst those involved in law-making, most if not all of whom were from wealthy backgrounds and would certainly not have seen themselves as the typical customers from mass produced textile design work.
Illustration: Simpson and Young. Printed cotton textile design, 1849.
English textile design work was often seen at the time as being split into two differing spheres and therefore two markets. The London based textile industry was an old one that had seen its particular heyday in the eighteenth century. It was one that was often perceived as high status and depended largely on the old tradition of block printing. The new industry which was largely based around Manchester, was mostly industrially based, very much part of the contemporary nineteenth century world and used rollers to produce large scale textile work.
While block printed work in the south was seen as status driven and uniquely creative, the roller printed work of the north was often seen as being transient and of no real merit creatively. London textile companies often portrayed themselves as victims of Lancashire piracy, and while there was a certain truth in that fact it was only partially true. In some respects, the copyright extension law from three to nine months was part of a concerted effort to save the London based block printing industry from what was considered the brash and ruthless manufacturing industry of the North.
Illustration: Swainson and Dennys. 'Rose and Forget-me-not' chintz textile design, 1849.
There were certainly other concerns raised by both northern and southern critics and campaigners for both sides of the copyright debate. Interestingly, those against copyright in any form raised some relevant points that perhaps still dog us today. For example, there were genuine attempts to discuss dispassionately the concepts of initial creativity and then that of inspirational creativity. When can a design truly be seen as uniquely creative and when can a design be seen as inspirationally creative, and does one designer who was inspired by another designers work owe that initial designer any acknowledgement or even coverage by copyright infringement protection? Also, many saw the copying of design work as a form of free publicity for both designer and company, whereby the most successful company would be copied enthusiastically and therefore would be seen by many as the leader in their field purely because of the level of outright copying or plagiarism.
The arguments and discussions of the early 1840s concerning creativity, ownership, the level of fairness and what we would designate today as perhaps 'fair usage' are probably as relevant today as they were one hundred and seventy years ago. That the copyright laws of the nineteenth century often could not keep pace with the contemporary technology certainly brings this period closer to our own. That there is still copyright infringement today in the textile world, some blatant some subtle, some done by small individuals and others by large scale international companies, shows that this troubled area has always been one that has been associated with textile design and probably always will.
The five textile designs illustrating this article are not involved in any argument in copyright infringement and are placed purely for the fact that they are typical designs from the period.
Further reading links:
