HF The History of Photography 600pág

178 The early years of photography
of albumen, the result having the appearance of either positive or negative
according to the light in which it was viewed. Albumen-on-glass photographs
were invented by Niepce de Saint-Victor, who published his method freely
in 1848. The changing negative/positive effect of a picture on glass (covered
with a different sensitive coating) had been described by Herschel in February
1840.
(b) Exposing positive prints to the vapours of sulphuretted hydrogen 'to give an
agreeable tint' -but this substance for darkening photographs had been
described by Robert Hunt in his treatise of 1841.
At the British Association meeting at York in 1844 Robert Hunt recommended
the use of protosulphate of iron (ferrous sulphate) as developer in his Energiatype
and Fluorotype processes. Talbot was invited to comment on it. The matter was so
important, he said, that he required some days to consider it. Three or four days
later he advanced the pretentious argument that since the effects produced by the iron
salt and the vegetable acid (gallic acid) were the same, he had as patentee the right to
consider them identical. He included protosulphate of iron in his patent of 1851 as
developer in 'his' albumen process.
In his American patent of 1847 Talbot claimed inter alia 'the employment of gallic
acid in conjunction with iodine and the salts of silver, to render paper extremely
sensitive to light, the gallic acid not having been used in photography previously to my
discovery' (authors' italics).38 This statement was untrue (see page 91).
Talbot also patented 'photographic publication, or the multiplication of positive
photographs' Qune 1843)-a point which covered photographically illustrated books
as well as the production of positive copies of a picture or print for sale. Thus Talbot
held the monopoly for his projected books and the printing establishment at Reading
: no photographically illustrated books were published other than those done
under Talbot's auspices until after the partial relaxation of his patent rights in July
1852.
Understandably, everyone interested in photography was indignant at Talbot's
patenting activities. 'We must confess that we think Mr Talbot is over-doing it by
his numerous patents upon what is at best an amusing rather than a valuable art',
wrote the editor of the Magazine of Science in 1843. 'We really do not see much
novelty, and some things we very much question if they will sustain a patent.'
Robert J. Bingham complained that 'scientific matters freely given to the world
become the general property of the public, and no system of patent laws should
sanction the appropriation of them by private individuals'.
The sharpest attack was perhaps that made by the Imperial Journal of Art:
While Mr. Talbot has confessedly the merit of inventing many ingenious processes,
it must be admitted that he has exhibited a grasping spirit of monopoly
which seems to show that he is animated by other motives than those of a disinterested
regard for the promotion of science and the arts. On the part of a person
in limited circumstances, no reasonable objection could be urged to such a mode
of proceeding, legitimately carried out with the view of improving his condition
by the fruits of his industry and ingenuity; but it is a totally different case when a
gentleman, already possessed of an independent fortune and claiming the title of
philosopher, not only seeks pecuniary advantage by one patent after another for
his own admitted discoveries, but even evinces a disposition to appropriate to his
own exclusive advantage the discoveries of other enquirers who have given them
freely to the world. This has been too much the case with Mr Talbot, who has