H 4614

FILM DISCLOSURE AND PRESERVATION ACT OF 1988 (Mr. KASTENMEIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Film Disclosure and Preservation Act of 1983. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Admin. Istration of Justice, which I chair, has over the past several months given the issue of film integrity a great deal of detailed consideration. Beginning with the subcommittee's hearings and consultations on legislation to perinit the United States to implement the Berne International Copyright Convention, the issue of artists' rights in general has been prominent and controversial, H.R. 4262, which allows the United States to adhere to Berne, passed the House by a vote of 420-0 in the spring, but it passed without the artists' rights provision I had originally proposed. There was sufficient interest in the issue among the members of the subcommittee, however, that we agreed to hold separate hearings on the issue. In addition, at my request, and that of my colleague, CARLOS MOORHEAD, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the United States Copyright Office is currently conducting a detailed inquiry Into the specific issue of film integrity, and into the effects of new technol. ogles on this very important part of our national cultural heritage.

Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Admin. Istration of Justice held a hearing on a variety of proposals to protect our film heritage. While it is important that we not rush to judgment, It seems that a consensus is developing to require that If a film has been materially altered, that fact should be disclosed to the consuming public. That is the purpose of my bill which I believe will promote discussion of the details of this disclosure requirement, and facilitate fur. ther consensus.

In particular, my bill would require that for every public exhibition of a materially altered film, including one that has been colorized, and for all promotional and rental activity relating to that film, there shall be a clear and conspicuous disclosure: First, that the film has been materially altered from the form in which the public first saw it; second. of the nature of the alteration; and third, of the fact of any objection by an aggrieved director, screenwriter, editor, or cinematog. rapher, or by their designated representatives.

The purpose of this disclosure requirement is twofold. First, it permits viewers of filins to know what they are seeing. While it may be current prac tice to advertise a film as the "color ized version," or to advise that a film has been edited for television or air line viewing, my bill would require such disclosure in all cases of material

films'

The term "material alteration" has been greatly debated, and is extremely difficult to define. Because debate on the issue of film integrity has focused to a large extent on colorization, that practice must be included in the definition of "material alteration." I wel. come suggestions on whether the bill should specifically include other prac tices, or whether there should be exemptions to the term, for example, for business practices that are currently considered customary and reasonable. Editing for television might fall within such an exemption.

The bill does not set forth specific examples of disclosure that would sat Isfy its requirements. Instead, it secks the cooperation of the various partics who have a stake in the disclosure, and in the creating and exhibiting of the film. in developing and agreeing upon appropriate disclosure standards. It is these partics, rather than the US. Congress, who know the intrica cics of the art-and the business-of making and distributing a film, and they are the ones who know best what kind of disclosure makes sense. The bill limits those parties to representa tives of the copyright owners, and of the guilds representing directors, screenwriters, cinematographers, and editors. I welcome comments about whether other parties should be included.

The bill permits the courts to consider the recommendations of these par. ties in determining whether the disclosure requirements have been violated.

The parties aggrieved by a failure to provide appropriate disclosure may sue, and may recover appropriate dam. ages and costs, or obtain injunctive relief.

Some of the various proposals on film integrity have amended the copy. right law. Some have amended the trademark law. My subcommittee has jurisdiction over both of these bodies of law, and has unique expertise in these areas. My preliminary determination is that it is wiser to amend seetion 43 of the Trademark Law (The Lanham Act), which prohibits false

June 22, 1988

designations of origin and false de scriptions.

Because it would be unfair to subject the parties to multiple disclosure requirements, the bill preempts the States from taking similar actions.

In addition to the disclosure requirements, the bill directs the National Film Preservation Commission to determine methods to encourage the restoration and preservation of films. Once again, it is important to encour age the concerned private parties themselves to restore and preserve films, rather than to rely on the U.S. ment's unique resources may be critiGovernment. However, the Govern cal to this effort and governmental participation is in no way prohibited. Commission should explore, and I am There may be other issues that the open to hearing about them.

The Commission's membership will be balanced. It will represent more than particular special interests, since it is composed of a wide variety of parties, representing all facets involved in the creation of films, and in distribut ing. broadcasting, and otherwise exploiting them. Consumers, archivists, academics, and appropriate governmental employees will also be represented. The chairpeople of the National Endowments of the Arts and of the Humanitics will be members, as will be Librarian of Congress.

My bill permits the Congress to conLinue its consideration of the effect of new technology on film integrity. It may be an intermediate step, or it may be the last step. I believe that it would not be appropriate to do more until the Copyright Office has reported to us on the results of its study, and until my subcommittee can hold further hearings.

The issue of the integrity of our film heritage is important, and it is controversial. The Congress has been presented with many-often contradictory-proposals. We must be careful not to upset the careful balance we crafted in the 1976 Copyright Act. We must act in accordance with the system of trademark laws that has developed over the years. Above all, we must be guided by appropriate constitutional principles. I believe that my bill serves these essential interests well.

PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF THE COMMIT TEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS TO SIT TOMORROW DURING 5-MINUTE RULE

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow the Subcommittee on Human Re sources and Intergovernmental Rela tons of the Committee on Government Operations be permitted to meet during the 5 minute rule.

Mr. Speaker, I have cleared this with the minority member.