Fraker, William, A., cinematographer, on behalf of the American Society of Kastenmeier, Hon. Robert W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice: Opening statement. Mayer, Roger L., president and chief operating officer, Turner Entertainment Co., Culver City, CA: Prepared statement with attachments.... Nolan, Peter F., vice president-counsel, the Walt Disney Co., on behalf of the Prepared statement of J. Nicholas Counter III, president, Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks, October 24, 1989 Robinson, Phil Alden, screenwriter, on behalf of the Writers Guild of America: Prepared statement..... Sherman, Charles E., senior vice president for television, National Association of Broadcasters, on behalf of the NAB and the Association of Independent Television Stations [INTV]: Prepared statement.... Stanley, Frank W., president emeritus, International Photographers Guild: Synar, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma: Page 126 15 141 9 Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office: Report, "Technological Alter- ations to Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works: Implications for Creators, Copyright Owners, and Consumers" (March 1989). Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce: Report, "The Trademark Act of 1946 and Technologies for Alteration of Motion Pictures" Baumgarten, Jon, Esq., Robert Gorman, Esq., and Christopher A. Meyer, Esq., Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, Washington, DC, "Preserving the Genius of the System: A Critical Examination of the Introduction of Moral Rights Into United States Law" (September 11, 1989).. Rosenzweig, Barney, executive vice president and chairman, Television Divi- sion, Weintraub Entertainment Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA: Letter to MORAL RIGHTS AND THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1990 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in the Moot Courtroom, UCLA School of Law, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present. Representatives Robert W. Kastenmeier, Howard L. Berman, and Mike Synar. Also present: Virginia E. Sloan, counsel; Joseph V. Wolfe, minority counsel; and Bari Schwartz, legislative director to Congressman Berman. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KASTENMEIER Mr. KASTENMEIER. The meeting will come to order. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. SYNAR. I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee permit the meeting to be covered in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast and/or still photography pursuant to rule 5 of the committee rules. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, the gentleman's motion will be agreed to. My colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Congressman Mike Synar, and the gentleman from southern California, from this very area, Congressman Howard Berman, and I are delighted to be here and to greet our constituents as well as others who are attending this hearing this morning. Through movie making we have been entertained and educated by the magic of the big screen. We have watched with fascination as films have traveled the road from black and whites to color, from silent to talkies, to new technologies that permit basic changes in the original film to be made that ultimately have the potential to make the original film virtually unrecognizable. By now some of these technologies-colorization, lexiconning, letterboxing, panning and scanning-are familiar to those of us who have seen movies on airplanes, on television or videocassette. The pace of a movie might need to be speeded up to compensate for (1) commercials or for a limited viewing period. Distributors might decide that more people will watch a film in color, even though it was originally created in black and white. Since movie and television screens are different dimensions, the dimensions or composition of the picture might need to be changed. Technology is not standing still. And while these are the technologies of today, tomorrow will bring changes still more amazing and, at least to some, more problematic. This period of amazing technological progress has generated continuing disagreement between those who believe that these changes further the art form and those who argue that the original is a work of art and that changes are only to its detriment. So long as technology advances, this dispute will confront us, and we are here today to continue this subcommittee's consideration of technological change and its impact on this country's best known and best loved art form. We are pleased to do so in Los Angeles, the heart of the film industry, and are grateful to UCLA, and to the law school in particular for providing us with the facilities to hold this hearing, and for their assistance to the subcommittee. Congress's constitutional mandate is to promote creativity. At its essence, the dispute before us today is about whether technological advances promote the creation of films or whether they discourage it. It pits, in some cases, artists such as film directors and screenwriters against copyright holders. These artists argue that no matter who holds the copyright, they should have the right to object or even prevent unauthorized changes in films. Copyright owners, on the other hand, point to their significant role, both artistic and financial, in the creation of a film. They contend that the current law appropriately gives them the final say on whether a film should be altered. We have held five hearings on this issue in the past. The first two led to the Congress's decision to join the Berne International Copyright Convention, which declares a certain level of protection for artists' rights. Three hearings resulted from our decision that joining Berne did not require any changes in our current laws protecting artists' rights, but that the overall issue merited further discussion and deliberation. You have heard pleas from many artists, including painters, sculptors, film directors, and screenwriters, that our laws are deficient and that they should have additional rights to object to and prevent changes in their works. In fact, along with my colleague, Howard Berman, I have introduced a bill to provide visual artists with the right to prevent changes in their works and to require that they be identified as the creators of those works. Visual arts are specifically defined to exclude film works. There are critical factual differences between visual artists and film artists. Visual artists generally create only one or a limited number of works. They are generally not workers for hire. Film artists, on the other hand, are part of a collaborative effort to create multiple copies of a work and they generally are workers for hire. These factual differences have important legal consequences. Our focus today will include the progress of continuing private negotiations, the Copyright Office report on this issue, the impact of the creation of the National Film Preservation Board, and the potential for creation of new technologies. In our past hearings in Washington, we have heard from a fairly limited number of witnesses. We are, therefore, fortunate to be able to hold a hearing in Los Angeles where we will be able to hear from several other important groups who have an interest in the creation, distribution and exhibition of films. We should not, however, make legal decisions in a factual void. Therefore, through a series of visits over the next few days, the subcommittee will see first-hand how some of these new technologies are applied, how films are made and how they are prepared for distribution in theaters, on television, on videotape, and the like. No matter what the ultimate decision, I believe there are certain criteria that Congress must use in considering any dispute of this nature. First, we must ask the proponents of change to bear the burden of proving that the change is necessary, fair and practical. And second, we must recognize and balance the legitimate rights of creators, producers, copyright holders and the public interest. Third, a private solution negotiated by interested parties is always preferable to congressional intervention. We are aware that some negotiations are taking place now and are likely to continue. We will follow their progress with great interest and take their results into account in our own deliberations. So, as a longstanding film fan, I am anxious to begin today's hearing and once again consider the hotly debated but always fascinating issue of artists' rights. [The opening statement of Mr. Kastenmeier follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ARTISTS' RIGHTS JANUARY 9, 1990 THROUGH MOVIEMAKING, WE HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED, WE HAVE BEEN EDUCATED, AND WE HAVE BEEN CAPTIVATED BY THE MAGIC OF THE BIG SCREEN. WE HAVE WATCHED WITH FASCINATION AS FILMS HAVE TRAVELLED THE ROAD FROM SILENT BLACK-AND-WHITES TO "TALKIES" TO COLOR, TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT PERMIT BASIC CHANGES IN THE ORIGINAL FILM TO BE MADE, AND THAT ULTIMATELY MAY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL FILM VIRTUALLY UNRECOGNIZABLE. BY NOW SOME OF THESE LEXICONNING, ARE LETTER BOXING, PANNING AND SCANNING FAMILIAR TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE SEEN MOVIES ON AIRPLANES OR ON TELEVISION OR ON A VIDEOCASSETTE. THE PACE OF A MOVIE MIGHT NEED TO BE SPEEDED UP TO COMPENSATE FOR COMMERCIALS, OR FOR A LIMITED VIEWING PERIOD. THE DISTRIBUTORS MIGHT DECIDE THAT MORE PEOPLE WILL WATCH A FILM IN COLOR, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED IN BLACK AND WHITE. SINCE MOVIE AND TELEVISION SCREENS HAVE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS, THE DIMENSIONS OR THE COMPOSITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT OF TODAY, PICTURE MIGHT NEED TO BE CHANGED. STANDING STILL. WHILE THESE ARE THE TECHNOLOGIES |