rights are legitimately concerned about pre-existing motion pictures, how would such legislation affect those movies? If they are not concerned about pre-existing motion pictures, on what basis do they claim special treatment for future motion pictures?

Another concern:

the "takings clause" of the U.S.

will the

Constitution prevents the government from taking away property without just compensation. Would retroactive legislation take away a copyright owner's rights in his movie? If Congress were to pass a moral rights law preventing certain adaptations, government compensate the copyright owner who has already distributed copies of his movie and made contracts for it to be shown on cable and broadcast television?

The Copyright office further suggests that such rights should be "granted to authors of pre-existing works and to other creative participants in the motion picture (e.g., cinematographers, art directors, editors, and perhaps, actors and actresses)."

Doesn't a composer

creative

isn't it the

What is the rationale for stopping there? of a motion picture soundtrack make an important contribution to the final work? (After all, what's the first thing you think of when I say "Chariots of Fire" distinctive theme song?) Isn't the contribution of a choreographer central to the success or failure of a musical or dance film such as "Fame" or "Flashdance"?

And the animators of a cartoon

-

mightn't they do as much as the director or editor or writer to give films their "character"?

Even if only selective contributors were accorded "moral rights," what would happen when the "moral rights" of one contributor collided with those of another? What if a director says "go ahead and edit that scene," but the screenwriter believes the scene should remain the way it is? Who is to sort out such claims? And what would the consequences be for the industry?

And what if there are multiple contributors to a work in various categories? Who decides who was the "principal director" or the "principal screenwriter" of a film? What happens if the "principal director" of a motion picture agrees with a film-tovideo adaptation, but the "principal screenwriter" objects? If one screenwriter wrote 85 percent of the script, but the contribution of a second screenwriter who wrote only 15 percent is what

really made the film "work"?

-

What would happen if a contributor got into a disagreement with the copyright owner over a matter totally unrelated to the film itself? He might object to any adaptation whatsoever. Would it be fair for one contributor to hold the interests of other

the

In short, Mr. Chairman, even the best efforts of the Copyright office indicate that legislation in this area would be a morass. Better to focus on how the collective bargaining process best, established forum for legitimate artistic complaints resolve these disputes.

-- can

The Copyright office did reach one conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree: "[T]he proponents of change in the existing law should bear the burden of showing that a 'meritorious public purpose is served by the proposed Congressional action.'" That should be a sine qua non of Congressional deliberations on these issues.

Our Concerns with the National Film Preservation Act

A second example of the complexities and confusion engendered by "moral rights"-type legislation is the National Film Preservation Act, and the efforts of the Librarian of Congress to implement certain requirements of that Act.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the members of the Motion Picture Association of America opposed the National Film Preservation Act.

tion.

Our companies are unparalleled supporters of film preservaMPAA and various member companies have undertaken, financially supported, and otherwise assisted programs that advance the

goals of film preservation. And we are fully committed to the film preservation mission set forth in the Act. MPAA members are cooperating with the Librarian in his efforts to acquire gift copies of films selected for the National Film Registry. In addition, MPAA President and National Film Preservation Board member Jack Valenti rallied the Board to work toward increased federal funding for the department that repairs and preserves films archived at the Library of Congress.

However, the legislative requirements for the labeling of certain versions of commercially-released motion pictures troubled us greatly, for several reasons:

--First, the idea of the government requiring some films to carry a "warning label" is chilling. There is nothing "neutral" about the label; it suggests that a particular version of a particular film is no good, or not as good as it could be. of course, such judgments are made every day... but by individual consumers, not by the government. That's the way it should be.

We know that the members of this committee are always particularly sensitive to precious First Amendment concerns. Therefore, we know you would have especially grave concerns over government-mandated labelling requirements.

--Second, we reject the implication that copyright owners will not protect their own films. Among the 25 films initially selected

for the Film Registry is the Disney classic, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It should go without saying that, with or without this legislation, Disney has expended and will continue to expend vast resources to preserve and protect Snow White and the other films in our library. We love these works, we respect the effort that went into making them, and, as a practical matter, we have a great financial incentive to make sure that all our films just those chosen for the Registry sustain their value.

-

not

--Third, as I have previously noted, we have long been concerned that any legislation smacking of "moral rights" could tend to curtail public access to and enjoyment of our films.

All of these concerns have been borne out by the "proposed guidelines" recently released for public comment by the Librarian of Congress. These "guidelines" purport to help those who distribute or exhibit motion pictures which are part of the Film Registry to decide whether and when to apply certain statutorilymandated labels on certain versions.

Clearly,

While, in our view, the National Film Preservation Act was not a good bill, it was nevertheless a fairly narrow measure. Congress did not want to limit or belittle the "customary practices and standards" used to distribute films to the widest possible audience. The language of the statute and the legislative history make this clear.