CONTINUING DISPUTES BETWEEN THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THESE CHANGES FURTHER THE ART FORM, AND THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT THE ORIGINAL IS THE WORK OF ART AND THAT CHANGES ARE ONLY TO ITS DETRIMENT.

US.

SO LONG AS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, THIS DISPUTE WILL CONFRONT WE ARE HERE TODAY ΤΟ 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 ΤΟ UCLA AND ΤΟ 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 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 TO

IN FILMS.

COPYRIGHT OWNERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, POINT TO THEIR

CREATION OF A FILM. THEY CONTEND THAT 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 то CONGRESS'S DECISION ΤΟ JOIN THE BERNE COPYRIGHT CONVENTION, WHICH REQUIRES A CERTAIN LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR ARTISTS' RIGHTS. THREE HEARINGS RESULTED

INTERNATIONAL

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.

WE

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 RIGHTS TO PREVENT CHANGES IN THEIR WORKS, AND TO REQUIRE THAT THEY BE IDENTIFIED AS THE CREATORS OF THOSE 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 ON THE CONTROVERSY, THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE REPORT, THE IMPACT OF THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION BOARD, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR THE 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

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 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 OUR ULTIMATE DECISION, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT THE CONGRESS MUST USE IN CONSIDERING ANY DISPUTE OF THIS NATURE. FIRST, WE MUST ASK THE PROPONENTS OF CHANGE ΤΟ BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE CHANGE IS NECESSARY, FAIR, AND PRACTICAL. SECOND, WE MUST ALWAYS RECOGNIZE AND BALANCE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF CREATORS, PRODUCERS OR 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 THAT THEY ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE. WE WILL FOLLOW THEIR PROGRESS WITH GREAT INTEREST, AND TAKE THEIR

RESULTS INTO ACCOUNT IN OUR OWN DELIBERATIONS.

AS A FILM FAN OF LONG-STANDING, I AM EAGER TO BEGIN TODAY'S HEARING AND TO ONCE AGAIN CONSIDER THE HOTLY DEBATED BUT ALWAYS FASCINATING ISSUE OF ARTISTS' RIGHTS.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have noted, all of us have grown up with movies and I also consider myself a very avid film fan. And while I cannot claim to understand all that goes into making a movie, I appreciate the skill and the talent and the hard work that is required to complete a film and to bring it to the public.

I am aware that there is a tremendous financial investment required. The return on these efforts has led, however, to the strongest entertainment industry in the world and I think that is something we can all be proud of.

As you pointed out, there have been so many hearings, particularly by this subcommittee, in which I have noted that there is an incredible amount of technological changes that affect our laws. The movie industry has not been immune to these technological changes. Now, while many have led to phenomenal special effects, better sound, film that does not disintegrate over time, other advances have spawned the controversy facing this subcommittee.

Now, I agree completely with the criteria articulated by you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to those criteria, however, let me add a few issues which I will be considering during the debate. In the past years, I have been involved in several debates involving the entertainment industry. Some of these have included video rental, videocassette recorders and satellite dishes.

Consistently, I have attempted to ensure that the public has the greatest access possible without harming other interested parties. Except in unique circumstances, I have not been in favor of legislation that has a retroactive impact. Now, thus, with respect to both sides in this issue, I think we should require that the proposed change be accompanied by substantial and convincing evidence that not only is a legislative change warranted, but it will benefit a particular interest that overrides other interests.

It is with pleasure I am here in Los Angeles again today and no matter what I learn today, it will not have an impact on my strong feeling toward this industry. And I am particularly glad to be here with my colleague and dear friend and someone whose counsel I take very dearly, and that is Howard Berman. And I am glad to be back in his area of the country, too.

OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE SYNAR
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON ARTISTS' RIGHTS
IN THE CONTEXT OF MOTION PICTURES

JANUARY 9, 1990

As the Chairman has noted, all of us have grown up with the movies and I, also, am an avid film fan. While I can not claim to understand all that goes into the making of a movie, I appreciate the skill, talent and hard work that is required to complete the film and to bring it to the public. I am aware that the financial investment required is enormous. The return on these efforts has led to the strongest entertainment industry in the world.

There have been so many hearings, particularly in this subcommittee, in which I have noted that there are incredible technological changes which affect our laws. The movie industry has not been immune to these technological changes. While many have led to phenomenal special effects, better sound, or film that does not disintegrate over time, other advances have spawned the controversy facing this subcommittee.

I agree completely with the criteria articulated by the Chairman. In addition to that criteria, however, let me add a few issues I will be considering during this debate.

In past years, I have been involved in several debates involving the entertainment industry. Some of these have included video rental, videocassette recorders, and satellite dishes. Consistently, I have attempted to ensure that the public has the greatest access possible without harming other interested parties. Except in unique circumstances, I have not been in favor of legislation that has a retroactive impact.

Thus, with respect to both sides of this issue, I require that any proposed change be accompanied by substantial and convincing evidence that not only is a legislative change warranted but that it will benefit a particular interest that overrides other interests.

It is a pleasure to be in Los Angeles. No matter what I learn and its impact on my legislative decision, I certainly intend to not let any of this interfere with my continued