Mr. TEGTMEYER. If I may add one point that may be helpful, one thing you can do is to compare the fact that it must be ornamental as opposed to functional. Mr. DANIELSON. Yes; but it is also, as I read the Code provisions, I think it relates to prettiness or beauty; I have a problem with this Mr. TEGTMEYER. That's not the intent of the provision as we under stand it. Mr. DRINAN. I wonder if I might ask one question. If you would just give us an example. How many of these fundamental things you have described could or would get a copyright or patent? Mr. TEOTMEYER. That would be difficult to predict because you don't know whether or not they would meet the test of novelty for patent protection. Mr. DRINAN. In your testimony you suggest only two areas and hey are furniture and appliances. But, you give us a for instance on what type of things might come under title II? Mr. TEGTMEYER. Linoleum and wall coverings, which I believe are covered under the present copyright law as it is interpreted. as furniture designs, appliances and other household goods which would have a design, an original design. Mr. DRINAN. Do you fear any possibility of restraining trade or even monopoly? Mr. TEGTMEYER. We feel the protection is in the nature of a copy right provision and is only against copying. If you compare it to piracy of tapes and records, we find it very similar. We are talking about someone who has pirated or copied a design, not somebody who has independently originated it himself. Mr. DRINAN. I tend to agree with Mr. Rail-back that there is too much confusion, but your testimony has been helpful. I wish we had longer. I Mr. KAKENMEIER. On behalf of the committee, we appreciate your appearance again before us on a slightly different type of bill than you normally appear before us with and we wish to thank your col leagues. This concludes the testimony this morning on the subject of the revision of copyright laws. We shall next meet as a subcornuttee on May 14, Wednesday at 10 a.m. in room 2226 for further hearings. Reports on H.R. 2223 were received by the subcommittee from the Department of State, the Acting Librarian of Congress, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as follows:] Hon PETER W. RODINO, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Washington, D.C., May 7, 1975. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN · The Secretary has asked that I respond to your letter of February 10, 1975, requesting the Department of States views on HR. 22. for the general revision of the Copyright Law, Title 17 of the United States Code, and for other purpos76. The first copyright low of the United States was enacted by the First Congress in 1790, with conrrehensive revisions being enacted at intervals of about 40 years, in 1-31, 1870 and 1909 The present US copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code, is basically the same as the Act of 1909, During the ensmag years tremendous strides have been made in technology and techniques for communicating printed matter visual innges, and recorded sourds. These techi nical advances have generated new industries and methods for the reproduction L. and dissemination of copyrighted works and new business relationships have arve-ped between authors and users. Although these two groups have differed en various issues, both recognize the 1909 statute does not stimulate authors to etente or reward them for their efforts and fails to consider present or future ogal developments in communications. gh we take exception to one section of HR. 2223, the Department other. *orts the enactment of this important legislation Our comments on HR 2223 are directed to those sections which reinte to the conduct of our foreign teams and therefore are of interest to the Department. These sections are the 9. Se then 104 cor cerning subject matter of copyright and national Section 3/2 on the duration of protection, and Section 601 relative to is against importation of certain copyrighted materials from other pictur, luj. Subject Matter of Copyright: National Origin —(c). The impartment supports the aim of this section which is to deal with the Jem busty that action may be insituted in United States courts by a foreiga ever ment to divest its estizens or authors of rights to their works or lima ;abun sfion of their works within the Laited States. We do not have any evidence f. * at. v ton of this nature is 1 kely to occur. If it did, however, it would reje admble official interference with the freedom of expression, and we therefore believe that it should be guarded against. Tõe international copyragal et bedst in tie Uthiramal Copyright Convention is intended to ir ure te tectant for the rights of the it dis dol and et courage the development of iterature, the sujetices and the arts". The obiga lens contained in the Convertion abend fit become the vehicle to supf ress five con munication in the Und M'a'em of ideas and literature unacceptable to authorities of some signatories Work with a provi ion to be enacted, it would be necessary to avoid larg same mielit ladverter'iv interfere with leg imate governther'al acriston afneempit We understand that older I & Government agences are grafic g ge to meet the pirjes of motion 104 c) in a tex hallemi di Terent man. t. e fos reviewed these proposals and are unable to expt on caľ of a 13 夔 var i tự However, we sport the nua of appropriately drafted log-las • !! at won't dens «llest in irid Nates Cours of a for the now lass of en dem goed to d- jrive the authors of that country of the Pikals to piousă 藿 Weran in The 1.ited: Duration of Copyco+M; Works Created on or after January 1, 19~5. a 38 cenas te dar a'a te pyright (le term of protection a dis 1. 19 tot '!er. »* • 61. Manufacture, Importation and Public Distribution of Certain Toompacte defer se in any oil a ton or er nu al prramenting for sa gement of the exclusive fights of reproduction or distributi in of rojtes wher under certain circumstances, the defendant proves violation of the manufactur ing requirements. The Department notes with satisfaction that, on the whole, there has bee a liberalization of the manufacturing clause as it exists today. For example a violation of the manufacturing clause as regards a book would not affect the na! of the copyright proprietor to authorize a motion picture version or other 1 of the book. It would merely affect enforcement of copyright with respect ta publication as a book. Further, the number of copies manufactured abroad tha" may be imported has been increased from 1,500 to 2,000. Despite this liberalization, Section 601 would continue the protectionist features of the manufacturing clause. This kind of protection is fundamental! inconsistent with basic U.S. policy in international trade. For several decayes we have pursued a policy of reducing tariffs and other trade barriers in tæ interest of promoting an open international economic system. We believe t....! the broad trading interests of the U.S. and its people continue to be best served by a general reduction of trade barriers including non-tariff barriers. This is the policy we are carrying forward in the current multilateral trade negotiations being undertaken in Geneva under the authority of the recently enacted Trade Act. During this round of negotiations attention will be focused particularis on non-tariff barriers, and one of our major negotiating objectives will be to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers of other countries which restrict US trade. We believe that it is important to note this inconsistency in considering the continuation of the manufacturing clause. Furthermore, the exception for Canada introduced by this bill into the malufacturing clause would violate our obligations under the GATT and various bilateral treaties. The United Kingdom has protested and we expect that other foreign countries which are being discriminated against by this measure wi protest, thereby introducing another element of discord and potential retalia!, a into our relations with those countries. Specifically, the exception would violate our obligation under Article XIII of the GATT which requires non-discriminatory application of quantitative restrictions. Although the U.S. could seek a special waiver from the GATT Contracting Parties to permit this exception, this procedure would be particularly undesirable at this time in view of the opening of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations at Geneva. The exception would also violate commitments in various Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaties, which we have concluded with most of the other industrialized nations These treaties normally impose obligations on the U.S. before it introduces non-tariff barriers on important products of the other country, and forbids the prohibition of the other country's products unless the product of third countries are similarly prohibited. In conclusion, the Department of State believes that the updating of the US copyright law is most desirable and supports the enactment of HR. 2223 A modernization of the copyright law to take into account the important technologi cal advances in the copyright field is in the interest of all members of the cop right community. It is also important in bringing the United States in step in copyright with the other principal countries of the world. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. PETER W RODINO Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary. ROBERT J. MCCLOSKEY, Assistant Secretary for THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESA US House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. RODING? This refers to your request for ↑ « views of the Læbe my of Congress and the Copyright Offee on HR 2.23, a bill for the general revision of the Copyright Code, tite 17 USC., for the establishment of protection of ornamental designs of useful articles in the form of the Design Protection Act, and for other pipomen The current bill is the latest in a series of bills nerding in Congress since 185 to effect a general revision of the Copyright Code, Hi R. 2228, except for technical amen, in: ents, is the same as the bill that passed the Senate in the 93rd Congress, 81981 $3rd Congress, 2d Session (1974), by a vote of 70 to 1. The Kastenmeier HAHR 2223) is also substantially identical, except for Chapter 1, to the bill Jossed by the House of Representatives in 1967, H.R. 2512, 90th Congress, 1st The Register of Copyrights, Barbara Ringer, and I testified on May 7, 1975 be're the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration ef Justice and urged enactment of the revision bill in this Congress. We reiterate the strong support of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office for this b! As Ms Hinger remarked in her testimony before the Subcommittee "A Twentieth Century copyright statute is long overdue in the United States, and tie present need for a revised law that will anticipate the Twenty-First Century la se obviome as to be undeniable,” The Register of Copy rights has submitted to the House Subcommittee chaired by Mr. Kastenteter a series of brief, objective analyses of the key provisions of the boil. She is also preparing a supplemental report on the revision bili and plans to a? wit this to the Committee on the Judiciary in early fall. I shall therefore my comments to general support of the copyright revision bill, reference to the rent changes by the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Fradem ras and Cehorights, specific mention of a few recommended changes in title I, and general Aliport for title II. 1. GENERAL COMMENTS ON TITE I I current copyright revision effort began twenty years ago. The basic bill Las wet, under jegimat ve consideration for more than ten years. However, active eubleration of the bill has peaked at different times in each house, and the se of R↑resentatives has not considered the bill thoroughly since HR-2512 pad the zits in 1967. De exceedingly careful preparation of the study and drifing phases of the revision program is reflected in the strength of the basie which has remained intact since the House last considered it Þor eviriple, a.ng fitdamental provisions of the bill have stood the test of time, a ze ha'i bal system for copy right protection under the Federal expyright e, provisions governing the term of new works ard writisisting ongis righ tw, -na on the assignment of an author's right, copyright formantes 15 ande tum dejumit and registration ceptight. It fringsmenit provisiofis, and sekeeping provisions affecting the Copyright Office and the registration 1 eft, ert has been delayed because of a few issues concernit g the scope of the et vive rigʻita granted under the ball and limitations to those rights. For many Jeurs the key jasne was the limitations on the exclusive riglits affecting sec stidary treat, mat cum principally en? 'e televidon Other Instjes stich as Horary p' tocigster Uses of copyrighted works pablf - hroudeyfing and elor a. tuses of copyrig' ted works in general have waxed and wanedi @ that cable television 11tigation seems to have run its course 1o in fox e li ra legislative solution. The Williama d Wilkina v United States 487 F.4 of Caltas 1973 aff d by equally divided court-4201-8-176 (116759) 1954La nter library phot scopoving has ended incune.us vey. In both instances the fruta have urges legislative solutions for the ec na lex problems citse] ***Le fiem tre? nology on in antiq rited copyright law @ 1.1 vary of Congress and the Copyright of e are ren ly to provide w ker umojatarice the Committees or Members of Congress wish in presenting ! Atvel exudesat ins of the provisions of the bill or of nd 1 tons! propos - mig partientar mole form we do end -rwe w! ཙཱརཎཱི, ཚཱམ ཝཱ ཝ ཙོg ཙི ། i *;* of reasoned discutiree and delete on the insiges at å g »«! # 1*h_ate: Bi**u ar gar pony's. We get the's believe that 2 BENATE ACTION ON plus p mittter on Paterta Trodeniarka and Corvriglītu no @s -1. A to the Kety'e Jadary ( ke to bring to your attention the si stahilive chat gen in the Netste bil ly Tribunal - The Merate Kuboms, ttee has restored the pr vie n in amil and nut for periodic review of the ruyaity rate for jukela 1 lanes of Federal pre-emption.-The Subcommittee has accepted an amendment to seetion 301 specifically reserving state law protection for misappropriation of coțI• right subject matter provided the relief is not equivalent to any of the exclus.ve rights within the general scope of copyright. Prohibition against involuntary transfers.-The Subcommittee has replaced the provision prohibiting expropriation of copyrighted works in section 10440 with a new provision in section 201(e) prohibiting involuntary transfers. Ningle registration for several contributions to periodicals.-Two new subparagraphs have been added to section 408(c) authorizing a single registration for contributions to a periodical by the same individual author under certain conditions. Fee schedule.-A new schedule of fees has been added to section 708 Voluntary licenses for use of copyrighted works by the blind and physicaly handicapped.~A new section 710 has been added directing the Register of Ceporigh's to establish by regulation standardized procedures under which the cop%right owner grants voluntary licenses to the Library of Congress for the repr duction of certain nondramatic literary works for use by the blind and physica.f handicapped. Noncommercial broadcasts to handicapped audience.—A new clause (8) has been added to section 110 exempting the performance of a literary work on netcommercial radio and television stations to a "print or aural handicapped audience." Derivative work right for sound recordings.-Section 114 has been amended 19 include among the rights granted to the copyright owner of a sound recording the right to prepare derivative works. Criminal penalties.—Several amendments proposed by the Justice Department were adopted. The punishment for criminal infringement of a sound recording of motion picture copyright has been increased from one year to 3 years for the first offense, and from two years to seven years for subsequent offenses, section 506(a). A new subsection has been added to section 506 adding forfeiture ati destruction of copies as possible pensities for conviction of copyright infringe ment, within the discretion of the court. A new section 509 has been added pro viding for possible seizure and forfeiture by the United States Government of infringing copies or phonorecords, including articles or devices used to carry out the criminal infringement. Title II.--The Subcommittee adopted a series of changes recommended by the Department of Commerce with respect to sections 203-206, 263, 211 213, 227, and 229 of the Design Protection Act. 3. RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN TITI E I Several of the amendments adopted by the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Tradeta arks, and Conwrights were either recommended by the Library of Congres and the Copyright Office, or have been endorsed by us. We specifically urge adojë tion of the following amendments, Prohibition against involuntary transfers.—We recommend the language adonted by the Senate Sol comnättee in section 2014e) in lieu of the present section 104(2) of HR. 22.3. The new language is intended to establish on a statutory bass the principle that an involuntary transfer of the copyright infret will not be recognized under our inw. Of course, traditional legal netions such as bankruptcy proceedings and mortgage foreclosures are not within the scope of the recomanended langu ge since the author has, in one way or another, eensented to these legal processes by his actions. The provision is no longer directed against foreign governments since the same principle applies to the Crited States Government. Widle our courts have not addressed the precise issue of involuntary transfer, we believe the principle of the proposed section 201(e) would be followed by the courts in construing the present law. Frel preemption We endorse the change in section 301 adopted by the Sebate Subconamittee which is intended to clarify that misappropriation relief may be provided under st ite law as long as the protection conferred is not equivalent to the exclusive rights granted by the copyright law. Single registration for several contributions to periodicals —The basie principle of this prov ston was originally suggested by Irwin Kirp. Comsel for the Authors' Leagne, The Library of Congress and the Copyright Office recommended it to the serste Subcommittee and the provision also spears in HR 7119 (hy Mr. Kastenmeier), which would amend the existing title 17 U 8 C. apart from the |