from a collection of works by a single poet, short story writer, composer, photogra; her, painter, or lithographer, or from an anthology of works by many artists. In either case, an entire creative work would seem to be just as subject as an entire articie from a scientific journal to photocopying and mailing to members of the general public. Instead of coming to the library personally to borrow and read the work, the library will give to the “borrower" a permanent personal copy. However, the composer, poet and short story writer are directly economically dependent on royalty income, based on the sale of their works to those who desire permanent personal copies. The photographer, the painter, and the lithographer Jealously reserve reproduction rights to their works and expect to be paid when they authorize reproduction by or for those who desire permanent personal If institutions will provide copies of specific works by creative artists upon request, why should anybody buy the entire magazine or paperback or hardcover book containing that specific work? Necessarily, publishers will sell fewer magatites and books, artists will receive less royalty income, and their works will be widey reproduced and distributed without authorization from them or compensation to them. Again, for emphasis, we are not saying that the Williams and Wilkins case created such a broad license. However, that decision was the last authoritative word on the subject of photocopying and has, we are fearful, created an atmosphere of photocopying promiscuousness. In summary, we beileve that an overly broad photocopying provision in the eepyright law would be inconsistent with the philosophy of the Constitutional provision authorizing Congress to secure for authors copyright protection in order to “promote the progress of science and useful arts." We therefore recommend that adequate controls be placed on widespread photocopying of copyrighted works so that we retain the incentive for the creative artists to produce the art that is so necessary to the cultural environment of our country, STATEMENT OF DR. Ray WoodrifF, INPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Enclosed is a letter I received from the Mosby Publishing Company concerning HR 23 and 8 22, in particular sections 107 and 10%, "Fair Use," and " School and Labrary Photocopying" As an author, professor, analytical chemist and user of duplicated copyright materials, I was very much alarmed at the effort and mbey that is being spent to get an unworkable copyright law passed. Duplicating machines will only become more numerous and avaliable in the future and trying to preve it copying of material will serve more to create disrespect for law taan it w-1 to force people to buy books from publishers. If the publishers cannot prod are books cheaper than they can be duplicated on these machines, book, produrers should improve their efficiency, not force people to buy their books by working to get a new copyright law passed It in lern times, not to be able to duplicate a paragraph or a figure for class the Wilgout going through a hopelessly complicated release or remuneration ay stem would stifle education and research in this country. in closing, I very strongly urge you to amend or discard sections 107 and 10% of HR 2225 and 8:22. Dr Ray Alan WOODRIFT, Department of Chemistry. Mimiana state (olicge, Bozeman, Mon, Tur CV MORY CO, Dran Da WooDairy: Authors and editors are creative people; the manner in Chuch you um knowledge and information to inform others is truly a creative ¡rresa. It is our opinion that these creative talents deserve to be protected The Copyright Law of 1:00 has provided this protection and as a conseg at jeg Put contributions when published have essentiaily not been und eisewhere w? ut permission De advent of copying machines has made it jumailile to reproduce virtually everything in print Because of this and certain outmoded provisions of te Copyright law of 1900, the United States House of Representatives at 1 Metate Jubinary Committees are currently studying Copyright Revision Bills H H 21 aid N. 22. Action of these identical bills will be taken shortly. Of particular concern to us, and hopefully to you, are Sections 107 and 1 "Fair Use,” and “School and Library Photocopying,” It is our opinion that these sections of the proposed new law, as written, pro tect your creative efforts and our investment. These sections will restrict the activities of those who feel that anything in print may be copied and distributed as the copier sees fit-without the permission of, or compensation to, author sid publisher alike. We are strongly convinced that your creativity and our invest ment must be protected. The new law will provide this protection and yet ai ›w wide information dissemination. Well organized efforts are presently attempting to amend Sections 107 and jok Such amendments will not provide safeguards against photocopying excesses 74 outlined above. I am writing to ask your assistance in protecting what I believe to be the correct position, one which truly serves everyone's best interests. Attached is a list of House and Senate Judiciary Committee members. 1 12 asking you to contact these Committee members as well as your own Congress persons. Your message need not be lengthy, but should emphasize these twe points: 1. Much time and effort are expended in producing manuscripts for pullertion. Sections 107 and 108 represent the result of delicate compromises worn out by a number of groups, and if they are not tampered with, they will meet the "fair use" needs of educators and librarians. If broadened to allow uncontrolled and unrestricted use of copyrighted materials, they will discourage authors, writers, and editors. 2. It is essential that we encourage, sustain, and reward the competitive inter play of ideas. If broader exemptions were to be added to Sections 107 and 195 creative initiative would be stifled. The ultimate sufferer would be the intelles tual and imaginative life of the community, In short, we believe Sections 107 and 108 of HR. 2223 and S. 22 should be adopted without change! I would appreciate receiving a copy of your letter. If you wish additional information, I will be happy to supply it by return mail. With thanks and best wishes, I remain Cordially, JAMES B. FINN, Ph. D., Senior Vice President, Research and Development. We will now stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon vene at 10a.m., Thursday, May 15, 1975.] COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 2226, Rasburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier [chairne of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Drinan, Pattin. Ruil-back, and Wiggins. Also present: Herbert Fuchs and Bruce A. Lehman, counsels; and Toras E. Mooney, associate counsel. Mr. KASTEN METER. The committee will come to order for the purJe of continuing the hearings on H.R. 2228, on copyright law The Chair wishes to express gratitude to the gentleman from Califea, Mr. Danielson, who presided yesterday, while Mr. Wiggins and I were at the Rules Committee in connection with getting a bill out of Gecommittee. Also, the Chair would like to say that it continues to be amazed at the public interest in this question, as demonstrated by the number at hiding the hearing. I am sorry that everybody cannot be seated. This morning, we are interested in the question of educational uses, ofer than public broadcasting. In this connection, we have divided t's morning's time, more or less, between advocates of educational uses let us call them educators for this simple purpose and the other half, by authors and publishers of materials used by educators, I will asso'suggest that the House is in session; regretfully, we may interrupted for a brief period of time-10 or 15 minutes-we may Lave to recess for the purpose of making calls to the House for votes or otherwise. We apologize, but this is an unusual circumstance, and We trust that all present will bear with us. It's morning I would like to first greet as witnesses the following: Mr Sheldon Steinbach, staff counsel, Ameran Connel on Educa , and man. Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision: Mr Leo J. Raskind, professor of law, University of Mitvieta; and Dr. Howard B. H tchens, executive dire tor, Assonation for Educa tonal Communications and Technology; Robert F. Hooan, executive retary. National Council of Teachers of Figh h; Mr. Harry N. Rosenteid, counsel, Ad Hoc Committee on Copy.g.t Law Revision.. ned who testified, as I recall, extensively in hearings 10 years ago; and Mr. Bernard Freitag, Contil Rok High School, New Town, Pa. He is accompanied by Dr. Harold Wigren, on behalf of the Nationa Education Association-and Dr. Wigren is remembered for his test.mony 10 years ago, in more or less the same field. Gentlemen, you are all welcome. May I, therefore, ask Mr. Steinbach to proceed first. TESTIMONY OF SHELDON E. STEINBACH, STAFF COUNSEL, AMERI- Mr. STEINBACH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Sheldon Elliot Steinbach, staff counsel and assistant director of governmental relations of the American Council on Education. I appear before you today, however, representing the Ad Hoc Committee of Education Organizations on Copyright Law Revision, a consortium covering a wide spectrum of 39 organizations within the educational community with interest in the revision of the copyright law. Most especially, we represent the interests of teachers, professors, schoo! and college administrators, subject matter specialists, educational broadcasters, librarians, and indirectly, students themselves. A list of our members is attached to this statement. In addition, we support the testimony given by the library associations yesterday. These groups are also members of the ad hoc committee. Our testimony today will be presented by four individuals representing several organizations within the ad hoc committee. Although there is a fundamental ad hoc position, the interests of each constituent group varies, and as such, they will emphasize in their testimony today those matters of greatest concern to them. Furthermore, each group under the ad hoc umbrella has reserved the right to determine its own posture with regard to particular issues. [List of members follows:] AD HOC COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION Agency for Instructional Television. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of School Administators. American Association of School Librarians. American Association of University Women. American Council on Education. American Educational Theatre Association, Inc. American Library Association. Associated Colleges of the Midwest. Association for Childhood Education International. Association for Computing Machinery. Association for Educational Comunications and Technology. Association of Research Libraries, Baltimore County Schoo's, Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Council on Library Resources International Read! g Association. Joint Council on Edo ational Telecommunications, Inc. Medical Library Association. Modern Language Association. Music Educators National Conference. Music Teachers National Association. National Art Education Association National Association of Educational Broadcasters, National Association of Elementary School Principals. National Catholic Educational Association. National Catholic Welfare Conference. National Commission for Libraries and Information Science. National Council for the Social Studies, National Council of Teachers of English. National Education Association of the United States. National Public Radio, National School Boards Association. Pab'le Broadcasting Service. Speech Communication Association. OBSERVERS American Association of University Professors. American Personnel and Guidance Association. Association of American Law Schools. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Nat, sual Cotigress of Parents and Teachers. Mr. STEINBACH. I would like to add that the ad hoc committee will not address it-elf today to the question of instructional broadcasting baise we have been assured that this matter will be considered at a inter date, at which time we will be given an opportunity to speak to It is my pleasure now to introduce Prof. Leo J. Ra-kind, professor of law, University of Minnesota, representing the Association of American Law Schools, the American Association of University Profors, and the American Council on Education the Joint Copyg! Comittee for those three organizations, The prepared statement of Leo J. Raskind follows:] Patement of Leo J. Raskind, Made of Behalf oF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERI CAN LAW & HooL8, AMERICAN AssociatON OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, AND THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION Mr (? :irman and members of the subcommittee, I am Leo J. Raskind proor of aw at the University of Minnesota. I am chairman of the Special Comtee on Copyright Law of the Association of American Law Schools, I appear *av on behalf of the Association of American Law Schools, the American women of University Professors, and the American Council on Eduention, ¿ fuse three organizations, we acecast for some 6 000 law teachers and (**) other ulaveraty professors The American Connell on Education is Lon of national and regional education organizations and nearly 1,400 a of lugher education -gay unge that the doctrine of fair use be preserved and given formal Talaxy Cofigress, beth by express statutory provision and by appropriate agrin, the final Comu ittee report étur position in grounded on the Constitutional directive to Congress contained པ་རྣམ་ up ↑ Next] 1. M. Clause “, which provides bgress shal, have P wer to promote the Progress of 8. letice and useful * securing for limited lines to Authors and inventors the exclusive it gut Fat respective Writings and Discoveries lie lug er evlucation community is the principal institution in our society **arged with, the task of transmitting and advancing ki owledge. It is cur concerti da harging this basic function of teaching and research that moves us to r an effective statutory expression of the doctrine of fair use It making this propomal, I wish to emplas me that we de nit mock to remove 5o tried material from the ambit of the Copyrig it statute We are Leather Adverse nor hostile to the base premise that legitimate rights in intellectual preserry merit protection and compensation Indeed, we nocept this premise as |