« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
to the Fine Arts Council of Florida, to the Siouxland Arts Council of Stoux (!). Iowa. Through Advocates for the Arts, ACA is concerned with all of the peute lems that affect artists, art institutions, and the general public's enjoymen: of artistic and cultural works.
ACA acts as a service agency for its members, providing information and 15 sistance to arts councils and arts organizations throughout the United States do member organizations reflect all artistic disciplines and ACA speaks for the management and financial sides of the art world, as well as the creative 130 innovative artists themselves. Finally, ACA's Advocates program speaks for the arts consumerg-those who enjoy art, buy art, view art, and attend the perform ing art-in short all who are concerned and affected by the cultural environment of this country.
Advocates for the Arts, through factual and legal research, identifies arris in which action might have a material impact on the rights of arts Instituto and individual artistsand areas in which public action might contri ute * the enhancement of the cultural life of the community. Advocates Introdo ta act with respect to these areas through public education, drafting of minder legislation and litigation. Advocates seeks to accomplish the sharpening of pat lie consciousness of the way in which law affects our cultural Ure and detet mines the aesthetic character of our surroundings.
Advocates have identified sereral areas of immediate concern. One of thre areas relates to the economic rights of the creative artists. My statement to run today urges this Committee to take full cognizance of the significant adiet impact on the arts which would result from copyright legislation which is to place reasonable restrictions on the permissible scope of photocopying app right material,
The recent conclusion of the United States Supreme Court case of Williams and Wilkins Company vs. The l'nited States where the Supreme Court by a four to four deadlock let stand a lower court decision permitting rather ride wtrend photocopying of copyright works, makes more immediate the need fue resonable controls. I'nfortunately, judging from the commentaries folk the United States Supreme Court decision, institutions feel they have an ri. panding license to make widespread photocopy use of copyright works. While do not beliere much license was necessarily created by the recent court det it being limited to the specific facts presented, the climate is such that acts by this committee is urgent and necessary.
We are concerned about the formulation of legislation which would fornalis the concept or "fair use" so as to encourage wholesale library reproductio ald distribution of copyrighted works.
Those who create artistic Works are necessarily threatened. Witbout copyright protection against unauthorized distribution of photocopies of their cregin works, creative artists can have no Aurance of beink paid for their rit
The language of HR 273 (and S. 22 in the Senate) governing the "fair u of cuprixhted material, if adopted, would be a major step toward the 01. protection for originators and creators of work from exire reproduction. We beartily endorse the provisions of Section 10 and urge its adoption by the lih Cott. Any attefript to rode or undermine the limitations on *$ystematie production" of copyrxuted works, will, in our opinion, arratiy reduce the retiveness of the entire bill. We join the Authors hanruse and other interperd parties, in urring the committee to resist any efforts to delete Section los Irum HR3
ofortunately, the twential for barm to the creative artist from an operly Itemi ploiinin provision is very real. I nder the law as desejo d by the Williams and Wilkins (hne. it appears that complete articles may be photowurd from a 12 mine and distributed on a widespread basis without any ruyait pa out to the myrixor our llwever, i!!ut *I**1:Unitatis, we are fra ful that institutions will runel'de if an artile frutn a scientific journal de rurudd and distributed. why cannot a short story or a win from a literary matarine any be reprow'YI and distriedWhy not Amnsienl cum1 from a werkt wok of 11.
00 ***** Inde. why n ta pobrale maande up A man Xibe ant balty 1 art reproductions oor therajah? Why should tie (det ustadto ma 37 D W
Did it not be twrtnitted to reduce the ne 1mm, short story. thusbal 4*3*witina, plotograph, drawing our lithograph fr
arbark tok or a bardeutet furtlier in the mind of the photeler. It musul set tha to le of Du signifiance that the literary orariistle work is eitracted
fram a collection of works by a single poet, short story writer, composer, photogra; b.er, painter, or lithographer, or from an anthology of works by many artimis. in eilber case, an entire creative work would seem to be just as subject as an entire article from a scientific journal to photocopying and mailing to members of the frueral public. Instead of coming to the library personally to borrow and mad 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 fermanent personal copies. The photographer, the painter, and the lithographer Jeaiutely reserve reproduction rights to tbeir works and expect to be paid when they authorize reproduction by or for those who desire permanent personal
Il institutions will provide copies of specific works by creative artists upon theat, why should anybody buy the entire magazine or pajrback or handourer B aintaining that wrecific work? Necessarily. publishers will sell fewer makaHim and baxoks, artists will revive lewy royalty income, and their works will be #.dey reprinduced and distributed witbout authorization from them or compen
thes to them.
Again, for emphasis, we are not saying that the Williams and Wilkins er me etrated such a broad license. However, that decision was the Inst authoritative wird at the subject of photocopying and has, we are fearful, created an atmos BRIT of photocopying promiscuou DEKA
in summary, we diteve that an overly broad photocopying provision in the
yright law would be inconsistent with the philosophy of the ('onstitutional Druv autborining Congre to drure for authors copyright protection in artet to promote the progress of science and useful arts." We therefore comhend that adequate controls be placed on widespread photoosing of copyrighted
ku mo that we retain the in entire for the creative artists to produce the art that is so derruary to the cultural environment of our country.
STATEMLYT OF DR RAY W00ORITY, IMPARTMENT OF CHEMINTRY, MONTANA STATE
I' ERMITT Erlend # # letter I received from the Mosby Publishing Company concerning IR 23 and $ 22. in particular sextiotis 107 and 104 "Hair (m," and boni #nd Labrary Photocopying " As an author, profesor, analytical chemist and quer of d'alleated erfryright materials, I was very much alarmed at the rt and
* that is being went to get an unworkable copyright law med Dupo!lating
11ors will only be ome more numerous and animal de in the future and trying to retrit cu ing of material w111 merve more to create din
for law fian # :1 to frien ople to buy books from publieben. If the publishers an att #*
s chrajer than they can be duplented on these machins***, D k firem drets buid improve their thiciency, not forre pople to buy their buks by nn to get a brwvpyright law pod 1& dera tine, Dot to be able to duplicate a paragraph or a ngurr for class w.feit ng through a botnleniy
bosted frienne or retuunerii by stem would stifte education and reward in this country
la elenlng. I very strongly urge you to amend or discard mtions 107 and jew OPIIR and 8 22
Turf V MOMT(',
81 Lunia, Va, dugnaf 1995 1) RAY ALAN WOOOTTY, Department of ( Armtatry. W siano state ('ollege, koseman, V .
* In W u r Authors and editors are rrative tole: the thanner in !..you how nige and information to inferiu others le truly ar t B . It is our ex!.. ntl.mt thou errative talalts
d e tote pr. TO ( rikt law of 12 ka prolldri this fathet 21.1 A.
A y otrometruutbexts when patimbed have mortatamiiy text roumd in*.cir
of particular concern to us, and hopefully to you, are Sections 107 and 1 “Fair tve," and "School and Library Photocopying."
It is «vur opinion that these sections of the proposed new law, as written im tart your creative efforts and our investment. These sections will prirlit he activities of those who feel that anything in print may be copied and distrikt as the copier sees fit-without the permission of, or compensation io, autbere! publisher alike. We are strongly convinced that your creativity and our itine" ment must be protected. The new law will provide this protection and yet al. wide information dissemination.
Well organized efforts are presently attempting to amend Sections 107 ard ! Such amendments will not provide safeguards against photocopying proper outlined above. I am writing to ask your assistance in prote'ting what I telur to be the correct position, one which truly serves everyone's bent intense
Attached is a list of Thouse and Senate Judiciary Cornmittee members, 1 13 ashing you to contact these Committee members as well as yonr own tone pervous. Your message need not be lengthy, but should emphasize the te points:
1. duch time and effort are expended in producing manuscripts for pat first tion. Sertions 107 and los represent the result of delicate compromis wie? out by a number of groups, and if they are not tamired with, they will tempo? "fair yap" needs of educators and librarians. If broadened to allow unenstrup 11.11 unrestricted use of copyrighted materials, they will discourage autre Writters, and editors.
It is essenual that we encourage, sustain, and reward the competition tipo play of idea. If broader exemptions were to be add. to Satinn 107 and fire faire initiative would be stitied. The ultimate sufferer would love the initiat tunlaud imaginative life of the community.
In short, we believe Sections 107 and 108 of H.R. 2233 and S. 22 should be adented irithout change!
I would appreciate receiving a copy of your letter. If you wish additional 19formation, I will be happy to supply it be return mail. Witb thanks and best wishes, I remain Cordially,
JAMES B. Fixx, Ph.D.,
Senior I ice President
Research and Dere lopment. We will now stand adjourned.
Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon. Vine at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 15, 1975.]
COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975
Horse OF R1.PREMI NTATIVES,
AND THE IDUNTIRATION OF JUSTICE
Washington, D.('. The huluommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 2:6, Pribourn lloum Office Building. Hion. Robert W. Kantenmeier (chair1:1, of the submit ommittee) presiding.
Print: Reprowentatives Kustanmeier, Danielson, Diinan, Patti474). Rugik, and Wiggins
11o portant: Herbert Fuchs and Bruce .1. Lahman, counsels; and 12.01.194 E. Mooney, aukiate counsel.
Jr. KA TINIR. The committee will come to order for the purforse of continuing the hearing on 1.R. 22, on copyright law
Lif(!r wishes to erpress gratitude to the gentleman from (alifc."..., Jr. Danichon, who premiddel vesterilay, while \lr. Wiggins and Imre at the Rule: ('ommittee in connetion with guns a bail out of
, the Chair would like to say that it continues to be amazed at tiin jabolir interest in this question, an demonstrnted live the number al' licence the bearing. I am sorry that everybody cannot be yated.
The thorniny, we are interested in the question of mucational uus Onter than public broadcasting. In this connection, we linse divided t's mormng's time, more or lrsa, bemeen advo ates of educational
22 let us call them educators for this simple purjevalige . and the sterla!1, by author and publ:-!.n of materialbraunton
lundain) LIL' that the loun is in mulon; repreffuily, we may In interrupted for a brief period of time - 111 or 1.1 minutes --may have to try for the purpose of making calls to the Ilong for roten of P!n*s. We apologire, but this is an u111,lal "l'umtanir, a!:-) Brinin that all pirowent will hear with uh
1 110011 I sould like to time without the following: Mr. lon Steinbach, staff counsel, Arvin (0' ;} on Filena 1..., Irin..10 How Committee a copilulus Ressen: M. LAO J. R eneprofessor of law, users of Matton; and Tor. Ilonard B. Il telen, errunr dine for, 1910ft for kelua. treal (plaunantoties and Trioli : Roert Flen, Artist be preary, Natinal (ount of Tralary of Fin!: !1: Mr. Harry X. karklofiil,coun , dllo ('ottittee on (optibellau kirosanon. pilnbiete:1:1.AI reall.rion lielv in hragm 10 vranagu: ano Milenamed Fruity, ('onis Roll bewol, Sew Town, l'a.
He is accompanied by Dr. Harold Wigren, on behalf of the Nationa.
Gentlemen, you are all welcome,
Mr. STEINBACH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Sheldon Elliot Steinbach, staff counsel and assistant director of gorernmental 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. Mint 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 repres senting several organizations within the ad hoc committee. Although there is a fundamental ad hoc position, the interests of each constituei.t group varies, and as such, they will emphasize in their testimony todas those matters of greatest concern to them. Furthermore, each grup 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 REvisiox
A-širintion for Computing Machinery.
al Linary AS * 44100