Author's death, as it would for all unpublished (as well as published › journca books, letters and other works. Authors like Ernest Hemingway would no longe be able to provide for their families by leaving unpublished novels to be in an years after their death.

THE NEED FOR MORE ADEQUATE PROTECTION

With an increasing lifespan, authors outlive their copyrights. Many are unese to provide for their immediate families since their renewal copyrights expire a t after their death. Their wives, husbands and children are denied any share of the income their works continue to produce for others-compensation thest families would have under a life-plus-50 term.

Widows of illustrious American authors have outlived their husbands by serong! decades. In their advancing years, the only income which permits some of these widows to live in dignity and a semblance of comfort are the royalties from great works written by their husbands. This income is taken from them when the re newal copyright expires. Under life-plus-50 they would continue to receive “a desperately-needed income. Ours is the only western country which denies ar: authors or their surviving families this income. All the others have a copyright term of live-plus-50 (or more) years,

It should be remembered that life-plus-50 years benefits only those authors who created books, plays and music of sufficient value to survive. And I should stress that it is authors, and the families of deceased authors, who will benefit from the longer term. They would receive at least 50%, and often all, of the copyright income from their books, poetry or plays during the extended period of protse tion-because of the "reversion" provision, and the nature of publishing arrat de ments most professional authors make. Life-plus-50 years would not provide windfalls for book publishers, and is not a matter of grave concern to them LIFT-PLUS-50 18 JUSTIFIED BY THE ECONOMIC LEGAL REALITIES OF THE COPYRIGHT SYSTEM

As we stressed in our testimony yesterday, the instrument chosen by the Cot stitution to serve the public interest-to secure literary and scientific works đự lasting value--is an independent, entrepreneurial, property rights system of writ ing and publishing. The free-lance author must earn his living from income pro duced by the books, plays, articles, poems, etc. he creates. He must look for ha income to the payments made for their various uses-so long as he retains his copy right.

Whether or not copyright is "property" (and it is), the author is required to survive as a property owner. He is not paid an annual salary. He writes at las own risk. Some of the greatest literary, dramatic and musical works contributed to our society and posterity would not, even under life-plus-50, provide their 30 thors with adequate compensation for the value of their contributions to societi But these authors are entitled to at least that much for themselves and their families In this connection, it should be stressed that an author's com[>»<z«8^, «4 consists of an accumulation of royalties, often small, for uses of his work over å period of many years. These uses are made by reprint publishers, book (12%, anthologists, periodicals and others, as well as by his initial publisher: Once à s copyright is lost, all of these other users are free to produce income from h↑ books or other works without paying any compensation to him or his fam. 'v

Often an author's works do not commence to earn income for him until yea” after they are published, when he has finally won recognition. Often a boa a discovered or rediscovered thirty years or more after it was originally pobl steel and for the first time becomes a cor mercial shoress Its useful copyright te under our present system may be only 15 or 20 years near the end of the ter hot 6 years,

Moreover, the author faces the constant risk that two or three yours of w*k སྨྱོ་ནད་པས་ཟ་༦wxn #?j¢« *ས་ཧཱུྃ་rJos lock or play may be a literary success bet a cla! flare Turong n' } s career, or ly two or three works may prese **a* tail in de for. These most cos, persate him for a lifetime of wr which may Live pro levd several works which, although financially un*, **** ful are of lasting value to w » lety.

I: der exer elfen? tances the Authors Lengne does not believe a term of o 1%K MACAPS strer the author's denti, in "too for g'. The author i. ***** die bas moras yrder t e risks and hazards of an entrepreneur al system. He is entitled to receive a small messure of the protection acer led to other, often less

productive, entrepreneurs who are entitled to hold property rights not merely for life je us 30 years, but for 3, 10 or 20 generations.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A life plus 50 term does not damage the public interest. Opponents argue that it w--, d sharply curtail availability of works; and that it increases prices too much. Nener argüment has substance.

Copyright does not diminish the availability of books, plays, music etc. Indeed, as "his Comihiffce's report noted, the loss of copyright is often likely to have that t Actually availability of copyrighted works has increased in recent years. Mass market and 'quality" paperbacks offer a myriad of titles. University MicroLias and similar organizations now fill orders, on demand, for countless books that formerly were out of print; under licenses from authors and publishers, We approach the point when a few copyrighted books will be out of print. And these empanies also provide entire back issues of countless journals and other publications on microfilm and microfiche. These techniques are also used, increasingly, to keep technical, scientific and other books available.

If works were protected for life-plus 50 years rather than 36 years, their cost to the priblie would not increase substantially, if at all. As the Committee report stated. "The public frequently pays the same price for works in the public doBan as it does for copyrighted works, and the only result (of copyright termisation after 56 years) is a commercial windfall for certain users at the author is expense ” The price of a paperback book is not reduced, for example, when the author s copyright expires. But the share of the income it produces, previously pad to the author or his family, can now be pocketed by the publisher or other

Moreover, this "cost" argument should be put in true perspective. Copyright opponents do not propose that when a work goes out of copyright, a publisher who reprints it must sell it at a lesser profit, or at a price fixed to assure that the p-,e will be able to buy it more cheaply than copy righted works; or that broadCasters or theatres be required to charge the public less for performances of works whose copyrights have expired; or that actors, teachers or musicians work at a lower salary when performing or teaching works which have fallen into the police domain- to reduce the cost to the public.

DETERMINATION OF COPYRIGHT STATUS

For many reasons, e pyright status is not easy to determine under the present to a farm wystem. It is simpler to determine under life plus 30. We have discussed fx done in our previous testimony and beg leave to refer to it. As your Com fffee a report noted, the system of life plus 50 years "has worked well in all other euntries, and on the whole it would appear to make computation of (copyright) ters simpler and ensier "

THE RENEWAL GLAUBR

1- 50 years would chmanate our present renewal system which has sed several authors to lose copyright after the first term to rough failure, to laborabee or f advertencs to Me retowal mp;lic aflatox. Ise "roversol se in the bow Ba would give authors profect, in anat lugt

• of turg's the purpose for which the rene v al sy dem was crimen by #ruma ir. 1908) over life pitie 20. And a purpose which was largely frustrate¦'j སློད t-ns་ནོམ་-སྣུ ྃ ས ཆི་ at Fisker v Witmark 1

H ze the re%ewal cactuse pu's material itu t'e ↑ the proprietor des hot Tytan M most of t's is a # $399 five the tits in wlw at d the like. As your Resort the

I fer sx 10 would establi ħ a single copyright system 1

mony and undoubtedly will be described to you by the Copyright Office. Severs. of these benefit users.

For the reasons discussed above, the Authors League respectfully urge g the adoption of a life-plus-50 copyright term is completely consistent with letter and spirit of the Constitution's copyright clause. The first, most important and indispensable contribution to the public interest-i.e. securing the prudan tion of works of lasting value-is made by the author. Until he creates Ej« l««& play, music or poem, no one can disseminate it, exploit it, teach it, or systemat cally copy it-without paying him. The Constitution intended that he have "va nable enforceable rights" to encourage him to serve this public interest and te permit him to be compensated for his talent and labor. The period of profess provided by life-plus-50 is a reasonable and necessary method of accompasting that Constitutional purpose. And until some author discovers the secret of 10 m«t tality life and 50 will be a limited term of protection, much more limited then the 100 or 200 or more years of protection possible under our present eru ti law-plus-56 years of protection.

TESTIMONY OF IRWIN KARP, COUNSEL, THE AUTHORS LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. KARP. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

My name is Irwin Karp; I am counsel for the Authors Leage of America which is a national society of professional writers and

dramatists.

In my prepared statement, which I respect fully submit for the reord, I mention briefly at the outset the types of works that our mes write. It covers the whole range of creativity.

In my testimony this morning. I address the educational exert as it has been offered to the House and Senate, and has been reje te for the sound reasons in your previous report and in the Senate's report. I would also like to speak, in the very limited time available, to the problem of the life-and-50-years term of copyright, unless that is to be discussed at some later date.

I think perhaps I should put something into the record at this port on that. It is a much-abu-ed concept, and as was pointed out whente educators were propounding their opposition to life-and-50, and plan ing their opposition on grounds that have no basis in reality, or e-ci in decency or common sense.

First of all, Professor Raskind told us we are talking about the scholar copying by hand. That is not so. We are talking about exemp tion and what has been proposed to you in the light of a technologs a revolution that created, as I described yesterday, and as Mr. McKenna of the Special Library Association named, a medium of one-at-a t reprinting or one-at-a-time publishing.

I put into the committee's hands, some semblance of what the tech nology has accomplished, including an entire book that is reprodu on demand by the Xerox machine.

When we get to multiple copy, unless there is some prodigious pen man out at the University of Minnesota law school, I do not know !on anybody is going to copy by hand 40 or 50 copies of a short story or a poem. The technology has also armed the educational system of t country with various ways to very cheaply copy various works of instruction.

Your committee, in its report, and the Senate committee, using tat work -I am talking about the work you did so well-aid the case for an educational exemption had not been made. Under the doctre of

fair use as expounded very specifically in your report, guidelines were set up for what was and was not fair use.

If you examine the guidelines, and examine the proposed amendment, your guidelines are much more explicit and useful than the amendment proposed by the educators. If clarity is the objective, they have certainly failed miserably. Certainly their amendment does not teach us Low short a short story, or how short a poem, can be copied.

Teachers will be coming back to you in a short time, asking you to write to law, the lengths of particular works.

What you then suggested to us, and something we have sought to do in the interim, is to sit down with the educators and work out gudelmes of fair use. This is the only useful way of dealing with this problem. Practically every example given to you today, from the piefure of the frog, up or down, is fair use. And the people who give you the examples know it is fair use. They know that we think it is fair use. If we sit with them periodically, as you propose, reviewing in the context of current condition of education, the current condition of pubushing and writing, the problems of fair use, we could work out gu delines that would be helpful and direct and useful to everybody.

If we sat down periodically, none of us would be frozen with fear that what we conceded or opposed as fair use today would be a danrons precedent to plague us forever.

In other words, an ongoing review that would consume much less time than our colleagues who testified before us and we now have conwimed on the problem of copyright revision would be much more useful, You also propose that where copying exceeds the bounds of fair use, at often does, and as our educator colleagues would like to have it do, that reasonable clearance arrangements be worked out for the payment of reasonable compensation. That is a suggestion picked up by one of the witnesses in the preceding panel. I think it is one that is easily work the.

The alternatives are not, as Professor Raskind said, either copy the copyrighted work without payment or not use it at all.

There is a third alternative. That is where it exceeds fair use to obtain permesseon and pay a reasonable fee for it, as I will point out, and not ething extravagant. May I also point out in elaboration of the point Mr. Pattison made, it is the author's right, where the work is bong ued beyond the limits of fair use, to say what his compensation will be. Our educational brethren turn their backs on the open market, the free market, and ignore the play of econome force. The Constitution wrote for us a copyright clause that according to the Supreme Court wis to establish authorship and publishing on a profit motivated basis, As expected, what actually has happened, when an author of a short story or poem or publisher grants a right to use it in an anthology, is t. at he grants a nonexclusive right to use that work that may appear in 10 anthologies. The price is a competitive price. The compet tión in marketplace actually produce fees that are very reasons) le, Sot rees, $25, sometimes 850, sometimes less per use, somet mes more, Let me point out that the American author, most American authors, do intend to make income when they write a work, whether they are fil time professionals or not. The use of their work in antholog es 18 a major source of income to them. For poets and short story writers, as we testified before, and many of our author members have test:fied,

this is a principal form of compensation. Most poets do not make money from the publication of a collection of their verse in the hard cover edition. It is from the fees derived from nonexclusive licenses to a number of anthology publishers to reprint copies of these works.

John Dos Passos testified before the Senate that 20 percent or more of his income in the latter years of his life was derived from this source. Robert Frost, Carl Sandberg-many American poets-have earned a good portion of their income from these anthologies. These are prit lished primarily to be used in schools, universities, and smar

institutions.

I give you two current examples; the evidence is all around us. Just recently, a young lady named Joanna Kaplan published a book of short stories that received great critical acclaim. In an interview in the New York Post she said it took her, after writing the first short story, another 5 years to turn out the other stories in the collection, one of the reasons being the rest of the time she worked as a teacher of retarded children.

The only real income that an author like Miss Kaplan will derive from her work over the years are the fees that will be paid as that short story is duplicated in anthologies.

I have another clipping from a local newspaper up in Westchester about an author named Frank Rooney. "Since 1925," says Rooney, "I have been a fulltime writer. I have put in 40 hours a week.

"I have done that for 25 years." And he is most widely known for the much anthologized story. "The Cyclist" which his two sons and daugh ter, much to their amusement, had to read in English class in Rve Nek High School-to their amusement and his small profit, I might add. It sold to the movies, it was named "The Wild One" and it was a mo tion picture by Marlon Brando.

Two simple examples of what this means in dollars and cents.

What the educational exemption means, in a practical sense, is edg cators all over the country would be entitled to reproduce multiple copies of short stories. It could be these short stories as far as we know because they have not defined the length of short stories for us, Short. shorter, or longer.

What it means is that the use of these works will replace the sale of those anthologies on which Mr. Rooney and Mr. Dos Passos, and offer distinguished American authors, have relied to derive some ky d of compensation from a lifetime of professional writing.

I should point out that the damaging effect will be the same whether the school or the school system reproduces these stories and puts tren together in what is called an anthology, or whether they are repor du ed one copy at a t me. As far as profit motivation is con ernel. I followed with interest, Mr. Pattison's colloquy with- -I should not -Av friends; in this context, we are not friends my acquaintances i te eari er panel. I think it is useful to remember that everybody is metis vated by profit to some extent. I cannot believe that the teachers w50 go on strike in a city school system, close down the schools, deny ng 10 cess to the students for 3 or 4 or 6 weeks, do not have some sense of probt motivation. Ley want to earn a reasonable living, and they are entitled to it.

On behalf of the Authors League, I take no post on on teacher's strikes. As an individual, I do not dare to take a position because I go