Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

capitals, you are showing those people there entertainment, what America is like, what the American people are like, and they will know it because they will learn it in a very simple and easy way."

Now, there is not any question that we can advance America throughout all the capitals of Europe. We can make money. If they make more money here, we should have more money from them. But I say we can not do this unless we join the union. The union is nothing but a treaty. You can cancel a treaty. It is a small matter but this union is a treaty between 40 nations at the present time. There may be things in it we do not like, a few things we may be able to correct, but it is a convenient treaty where we can just walk in and back out to-day without protecting our works abroad. I say therefore, that we should in that manner protect our foreign market. The CHAIRMAN. Do you in general concur in all the sentiments that have been expressed by the different speakers representing different organizations of your group this morning?

Mr. OSBORNE. Now, you have touched upon one question.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean in general.

Mr. OSBORNE. On general principles, absolutely.

STATEMENT OF SIGMUND ROMBERG-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. This morning I mentioned several plays that you have been responsible for. Is there any other like Nina Rosa, played in Paris, others you have been the creator of?

Mr. RoMBERG. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Others you have written?

Mr. ROMBERG. The Desert Song, played in England, in Scandinavia, and Czechoslovakia. Nina Rosa is also played in Australia; it is going to play in Australia. I will just like to put in this information for the sake of the record. Mr. Chairman, as you know, in Europe the copyright is for a lifetime and 50 years afterward. In 1882 Johann Strauss died; in 1932 consequently, all Johann Strauss's music becomes copyright free, which is a fact. An European copyright in the case where two people write a play together, 50 years after death is counted from the man who died last; so you can to-day take the Blue Danube and do with it what you please. Although the Blue Danube and other Strauss waltzes are free of copyright, his operettas are still copyrighted, because the author of the plays did not die in 1882, but after that date, so they are still copyrighted, so that the astounding fact exists that you can lift some melodies from an orchestra piece and do with them whatever you please, but if you would lift them from an opera, from one of the orchestra pieces, they are still copyrighted.

The reason I mention this is because I would like to call your attention to the following facts which may happen in this country now under the new bill: I am absolutely in accord with you when you say the copyright should be for 60 years. The relationship between the author who writes his book or lyrics and the composer who composes the music is this: Take the following facts. Suppose an author who is about 30 years old writes a book and lyrics for a show and a composer who is about 60 years old writes the score. The composer dies within eight years. His copyright goes into his estate. The lyric writer and the author will now have to deal in

subsequent dealings with an estate. I just want to call to your attention that you should give some thought to that relationship between the author and the composer so that when further and new rights are made you should not create a frankenstein which will throw all kinds of liquidations into court and make it almost impossible to deal with these rights; but to consider the fact that under the idea of giving the author a copyright, that in this case you are giving really a joint copyright to the lyric writer and the composer, and the relationship between those two people should be somehow regulated so that liquidation and fights should be avoided as much as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Romberg. We shall endeavor to find a solution for that, and I propose now to call on Mr. Schulman to speak on this very theme.

STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHULMAN

Mr. SCHULMAN. I come here representing the Song Writers' Protective Association. On behalf of the song writers we concur in the thoughts presented to the committee by previous speakers, namely, that if copyright is granted in the name of the author, with the right to assign and license, a great benefit will have been given to the authors of this country. With that thought it will establish once and for all the intent and purpose of the Constitution, that the creators of the country benefit as the result of their creative efforts. From the question of experience, you can see, or rather from the description of the experiences of authors, you can see what conditions they have had to meet. However, we do not ask that the committee do anything radical or something which is unknown to the great body of law of this country, and it is from that point of view that I would like to address this committee. You will ask this, when you consider the question, whether you are called upon or requested by the creators of this country to adopt a new and strange principle of law, something which does not exist in the thought of the country to-day. You will not for this reason: Copyright is a species of property. Literary property is as much property as a table, a chair, or a piece of real estate. Now, we know that the owner of a piece of real estate may grant a lease. He can give a lease for a year or 10 years or 99 years. He at the same time can lease a portion of his building or all of his building. In other words, the law as the result of developments of the ages, has given to the owner of property the right to grant specific rights or licenses with respect to that property. That is exactly what is the intent of the suggestions made by the authors.

In other words, the author who creates a piece of property owns it and we ask the right to say: "I own this piece of literary property, but I give a lease to X to publish it and give X the right to sue anybody who interferes with the property so far as it concerns publication." Gentlemen, that is exactly what the lessee of a building does. He has a right to sue anybody who goes on to the prop erty so long as his lease is in effect. The owner of the property, whether it be real or personal, has a right to grant a mortgage on that property, and we have discovered that it is not necessary to sell the property and transfer title in order to protect the mort

gagee. Originally, when a man mortgaged or wanted to obtain a loan on a piece of real estate, he sold the real estate to the mortgagee. That system still exists in New Jersey. He gives a deed to the real estate to the mortgagee or the man who lends the money with an agreement to turn it back again when he pays off the money. Now, we know that no longer exists in most States of the Union. Why? Because we have come to the conclusion that it is much simpler to give a mortgage and keep the title of the property in the name of the original owner thereof. When the author of a play or a book or a musical work keeps the title in himself and gives to the publisher or the producer or the radio company the right of license to produce it in a certain way, he is doing exactly what a man does when he gives a mortgage on a house. He gives to the mortgagee of the license certain rights. The grantee takes the document and records it and it is notice to the entire world that he has those rights.

The CHAIRMAN. And those suggestions even go one step further if I can use your simile. The moment the copyright is in the name of the author, since it is his intellectual real estate, so to speak, just as you can sell a piece of property, so he can sell his intellectual real estate by assigning it to some one.

Mr. SCHULMAN. He can do that.

The CHAIRMAN. He can do what a man with a piece of property can do.

Mr. SCHULMAN. Why treat copyright property any different than other property? Just treat it like property. That is what it is. Why force an author to transfer his copyright?

The CHAIRMAN. It is better than divisibility because in divisibility you can enumerate some things that the next generation might bring out.

Mr. SCHULMAN. That is just the point that you are treating this as one piece of property and you are giving people leases to the first story, to the second story, and to 96 stories.

The CHAIRMAN. And to what future stories you may want to build.

Mr. SCHULMAN. You are giving those things the same as you give them in any species of property.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I perhaps understand the gentleman's position in view of the chairman's questions. Would you place the ownership on the same plane that the owner of real estate now has? In other words, to sell, transfer, assign, to bargain, or encumber in any manner that he chooses?

Mr. SCHULMAN. As to encumbering in the sense of mortgage, I do not know whether you would think that would be wise. You would give him that right the same as you give him the right to encumber an automobile by a chattel mortgage.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. If you give him all these other rights, would you have any objection to encumbering in any manner he saw fit?

Mr. SCHULMAN. I see no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. It is his property. He can do what he wants with it.

Mr. SCHULMAN. Treat it like you treat a piece of real estate or an automobile. It is the same thing.

The CHAIRMAN. It is property, intellectual property.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The gentleman is making a very interesting state

ment.

Mr. SCHULMAN. I do not know whether you agree with me, but as a lawyer, it seems to me that I should like to treat all property the same where it is subject to the same kind of treatment.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do you know of any reason why you would not treat it as you have just stated?

Mr. SCHULMAN. I see no reason.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. What are the objections advanced?

The CHAIRMAN. There are no objections.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Objections to treating copyright as you have stated?

Mr. SCHULMAN. I will tell you what I think the objections are. After all, we are all of us, particularly those of us who are lawyers, very conservative, and, as Mr. Crowell pointed out, our theory of copyright goes back a long time to the period when the only thing that was copyrighted was a book. That was all that they thought you could copyright. I would write a book, sell it to the publisher, and he would copyright it. They never took into consideration the marvelous advances which genius, and particularly American genius, would make so as to enable an author to have by-products. Therefore, so long as the only thing that was valuable was the publication right they said, "All right, that is all you can sell; that is all there is; therefore sell the publication right and you have nothing to worry about."

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Of course, I do not ask the gentleman to explain the position of the opponents of legislation of this character, but I was curious to know what arguments had been advanced against the gentleman's position.

Mr. SCHULMAN. I was going to explain the arguments.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. May I inquire at this time if you know of any organized opposition to legislation of the character you have suggested?

The CHAIRMAN. There is only one group, and that is the music publishers.

Mr. SCHULMAN. That one group does object to it because it has been their practice to take assignments of the entire copyright, and keep the entire copyright and never turn anything back to the author.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Suppose Congress should enact legislation of this character, how would it affect that vested right? I understand that initiating legislation of this sort would draw strenuous opposition from those who do enjoy the rights.

The CHAIRMAN. Answering the gentleman from Ohio, I will call his attention to the fact that the book publishers, and publishers of magazines and newspapers, and others who utilize copyrights, have practically and unanimously agreed to give it to the author. There is no opposition.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am glad to hear that for my own individual

benefit.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no opposition outside of the music publishers, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is rather unusual to have legislation of this character proposed and not have opposition.

The CHAIRMAN. You will hear it because we will give the music publishers their day in court, too.

Mr. SCHULMAN. Let me say that I personally believe that the opposition on the part of the music publishers is more psychological than real. In other words, the dangers that they create for themselves are psychological dangers because they say, for 100 years we wore trousers that were hanging on suspenders, and therefore we will not put them on a belt even though we know that a belt will work. I think it is mainly that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That may be true, but Congress sometimes is influenced very much by psychology, too.

Mr. SCHULMAN. I agree with you, but let me say this: How can they object? If they want a copyright they can take an assignment of it; that is granted to them. They can go to the creator of a piece of music and say: "We will take an assignment of the copyright and nothing else will do. If you don't give us the assignment, which means every vestige of right in there, we will not buy it." What remains? They will either bargain with the author on that basis or they will buy that piece of property just as if I go to a man who owns real estate and ask for a 99-year lease. He can give me the lease or not as he feels and I can take the lease or not, as I please. He has that right. If an author says: "No; if you want the right to put this on a sheet of music, on a sheet of paper and sell it as sheet music, that is one thing." The man says: "That is all I want." Therefore, says the law: "Take this and record your license and you are protected." The difficulty that they point to is this: That under the present law they would have no right to sue an infringer unless they were the owner of the copyright, and that is the thing that is bothering them. Whenever they speak to authors about copyright, they say: "Unless we are the owner of the copyright we can not stop anybody from playing that game. You may be away and they would not be able to get hold of you."

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Could they not be safeguarded in this respect? Mr. SCHULMAN. We contend that the law should provide that the owner of the license should have a right to sue to protect his license the same as a lessee of a building if some one trespasses and walks in. We want to give them every bit of protection to which they are entitled.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In other words, he should be subrogated to the extent of the right of the owner?

Mr. SCHULMAN. Not subrogated. It goes even further and says that the license gives him the ownership pro tanto in so far as his license is concerned; he has the full rights as if he were the owner to protect his rights granted under that license.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. If that be true, you are practically removing his objections.

Mr. SCHULMAN. I think so. Once we give him the right to stop somebody from infringing upon that right, I think the real objection is removed.

The CHAIRMAN. You give him the right to protect himself in court and you register that copyright and that license in Washington as a protection.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think that is a good idea, that he should have that right.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »