Lebanon Copyright Statute, Decree Providing Regulation of Commercial and Industrial Property Rights in Syria and Lebanon, as amended, reprinted in CLTW. Uruguay Uruguay copyright law requires registration as a condition of copyright protection, but exempts foreign works from that formality. Article 6. Entry in the appropriate Register shall be required in order to secure the protection of this Law. In the case of foreign works, it shall be sufficient to provide compliance with the requirements for their protection in the country of origin, in accordance with the laws in force therein. Uruguay Copyright Statute, Law No. 9739 Concerning Literary and Artistic Copyright, as amended, reprinted in CLTW. Spain Spain requires registration as a condition of copyright protection. Article 36 of its copyright law provides in perti nent part: Article 36. In order to enjoy the benefits of this [Copyright] Law, it shall be necessary for registration to be effected in the Copyright Register established in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing Articles. Spain Copyright Statute, Law of January 10, 1879, as amended, reprinted in CLTW. However, Spain apparently regards these requirements as inapplicable to foreign works. According to WIPO, Copyright Law Survey (1979 & 1983 Supp.): [T]he requirement [of Spanish copyright law] of registration is rendered inoperative, in relation to works published abroad, by application of the multilateral conventions to which Spain has subscribed. See also Article 51 of the Spanish Copyright Law, which provides in pertinent part: [T]he Government shall seek to draw up new treaties with as many nations as (3) Every author or successor in title who, Mr. KASTENMEIER. Borrowing what the first witness suggested, sometimes we can look for analogues elsewhere as to how things work with other countries. Could you clarify the position of your organization on architectural works? You have heard this preceding discussion of it. Do you feel your organization may be directly affected-there may be some principles there that the IIA might have an interest in? Mr. GOLDBERG. IIA was requested, as I indicated in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, to focus on formalities, and therefore, while we have looked at the provisions concerning architectural works, we have not looked at them in sufficient detail to be responsive to the question. I will say that, as a general matter, we do believe that it is necessary to have provisions for architectural works and that our present law is not compatible in that respect. We do concur with the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on this point. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Toward the conclusion of your presentation-I am not certain that I recall it-you did express concern in the bill about one area. I wonder if you would mind going over that again just to make sure that I understand the points that you were making. Mr. GOLDBERG. Which area, Mr. Chairman? Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think it was five. It was on recordation, I believe. Mr. GOLDBERG. Section 205(d) is a problem because it requires one who has ownership by way of a transfer to record that transfer before instituting suit. It is pretty much analogous, in its noncompability, to section 411(a). It is a condition. It is a "formality." One is deprived of the exercise and the enjoyment of the right by reason of that. That is the essence of it. Although neither H.R. 1623 nor H.R. 2962 addresses it, we do believe that it should be addressed; and we would support the provision that I believe is in S. 1301, which would repeal section 205(d). I should point out, in connection with the recordation provision, Mr. Chairman, there are other provisiojs in section 205-205(c) and 205(e)-which provide additional incentives to register, and we support their retention. The benefits of each are conditioned upon registration. 205(c) provides that constructive notice will be afforded only if the document recorded pertains to a work that has been registered. Likewise, under 205(e), it is possible for a transferee, under a recorded document, to get the benefit of the provisions of 205(e) only if the document relates to a registered work. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Is there any other provision or lack of provision in either of these bills that you object to or would recommend? Mr. GOLDBERG. Do you embrace the moral rights provisions in your question? Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think we have covered that. I think I know what your position is on that. Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Besides moral rights, are there any other reservations you have about the bills before us? Mr. GOLDBERG. I have indicated that we have not reviewed architectural works in sufficient detail to give you a truly informed view on that. The remaining provisions, we believe, are generally acceptable and are part of a truly outstanding effort. Mr. KASTENMEIER. In any event, it would be fair to say that your association is strongly for statutory adherence to the Berne Convention? Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. I thank you both for your contributions. You are our final witnesses, and I appreciate not only your appearance, but of that of all the preceding witnesses during these many days of hearings. I trust we now have accumulated now enough advice and information with which to move forward. I am told that representatives of the countries of Canada and the People's Republic of China, who are or have been in the audience today. This attendance might suggest our continued comparative study of communications between these various countries is in our interest and goes on and that we are dealing in an international community with respect to the aim of enabling us to adhere to this longstanding, nearly 100 years, convention known as the Berne Convention. I would also say that, in conclusion, that this might be the last hearing clerked by Ms. Audrey Marcus, who has been a permanent and important part of this subcommittee for well over a decade. She has attended to these hearings and I would like to recognize her contribution, not only in terms of the hearings on Berne, but to all of our hearings. This, then, concludes the hearings by this subcommittee on adherence to the Berne Convention. It is my expectation that in the near future the committee can meet in executive session and markup one of the bills devoted to the subject. It is not clear that we will have unanimity, but I think whatever we produce will surely enjoy a broad consensus and that, obviously, this legislative year, the second session of the 100th Congress, needs to be the time in which we accomplish this. So having said that, I thank all who have participated and my colleagues and staff, witnesses and the many others who are not witnesses, but who have followed the proceedings almost religiously for many, many months. The committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS STATEMENT UNITED STATES COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS before the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate on the Proposed Adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention April 15, 1986 UNITED STATES COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS |