Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

1$52,806 $45,054 $47,040 Other:

Tities Recorded $26,767 Certifications

4,436 Notices of Use

13,768 Card Service

8,846. Total

$62,806

[blocks in formation]

Mr. St. ONGE. Thank you, Mr. Cary.

Mr. Cary, how do you interpret that sentence in the Senate report that indicates that if the legislative committee doesn't take appropriate action, that they will be forced to review their stand on appropriations?

Mr. Cary. That was, I believe, in the House report. Well, it is a sort of "sword of Damocles" hanging over our head.

Mr. St. ONGE. I am sure this won't happen, but it could result in a crippling of the operation.

Mr. Cary. Yes, I would think this would be quite true.

Mr. St. ONGE. 'I take it, then, that the thrust of your testimony is that we should not wait for final action upon the revision bill, but take separate action on the fee bill?

Mr. Cary. This is what I would recommend; yes, sir.
Mr. St. ONGE. Mr. Poff!
Mr. POFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Comparing H.R. 2853 with section 708 of the bill, that is, the revision bill, I find included in section 708 a number of items which are not included in H.R. 2853, but am I correct in assuming that in each case it would be impossible to include those items in a fee increase bill unless the revision bill becomes law?

Mr. Cary. Those provisions to which I believe you are referring are required by reason of some changes in administration of the new bill which are not in the present bill; that is quite right.

Mr. POFF. Then the answer to my question is affirmative?
Mr. Cary. That is right.

Mr. POFF. I supported the bill increasing fees for the Patent Office, and I believe you said that it will work a return of about 75 percent of costs. I might say that I think that bill was delayed.

I am sympathetic with what you intend to achieve here, but as a matter of fairness, and in order that all those interested might have an opportunity to present facts that may not be apparent to us, may I inquire if advance notice has been given to those who would be affected by the fee increases?

Before you answer the question, I will call attention to the fact that some of those increases, percentagewise, are rather dramatic. In the case of registration, I believe 50 percent, and in the case of renewals, it is 100 percent. While the absolute amounts may not be dramatic, the percentage increases are.

Now, may I ask, has advance notice been given to those who might be affected?

Mr. Cary. In the sense that H.R. 4347 contains the same increases, there has been notice to that effect; yes.

Mr. Poff. Have they been notified that the Register would ask for action on this specific section promptly and possibly in advance of action on the revision bill? Mr. CARY. Not in a specific way; no, sir. Mr. POFF. That is all I have. Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Edwards? Mr. EDWARDS. No questions. Mr. St. ONGE. Mr. Tenzer.

Mr. TENZER. Is there any reason why the increases in the various categories were not made on a proportionate basis in view of the fact that the overall increases in salaries apply to all operations of the Department?

Mr. Cary. If I understand your question correctly, as far as registration fees, all registration fees now will be $6 under the bill, so they are all across the board.

Mr. TENZER. My question was, for example, in the case of registration of commercial prints and labels, the fee in 1948 was $6 and the recommended fee is now $6. Why is that not being increased proportionately?

Mr. Cary. May I give you some history on that?

Prior to 1940, registration of prints and labels was made in the Patent Office, and the fee of $6 was set by the Patent Office. So when the Congress transferred that function from the Patent Office to the Copyright Office in 1940, they left the fee at $6. So ever since, we have had the anomaly of having print and label fees of $6 and every other fee being $2 or $4, as the case may be.

This has caused a lot of administrative headaches from people who say “Why should I pay $6 for this little thing when I can get a whole motion picture registered for $4, for example ?” Our purpose here was to standardize the fee across the board.

Mr. TENZER. For example, your proposed increase for the entire catalog under H.R. 2853 over the price of 1948 is a 200-percent increase, whereas, in the renewal fee there is only a 100-percent increase.

Mr. Cary. The main reason for increasing the cost of the catalog to that extent is that printing costs have shot up almost sky high.

Mr. TENZER. In addition to the overall cost of the salary increases ?
Mr. Cary. That is quite right.
Mr. TENZER. Thank you, Mr. Cary.
Mr. Sr. ONGE. Mr. Poff ?

Mr. POFF. Mr. Cary, I have just been reviewing section 708 of H.R. 4347. I find in subparagraph (5) the followingfor the filing, under section 113(b), of a notice of intention to make phonorecords, $3.

I don't find elsewhere in section 708 any language about a notice of intention to use.

Mr. Cary. I don't have the bill before me, but my recollection is that the notice of use is done away with in the new bill.

Mr. PoFF. Do you mean in the Steed bill?

Mr. Cary. No, in H.R. 4347. You see, we are not in the present bill, H.R. 2853, trying to revise any of our procedures. We are merely upping the fees that currently exist under the present law.

Mr. POFF. The present, current law has a fee for recordation of a notice of use, but it has no fee for the recordation of a notice of intention to use.

Mr. Cary. That is right.

Mr. POFF. In other words, the purpose would be, under the new law, to require such a fee, as I understand it.

Mr. Cary. May I staté it this way: the present law provides for the notice of use and the notice of intention to use. But for some unknown reason, only a fee for the filing of the notice of use was prescribed.

What we are proposing to do is to add a fee for the recordation of the notice of intention to use, making it on a par with the fee for recordation of the notice of use.

Mr. POFF. Your purpose would be effectuated in H.R. 2853. Your purpose would not be effectuated in section 708 of H.R. 4347.

Mr. Cary. It is because the procedures in H.R. 4347 have been somewhat modified to the extent that that would not be necessary.

Mr. PoFF. Suppose we adopt the Steed bill now and later adopt H.R. 4347 ?

Mr. Cary. That would be perfectly all right. There would be no conflict there. If you adopt H.R. 4347, and I certainly hope you do, you will set up a new procedure, and you will not necessarily need the fees that I am referring to here.

Mr. POFF. We will not need a fee for the recordation of a notice of use?

Mr. Cary. That is right; yes, sir. There will be a fee only for the recordation of a notice of intention to make phonorecords, to which you just referred.

Mr. POFF. That is all.

Mr. St. ONGE. Are there any further questions?
If not, thank you, Mr. Cary.

Our next witness will be Ralph H. Dwan, representing the Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. STATEMENT OF RALPH H. DWAN, ON BEHALF OF MINNESOTA

MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND H. HERZOG AND CHARLES LAUDER

Mr. Dwan. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ralph H. Dwan, and I am an attorney in Washington, D.C., representing the Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., of St. Paul, Minn., sometimes known as the 3-M Co.

I would like at this point to introduce on my right Mr. R. H. Herzog, vice president of the company, and on my left Mr. C. H. Lauder, a St. Paul lawyer who advises the company on patents, copyrights, and trademarks,

The company is a manufacturer of photocopying equipment and supplies, as well as magnetic recording equipment and supplies, along with many other products.

We come before you today urging that section 107 and section 113 of H.R. 4347 be revised. Because of various types of manufacturing, we find wide application of H.R. 4347 to our company's operation.

We will first confine our comments to section 107. We feel that this section is inadequate in failing to indicate the scope of the principle of fair use. While it might not be possible to specify in that section every use which could qualify as à fair use, we believe that practices which are now considered fair use should be stated in that section, in order to provide some guidance for the consideration of individual cases.

It is noteworthy that, after devoting at least 2 of the 35 studies on copyright law revision to the photocopying of copyright works, the Register is unable to decide upon the amount of photocopying which constitutes a fair use of a copyrighted work. In the remarks to this committee by Mr. George D. Cary, the able Deputy Register of Copyrights, on May 26, 1965, it was recognized that at least some photocopying of copyrighted works is a fair use under the present law, and it was his opinion that the enactment of H.R. 4347 would not make any change from the present law. However, no one has ever been even charged with infringement of copyright under the present law by use of a photocopying machine in making copies of a copyrighted work, so there can be no assurance as to the outcome in court of any action brought under either the present law or the proposed bill. It seems inconsistent to ask a court to decide a question in litigation which the Register of Copyrights could not decide, even with the benefit of all of the materials and persons which were assembled in connection with the drafting of H.R. 4347.

While the copyright law revision studies would undoubtedly be useful in the presentation of arguments to a district judge in a lawsuit, if H.R. 4347 was enacted with section 107 in its present form, those materials will support just about any argument which both sides would want to make, and it would be impossible for anyone to determine the correct legislative intent as to the scope of fair use without a clear

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »