than one copy for its own lawful transmission purposes or for archival preservation, if the copy is not used for transmission after 6 months and is thereafter destroyed or preserved for archival purposes. This would allow any such organization not only to make a copy or recording of a copyrighted work, from a live broadcast, and to perform and exhibit it, but also to make a copy from previously recorded or filmed works, and further, to perform and exhibit such a copy. This so-called right would interfere with and be a clear violation of certain rights previously sold and transferred by the copyright proprietor and for which considerable sums of money were paid. Under section 704 (a), all deposits are the property of the U.S. Government, but the copyright should not vest in the items so deposited. The written consent of the copyright proprietor should be required, under section 704 (b) before an exchange or transfer of the work could be effectuated by the Library of Congress. The same cautionary language should be added to section 704 (c) to avoid "other disposition" by the Register or Librarian of Congress. This would avoid policing the disposition of such articles so deposited and require the consent of the copyright owner in the event the articles were not destroyed, but some other use was contemplated. May I express my appreciation, Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, for the opportunity to be heard on this proposed legislation. Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you, Mr. Dubin. Mr. Poff? Mr. PoFF. Briefly, let me see if I can summarize your recommendations. First, you say we should change the language in section 304 (c) (1) to read the same as the language in section 203 (a) (1). Mr. DUBIN. Yes, sir. Mr. POFF. Second, you say that in section 101 we should require that all hypothecations of copyrights, and proceedings incidental thereto, should be governed by this act and jurisdiction should be granted to the Federal courts. Mr. DUBIN. Yes, sir. Mr. POFF. And No. 3, you would eliminate entirely section 401(a). Mr. DUBIN. No; I would merely recommend the elimination of the words "or elsewhere" appearing in section 401 (a). Mr. POFF. I am sorry; I misunderstood you. That is as to the affixation of the notice. And fourth, you would require strict and exact reciprocity in connection with protection of unpublished foreign works. Mr. DUBIN. Yes, sir. Mr. POFF. You would oppose Government ownership of copyrights generally? Mr. DUBIN. In my personal capacity, sir, or for the committee? Mr. DUBIN. In my personal capacity, I would not oppose ownership of copyrights by the Government in a derivative capacity, but I would oppose initial ownership by the Government. Mr. POFF. And finally, you think that the fair use doctrine is properly and amply dealt with by the present language in the bill? Mr. DUBIN. Yes, sir; I do. After being here yesterday, I went back and checked on an analysis I made in 1955 of the various statutes in Europe. Of course, this analysis was made before the British act of 1956. But I went over the language, and the language set forth in the act, and I cite this because I remember Mr. Tenzer yesterday asking how could language set forth the elements of fair use. The language is incredible and it doesn't work. For example, Argentina has a provision for certain purposes up to 1,000 words or 8 measures of music. That is just one provision of fair use. When the fair use provision was first proposed, I think the record will show-and I went on record as opposing just the use of the term "fair use." I felt that examples should be set forth. I was wrong. I changed my viewpoint. I feel that just the statement "fair use" would be sufficient and leave the matter up to the courts. Mr. POFF. Traditional statutory interpretation dictates that a statute is deemed to cover those things included, and assumed to exclude those things which are not mentioned. Mr. DUBIN. I think it might be that; yes, sir. Mr. POFF. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Tenzer? Mr. TENZER. I have no questions except to say that the witness presents rather exceptional qualifications, and I think he has made a very significant contribution to the material before our committee. Mr. DUBIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Hutchinson? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have no questions other than to express my apologies for not being here to listen to the entire presentation. I would say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the part of your presentation relative to reciprocity. Much earlier in the hearings this question of reciprocity was presented to my mind, and I think it is something that the committee must seriously consider. Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Dubin. Mr. DUBIN. Thank you. Mr. ST. ONGE. The next witness will be Mr. Spencer Olin, representing the Walt Disney Productions. STATEMENT OF SPENCER C. OLIN, ON BEHALF OF WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS Mr. OLIN. My name is Spencer C. Olin. I will depart from my written statement immediately to say that I don't mind having been relegated to second position behind Mr. Dubin. Mr. Dubin is one of my several mentors in copyright law and in American Bar Association activities, and I was glad to let him speak first-not to let him, but to consent to the chairman's invitation that he do so. I hope that by reason of the two of us from the west coast speaking together we won't prove "How the West Was Lost. I am a vice president and general attorney of Walt Disney Productions, of Burbank, Calif. I am also secretary of, and attorney for, Walt Disney Music Co. and Wonderland Music Co., both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Walt Disney Productions, engaged in the music publishing business. I am also past president of the Los Angeles Copyright Society, a group of somewhat more than 100 men and women engaged in the practice of entertainment law on the west coast. I am at the present time chairman of the Copyright Division of the American Bar Association Section on Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law, but, or course, I am not permitted to speak in behalf of the association on this occasion. I would comment, however, that on this coming Tuesday, a whole day will be devoted to this copyright revision program, at the section meeting in Miami. Either in its own capacity, or through the vehicle of wholly owned subsidiaries, or by virtue of contract relationships with third parties, the company I represent is engaged in creating and offering to the public various forms of entertainment, amusement, and educational materials. These include: (1) The production and the distribution of motion picture films, both animated cartoon and live action, for theatrical release and for television exhibition. (2) The nontheatrical exhibition and distribution of 16-millimeter prints of its films to schools and school systems, public and rental libraries, universities, and by leasing to industrial institutions. (3) The manufacture and distribution of phonograph records. (4) The publication of books and comics magazines based upon or inspired by the films it produces. Our comics magazines are published in 18 languages, in 38 countries, and have a worldwide monthly circulation of approximately 14 million. (5) The publication of syndicated newspaper daily comic strips and weekly Sunday comic pages in several hundred newspapers having an estimated combined weekly readership of 50 million in the United States, and 96 million worldwide. (6) The extensive licensing, under its copyrights, of the right to use its protected cartoon characters and other creative works of art. By way of further illustrating this diversification, may I say that at the present time Walt Disney Productions and its subsidiary music publishing companies collectively are the proprietors of copyrights in more than 15,700 copyrighted works that have been registered in the U.S. Copyright Office. These registrations break down into classifications, as set out in section 5 of the present Copyright Act, as follows: (a) Books- (b) Periodicals (magazines) (e) Music---- (g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art-. (k) Prints and pictorial illustrations-- Daily comic strips--- Weekly (Sunday) comics- (l) and (m) Motion pictures- Number of certificates 1, 450 650 2, 650 190 330 4,700 4, 500 1,300 In 1955 the earliest of our copyrights became eligible for renewal, and up to the present time renewals for the second 28-year term of protection have been applied for as to 1,000 of them. In addition to the foregoing, and in our capacity as a user, we have acquired for motion picture purposes, and own, rights less than full copyright is more than 350 literary properties. In order to carry on these activities on a worldwide scale we have subsidiary companies or licensed representatives in the principal cities of more than 20 of the commercially important countries. In addition we have numerous contractural relationships with film distributors, book and comics magazine publishers, and music publishers, in countries throughout the world. I have referred earlier to our nontheatrical 16-millimeter film distribution, in which we have been actively engaged for more than 15 years. In the United States alone we have currently in effect lease arrangements with 568 school systems, 21 university libraries, 143 public libraries and rental arrangements with 16-millimeter distributors in all but 1 of the 50 States. I must say as to the school system figure, this must be multiplied because each school system has from 2 to 40 or 50 schools, all of whom have access to this material. In this connection, I have in my possession representative catalogs dealing with our 16-millimeter film activity. I will hand them to the reporter for whatever use the committee may be able to make of them with profit. Mr. TENZER. Mr. Chairman, may they be given to counsel rather than the reporter? You don't want that in the record unless the committee approves. Mr. OLIN. I meant only for the benefit of the committee, not for incorporation into the record. Mr. ST. ONGE. I think they should be submitted to counsel. Our current published catalog of 16-millimeter educational films embraces 74 different films in 8 different subject-matter areas. These are made available for use by schools and others at lease fees ranging from $100 to $300, depending on their running time, for lease periods of 10 years. The fee I quote is for the whole 10-year period and not an annual fee. Out of these fees we pay the cost of prints furnished and, of course, salaries and all other expenses of carrying on this phase of our business. Depending on their subject matter our films are also made available to police departments, highway patrols, chambers of commerce, community safety councils, boards of health, and others, all of whom are highly commendatory of the value of these films in the furtherance of their respective objectives. We have concurrently in effect in the United States 1,100 lease arrangements of this type. Underlying, supporting, and enveloping all these endeavors is the U.S. copyright law. Without in any way disparaging the imaginativeness and the genius of their creator, Mr. Disney, I would venture to say that the availability of copyright protection for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, some 35 years ago, gave the necessary incentive and encouragement, and created the atmosphere, which made possible their expansion, and that of our companies, into the many and varied activities to which I have referred. Although we make no pretense that we are the only or the largest in any of these forms of endeavor, I think it fair to assert that we feel the impact of copyright law, depend upon it and are benefited by it, to a more diversified extent, perhaps, than any other business entity in the world. And it is out of an awareness and appreciation of that fact that we have supported and do support the Copyright Register and his associates in their long and arduous task of drafting a new, modernized and strong copyright law. I have taken the time to give the foregoing description of my company's activities as a means of demonstrating the reasons for its keen interest in the copyright revision program. Having attended the first 3 days of hearings held by your committee, and having read all, I believe, of the written statements filed at the hearings to date, I am persuaded that the many divergent viewpoints have been effectively presented, and specific provisions of the bill have been thoroughly discussed. I shall refrain, therefore, from imposing upon the time of the committee by retracing well-covered ground. For the purpose, however, of stating in the record our position with respect to the pending bill, I would do so by way of reference to written statements heretofore filed. We are fully in accord with and adopt: The statement filed on June 16, 1965, in behalf of the member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America, particularly the statements of Mr. Schimel and Mr. Edward Sargoy. The latter was a document identified as a memorandum statement by the copyright committee which, though not identified as being under the authorship of Mr. Sargoy, I recognize as being prepared by him. I consider it an outstanding document. I read it on the plane yesterday and learned a little bit more. We also subscribe to and adopt the statement filed on June 16, 1965, in behalf of the National Audio-Visual Association. The record will further show that we are a party to the statement filed at the hearing of June 24, 1965, by Mr. Arthur Krim in behalf of producers of television film material, in opposition to the uncompensated use of copyrighted motion picture films on commercial CATV. On one of the specifics of the bill, section 404 (a), we, with a number of other interests similarly affected, propose to file a separate statement before the hearings are concluded, urging that omission of copyright notice should not carry the drastic penalty of complete forfeiture of copyright. Again I interpolate to endorse the reference by Mr. Dubin to the words "or elsewhere" which we strongly feel should not be in the notice section. As is the case with many of the other interests that have been represented in these hearings, we are both a creator and a user of creative works. As a creator we do not object to receiving the monetary rewards derived from our efforts, and, by the same token, as a user we do not object to the necessity of compensating others for the privilege of using the literary, musical, and artistic works created by them. We would be opposed therefore, to any enlargement of, or additions to, the exemptions provided for in section 109 of the bill. Several of the witnesses before you have argued for a stretching of those exemptions in favor of particular interests or special classes of users. As large as the number of individuals in any such class may be, they do not constitute the total public, and it is that total public for whom, in the final analysis, the benefit of a sound copyright law is intended. It is our view that in the long run the public interest is best served by a copyright law which insures reward for creative effort, for the very |