Lapas attēli

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:

certificates (a) Books.

1, 450 (6) Periodicals (magazines) (e) Music---

2, 650 (g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art. (k) Prints and pictorial illustrations. Daily comic strips----

4, 700 Weekly (Sunday) comics.

4,500 (1) and (m) Motion pictures-

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.

Number of


190 330

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.
Mr. OLIN. All right.

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 arailable 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

obvious reason that if incentive is removed or materially lessened a stagnation of creative effort is the inevitable consequence. The end result is that the public is deprived of a continuing flow of those works that contribute to its culture, art, education, and entertainment.

There are times—and I say this as a personal reaction—when one feels that too much is hoped for, and too much attempted, in the framing of a statute which can be sensibly applicable, and fair in its operation and effect, to all those segments of our society and of our complex commercial life, who, on the one hand, create a variety of classes of works, and who, on the other hand, desire in one degree or another to make use of the works thus created, either with or without the payment of compensation therefor. Yet, after some 10 years of prodigious effort-and I think we all will subscribe to the fact that it has been that-Mr. Kaminstein, Mr. Cary, Mr. Goldman, Miss Ringer, and their associates, have brought forth a bill which, to an amazing degree, accomplishes these hoped-for objectives.

It is significant in this connection that a large majority of the written statements express general approval of the bill as drafted, and that criticism and suggestion have been directed to specifics rather than to the broad approach taken. This is attributable in large measure, I believe, to the spirit of compromise, between and among conflicting interests—and I might say between the Copyright Office and the various conflicting interests—that has prevailed throughout the revision effort. In several areas longstanding and deep-seated convictions have given way to compromise, out of a common desire and a recognized need for a workable new law.

There is every reason to believe that the same spirit will manifest itself in the drafting of such further revisions and amendments as these hearings will have convinced your committee are necessary or desirable.

I express my appreciation and that of my company for the privilege of presenting this statement.

Mr. St. ONGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Olin, for your statement. We appreciate your giving us the background of the company you represent, also. I personally am grateful for your statement when you say that you will refrain from imposing on the time of the committee by retracing well-covered ground.

I am also grateful to you for picking up, I think, what is becoming a theme here, and that is, appreciation for the work that has been done hy the Register and his people, and the general expressions of satisfaction with the bill, with objections to specifics. I think the spirit of compromise that has been evidenced in the writing of the bill is continuing at the present time.

Mr. Poff, have you any questions?

Mr. POFF. I underscore, Mr. Chairman, what you have just said, and pay tribute to the witness for the broadminded tone that his statement projects.

Mr. Olin. Thank you.
Mr. St. ONGE. Mr. Tenzer?

Mr. TENZER. I join in the sentiments expressed, but I would like to ask the witness whether Walt Disney Productions is a public corporation.

Mr. OLIN. Yes, it is.
Mr. TENZER. How many employees do you have?

Mr. OLIN. At the studio we have averaging in the area of 1,700 to 1,800, depending upon the activity in film production. At the DisneyJand Park we have around 2,500 in the summertime and 750 in the winter months. We have employees in New York City, quite a number, 40, 50, or 60, in distribution, artwork, merchandising. We have employees over the world, associates over the world.

Mr. TENZER. Since it is a public corporation, would you place in the record the annual dollar volume or your gross income?

Mr. OLIN. By recollection, last year it was in the area of $86 million, and this year it will approach $100 million.

Mr. TENZER. What percentage of that might be attributed to works produced by Walt Disney as distinguished from the works of other artists and creators of material whose works you may acquire permismission to use?

Mr. Olin. Without wanting to be facetious, in one respect everything produced is produced by Walt Disney, by his inspiration, his drive, and his capacity to get other people to do the things he conceives. As a percentage, I couldn't answer that question, but in the nature of things, a corporation obviously has to be the producer of the things that are actually the work of individuals. I hope I have not departed from your question.

Mr. TENZER. Not at all, except I am referring to your statement on page 5. I was not referring to production by employees within the organization. I am referring to the statement on page 5 where you say that you are both a creator and a user of creative works. I was trying to find out the extent to which you engage in compensating others for the privilege of using their literary, musical, and artistic works.

Mr. OLIN. We are constantly buying rights in literary properties. We sometimes synchronize or get licenses to synchronize music in films. We sometimes buy music. But most of it is created by persons working on a salary basis who receive the salary and in time participate in the revenues from the performances and uses of that music.

The artwork is done by individuals, and it would be difficult to say in the case of any one picture or any one comic strip who or how many persons worked on it.

Mr. TENZER. I was trying to find out if there is some relationship to the total volume of your contracted work, so that we may be able to properly evaluate your position against the free use of copyrighted material. I wanted to get an idea of how extensive your use of copyrighted material by others actually was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Olin. I feel I haven't answered your question. Mr. St. ONGE. Mr. Hutchinson? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have just one question of the witness.

Do you care to comment upon the duration of copyright as provided in this bill?

Mr. OLIN. We are in favor of it.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. You are in favor of the extension?

Mr. Olin. Yes, sir; for these two reasons: we like it ourselves, and we also like to know that when the time comes that we want to acquire rights, the protection exists. Other witnesses have stated in their statements that the desire, particularly of the motion picture producer,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »