If it is the wisdom of Congress not to move towards the Gephardt bill, which would require the consent of the writer or the director, how would labeling satisfy your concerns?

Mr. CANBY. Well, I have always found that little sign or card that comes on before a film on television saying "This film has been edited for television" more provocative than anything else. Because the next question is how? What has been cut out? How much has been cut out?

I think labeling is kind of ridiculous. It just says I have misbehaved and you come on and watch the movie. It doesn't tell you anything of substance. You can't look at that edited film and have any idea what has been removed. I find labeling sort of a pat on the back for doing what you want, to either cut or colorize or what

ever.

Mr. CANBY. Of course, there are different forms of labeling. Labeling could specify precisely what was done in regards to whether it was colorization, editing.

Mr. HILLER. Yes, but if it doesn't tell you how much has been cut out, it is very difficult for somebody seeing that film for the first time to have any idea what has been removed. I saw not too long ago on one of independent stations in New York The Bank Dick. The time slot was about an hour and 10 minutes, and there must have been 20 minutes of commercials, which meant that that film that they showed us ran about 48 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me deal with the colorization issue. Would labeling work in regards to the concerns that you have on colorization? Mr. HILLER. No.

Mr. CARDIN. Would you explain why?

Mr. HILLER. It would simply announce that you are seeing a film that has been colorized, which I suppose anybody who is interested in films would be able to pick up anyway. What else is it telling the viewer who just stumbles upon it, somebody who is not particularly interested in films? I don't know what it accomplishes.

Mr. CARDIN. One of the concerns that has been expressed to us by the artists is that the artist does not necessarily want to be identified with the change, the alteration.

Mr. HILLER. Right. But I don't know that colorizing says much to that effect. Does it? Does it say the director doesn't want to be associated with this film? It just tells you it is colorized.

Mr. CARDIN. It could. Again, the labeling could say that it is done without the consent of the director.

Mr. HILLER. Well, and it could go on to say that he doesn't like the color blues and greens in this particular-I mean, the explanation could go on forever. And I don't think it really accomplishes a great deal.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Price.

Mr. PRICE. Well, I think there are problems always in text and whether text means anything, whether it communicates anything. Films are now filled with words that are the results of wars over credits and who gets to where on the marquee and various things like that.

But I think that labeling here is a useful technique. And on the question of paternity, that is, the right of an author to be associated or disassociated with the work, I would rather see the right of a

director to have his or her name removed rather than some long explanation saying "I don't like this movie" or whatever. I think that is a simpler technique than the question of paternity, as it were, under the Berne Convention.

Mr. HILLER. And the title removed.

Mr. PRICE. On the title, the director would be-the bill, the Appropriations Committee bill, as I will refer to it, would say that the original title can't be used. It doesn't really indicate what that means. I think that there is a substantial question about what words are prohibited words or permitted words.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me just comment a little. Removal of a name, though, do you think that the viewing audience would really pick up the fact that a name is not included in the credits?

Mr. PRICE. Well, I think here we are really dealing with a very valuable right of personality. There was an earlier reference to cutting up a Rauschenberg. It seems to me one of the problems there is calling it a Rauschenberg. Putting up a quarter of a Rauschenberg and saying here is a piece of paper that has certain colors on it is an all right thing to do if it-it may be if it is not representing that it is a Rauschenberg painting. And if someone is taking a narrative and saying this is not by John Steinbeck and it is not whatever, or not saying it, then something may be accomplished by doing that, if the author is embarrassed or does not want his or her name associated with the work.

The right of paternity under Berne is the right to have your name associated with work that ought to be attributed to you and the right not to have work attributed to you that is misrepresented in its attribution. And I think that very valuable insight is something that is attempted to be captured here in that bill.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank my colleagues. Are there any other questions of the panel?

Let me just ask one question, Dean Price, on the last issue. Is there not a distinction to be made between works for hire and, let us say, Rauschenberg as an artist who does his own painting? That is to say, there is a different relationship between someone who does a creative effort in the context of a work for hire, in terms of controlling the work and, let us say, an original artist as in the case of an oil painter; is there not?

Mr. PRICE. Certainly I think that in implementing Berne, or implementing our new adherence, these are important questions that need to be addressed, the relationship between work for hire and moral rights. One could have a regime in which one thinks that the right of personality ought to exist whether it is a work for hire or not, and that could be different among sectors. You could say that a painter, even though he is painting under a commission, has the right to have his or her name associated with the work, no matter what the contract of commission said, and not have that apply to directors, or vice versa.

So I think the reason for going sector by sector is to say how would each sector that does work for hire interrelate with otherwise inalienable moral rights.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.
Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Canby, if I could just ask you a question. And that is, if the options were nothing or required labeling in terms of alteration of a film, would you support-or would you think anything was offered by requiring labeling?

Mr. CANBY. Yes. I think it would point out something that hadyou know, a bad deed that had been done. I don't know that it would illuminate much of the problem in the minds certainly of the viewers. I think I feel in practice it wouldn't do much to stop it, but I think it is a good idea. It couldn't hurt.

I feel the same way about the editing of films for TV. I don't know that it really accomplishes anything. It may tell some of the viewers that this film is not quite what it was originally. And such labeling does not hurt, but I would like to see something much more effective done.

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand that. But it does serve at least the purpose of notifying the viewer that this is not the original film. Mr. CANBY. Right.

Mr. LUNGREN. Obviously, it doesn't tell them why and any other reason, but presumably, if it is on television, for instance, a commercial decision was made that the colorized version was what they thought they wanted to put their money up for, and the person who is viewing it is getting a chance to see that. There is no guarantee they would have gotten the chance to see the noncolorized version before. At least, if they are seeing that, they have been put on notice that there is an original, perhaps a "classic" that they may want to see. Without labeling there would be no intriguing aspect or no signal to them that, look, there is the real thing somewhere else, if that is how you view the artistic product.

Mr. CANBY. Well, that is true. I think what we are coming upon is a day when there are going to be so many channels available that a lot of these films will be shown in their original black and white version, if things are allowed to-if they are protected.

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I still believe in the marketplace. And if that is true, we don't have to worry about any legislation whatso

ever.

Mr. HILLER. But if there were no colored pictures, and if we spent our time putting on black and white films, we would introduce the young people to black and white films. I mean, how do you introduce your child to anything? You introduce them to it. And if you introduce them to black and white films, because there aren't the colored versions of it, they will learn about black and white.

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I still have trouble seeing Little League kids using metal bats. But I give them a wooden bat and they look at me like I am crazy. I mean, the fact of the matter is you and I may wish they were using wooden bats, we think it is a purer form of baseball, and if they want to get to the majors they have to learn. to use a wooden bat, but the fact of the matter is they all use metal bats today.

And I appreciate that I enjoy On The Waterfront. I enjoy High Noon. I enjoy films like that. But I can't get my kids to watch them.

Mr. HILLER. It is not even a question of enjoyment. It is a question of the right of the artist. You know, that is really what it goes to. I mean, you know, you have your feelings.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. If that is all the questions we have, we thank our three witnesses, Mr. Hiller, Mr. Canby, and Dean Price, for their contributions today. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Next, and the last panel, I would like to greet Mr. David Brown, the producer of many well-known and well-regarded films, and Mr. Roger Mayer, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Turner Entertainment Company, which, of course, has colorized a number of films. I am also pleased to greet Mr. Jon Baumgarten, who accompanies the panel and is a distinguished copyright practitioner has testified before this committee on a number of occasions.

I would like to first call on Mr. Brown.

Mr. MAYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand you allowed us to show a few minutes of colorized films. We would like to do that first, if possible.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Is the panel in agreement with the showing? You indicated it is a 3-minute version?

Mr. MAYER. It is 3 minutes, yes. It is 3 minutes just of clips, just to give you an idea of what is going on.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, we will watch the 3-minute film.

[Film clips shown.]

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Which of you desires to testify first? Mr. Brown.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID BROWN, FILM PRODUCER, ON BEHALF OF THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., THE ALLIANCE OF MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION PRODUCERS, AND THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, LTD., AND ROGER L. MAYER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TURNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, A SUBSIDUARY OF TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY JON BAUMGARTEN, ESQ., PROSKAUER, ROSE, GOETZ & MENDELSOHN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished colleagues, my name is David Brown. I am the proprietor of a company called the Manhattan Project, Ltd. I assure you it has nothing to do with the organization of that name during World War II, and I trust I won't have any bombs. I am an independent producer of films and television. My company is associated with Tri-Star Pictures, which is a major distributor. I am an experienced producer of motion pictures, having worked previously as executive vice president of both 20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers. In addition, from 1972 until earlier this year, Richard Zanuck, my partner, and I ran an independent production company, the Zanuck-Brown Company. Mr. Zanuck and I have film credits with which I am sure you are familiar. They include, "The Sting," "Jaws," "Cocoon," and "The Verdict," and many less well-known and less successful films.

I would like to correct a misconception. Nowhere in the deliberations on this matter has role of the producer been mentioned, not in legislation, not in panels, not in commissions, nowhere; and yet

producers created this great popular art form and business known as the motion picture industry. Films are the creation not only of the principal screenwriter and a director, but also, of producersthe men and women who backed directors and principal writers.

Now to familiarize yourself with the process of making a motion picture, whether it becomes a work of art or not. The producer normally, unless the director is also the producer, comes first and identifies the basic idea or property or book or play on which the film is to be based, and selects a writer to adapt the work. There are occasions, of course, when, as in the case of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," the screenplay is in completed form and requires only a minimum of work by the same or a different writer at that point, or even before a director is selected.

To summarize, the producer usually comes first, and he then selects a writer. And then, if the script is OK, or sometimes before, he makes a list of directors and he goes after the directors.

I take exception to the idea that the principal screenwriter, who sometimes can never be identified because there are sometimes many writers on a film, and the director are the auteurs. A movie is not a symphony by Strauss. It is not a Monet. A motion picture, a popular art form, is not an elitist art form.

It is true that films in many foreign countries and, certain filmmakers in this country, Woody Allen among them, are truly amuteur. The director is responsible for everything in the movie. As for films in this country, I spend a fair amount of my time protecting the works of original artists from the meddling of directors and writers.

Many producers, Mr. Zanuck and I included, are not money men. We don't raise the money for the movie. Our backers are generally distributors. We are primarily active in the creation of films. We are authors of films, if you please, but not sole authors because we know-and I will go into this in a moment-how many people are involved in the making of films.

So I want to say again there are major misconceptions that I would like to try to refute and clarify. One is that writers and directors are sole creators of films. Not true.

Another misconception is that our film heritage is about to be destroyed. I respectfully suggest that is not the case. The fight is not about destroying classics. In a funny way it is a little about censorship. The film heritage exists. Every work of art or non-art has a life span. A popular novel sells for a year or two. A successful film is in theatrical distribution for 6 months and sometimes a year; then it goes into other modes of exhibition. Those works that the public and qualified critics identify as classics in the fullness of time become works of art. They are rarely in circulation at the time of such recognition.

They usually are in museums or archives, and we, through our educational system, are made aware of them. No Film Commission is going to satisfy me that they know what a work of art is. That will come in only the fullness of time.

Mozart, Beethoven, were all pilloried by critics. Their works and their artsmanship, so to speak, came much later.

A film, as I have said, is usually not a pure work. It is a collaboration and fusion of many talents and skills. As for being criticized