COMMENTS AND VIEWS SUBMITTED TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE ON REVISION OF COPYRIGHT By Horace S. Manges JUNE 21, 1960. I have read with interest the illuminating treatise on Renewal of Copyright by Miss Barbara A. Ringer. After giving due consideration to the many facets of this question, I favor a single copyright term of 56 years from publication date in order to avoid the many complex problems which have arisen under the provisions for renewal in those situations where the author dies before the twenty-eighth year of the original term. As to subsisting copyrights, I would favor making the provision for 56 years retroactive so that each subsisting copyright would continue for a period of 56 years from the date of its publication as stated on the application for copyright registration. HORACE S. MANGES. By Horace S. Manges JULY 13, 1960. In addition to the objection of the confusing complications resulting from having to determine who is entitled to a copyright renewal under the present statute, I regard any form of renewal as an undesirable burden and a requirement which results in a deprivation of rights of the non-watchful author. As to subsisting copyrights, it was my intention to convey the view that they should remain valid for 56 years from date of publication as if the 56 year term had been in existence at the time of such first publication. HORACE S. MANGES. By Melville B. Nimmer JUNE 22, 1960. I have read with a great deal of interest Barbara Ringer's excellent study on "Renewal of Copyright". I have the following comments in connection with the issues raised by the study: 1. I believe strongly that the concepts of division of duration and registration as a requirement of a longer term should be discarded from any new copyright act. On the other hand, I think the concept of reversion of ownership should be retained and made more meaningful than it is under existing case law. 2. (a) It seems to me there should be a single undivided term of copyright protection (e. g., the life of the author plus fifteen years). However, the duration of any assignment or license by an author should be limited by statute. Thus, an author should not have the power to assign or license any rights in his work for a term longer than, say, twenty-eight years, with respect to a book, measured from the time of the execution of the assignment. Furthermore, any agreement to execute a new assignment at a later time should be expressly made invalid by statute. The permissible period of an assignment may vary according to the type of work involved. Thus, if there is an assignment (or what some courts more technically regard as a license) of motion picture rights, the term of the assignment might be for a period of ten years (a not uncommon period for distribution agreements). An assignment of television rights or of magazine publication rights might be for a lesser period and an assignment of book publication rights might be for a greater period. In no event should any formalities be required in order to effectuate the reversion of rights to the author upon the expiration of the assignment. 62348-61-16 (b) The reversion of rights under the plan suggested above should be to the author or his next of kin. To permit a reversion to the author's assignees would be to defeat the purpose of a reservation. Similarly, a reversion to the author's legatees might likewise defeat the purpose of the reservation since a purchaser of rights might, as a part of the original consideration, obtain the right to be named a legatee under the author's will. (c) As indicated above, the reversion of rights should not be assignable, since otherwise the underlying purpose of such reversion would be defeated. Under the plan suggested here no problem would be raised with respect to the time of vesting. 3. I think it wrong to attempt to determine by statute which works have continuing commercial value and which do not and to vary the period of protection accordingly. If a work in fact has lost its commercial value then presumably the price for its use during its remaining period of protection will be affected accordingly. On the other hand, an arbitrary distinction of this nature might not be in accord with actual commercial values. 4. A system of limitations on assignments as indicated above seems to me to be the best approach to this problem. 5. With respect to subsisting copyrights, obviously the limitation on assignments suggested above could not affect existing agreements. However, such limitation could be applicable with respect to subsisting copyrights which are not the subject of subsisting assignments. MELVILLE B. NIMMER. By John R. Peterson JUNE 22, 1960. COMMENTS ON COPYRIGHT OFFICE STUDY ENTITLED "RENEWAL OF COPYRIGHT" The original purpose of this series of studies by the Copyright Office was the re-examination of the copyright law looking to its general revision. In the course of this effort there has been produced the most encyclopedic work on copyright to date that is available anywhere and certain fairly clear indications of the direction which revision should take. This study most ably carries forward the high standards and tradition which have been established in this series. The analysis of the United States system of copyright renewals into its three aspects of duration, formalities, and ownership is helpful not only in perceiving some of the reasons for the troubles which have been encountered but most of all in reaching toward a decision as to whether the renewal system should be preserved or should be abolished in favor of a single term, either for a considerable period of years or for the life of the author plus some specified number of years thereafter. It is interesting to note that the third aspect, that of ownership, which has given the most trouble, was originally the very reason for a renewal system. The legislative history which has been so carefully and completely assembled in this study makes it clear that it was the desire of Congress to provide a reversion of copyright to the author and his dependents for the renewal period in order to preserve him from bad bargains and unduly delayed success. If the renewal system is to be retained it is certain that the interests of the authors can be much better protected than by the present arrangement. Appendix B, on pages 208-210, summarizes provisions in the laws of other countries intended to protect the author and his dependents against transfers which are disadvantageous or which become so in the course of later events. With the benefit of experience in other countries and with the ingenuity for which such groups have become noted, we can well expect authors' associations to conceive and present specific proposals for legal provisions which would encourage authorship and safeguard its rewards more effectively than do renewal reversions. It would seem well for such proposals to take shape at an early date so that they could be discussed with the Copyright Office, tested in the forum of the bar associations, and perhaps embodied in the draft statute which everyone anticipates will emanate from the Copyright Office. There seems general agreement that the present maximum term of 56 years for copyright protection in the United States is due for further lengthening. Ever since the first copyright law, the Statute of Anne of 1710 passed primarily for the protection of printers, copyright protection has been in multiples of |