COMMENTS AND VIEWS SUBMITTED TO THE COPYRIGHT It seems to me that in a new U.S. copyright statute it would be preferable to utilize as a basis for the protection of works of foreign authors the third proposed alternative. Thus I would favor extending such protection to the works of all authors regardless of their nationality except as the President, by proclamation, might otherwise direct as to the works of nationals of any particular country. In this way, as Mr. Bogsch indicates, simplicity could be obtained and yet reciprocity preserved where deemed advisable in the interest of the United States. HORACE S. MANGES. Harry R. Olsson, Jr. JUNE 19, 1959. I have the following comments to make on the questions raised by this excellent study. In a new United States copyright statute, protection should be extended to works of foreign authorship regardless of the nationality of the authors except as the President by proclamation may withhold or restrict protection for the works of nationals of any particular country. I take this position only because of my belief that in the present state of the world our President would withhold protection from Russian nationals and perhaps nationals of other "iron curtain" countries. If it appeared a proclamation or proclamations having this effect were not to be made, I should then oppose a grant of protection on that basis and support granting protection to those works of foreign authors meeting specified conditions, which would include domicile of the author, convention or treaty protection and reciprocity. I should not protect the work merely because it was first published in the United States and I should not have any requirement of manufacture in this country. Under present world conditions, I think this country would be very foolish to enrich Russian authors, if indeed royalty payments to them may be regarded as sure to compensate them privately, when our own authors receive no effective protection from their government. Nor is there any advantage to us in encouraging their present kind of intellectual output; the reverse is true. I am aware of and impressed by the argument that if you encourage a man to think, you cannot be sure he will respect the bounds you set, but I do not think many are likely to follow Pasternak's lead in Russia and actually write down what they think. The fact that they may now receive protection in this country under the Universal Copyright Convention by first publishing in a member country is to be regarded as an unfortunate by-product of that convention rather than an effect of it which we should wish to extend. The problem proposed by the undeveloped countries of the world which do not grant our authors protection is an entirely different matter, probably one where a soft heart does not mean a soft head. Here we should consider exceptions to what should be our general rule of reciprocity. John Schulman HARRY R. OLSSON, Jr. JULY 16, 1959. * * * There is little doubt that the present state of our law concerning foreign works is not entirely satisfactory and should be eventually changed. I think, for example, that the work of an American author first published abroad should be entitled to copyright protection without the limitations of the manufacturing clause. It would be more realistic to eliminate "reciprocity" under our proclamation procedure and to grant copyright protection to foreign works only on the basis of a specific treaty or convention. I do not think it is feasible at the present time to provide protection to all foreign works without regard to their national origin, or to provide such protection subject to cancellation by Presidential proclamation. Of course, a general grant of copyright protection to all foreign works would be a generous gesture and would in the abstract represent an ideal condition. On the other hand, it would be wholly impractical in the present posture of international copyright, and would destroy the primary incentive for foreign countries to adhere to the Universal Copyright Convention. It is somewhat amazing that such countries as Canada and Australia have not adhered to UCC and have allowed so many years to elapse before taking advantage of its provisions. They have, of course, been working on a general revision of their copyright statutes and this has been a long drawn out process. Neverthe less, we must face the fact that in the absence of any incentive to adhere to UCC to obtain better copyright protection in the United States, it is entirely possible that they would never do so. The same considerations apply to a number of countries which have not indicated any great desire to adhere to as simple a convention as the one created in 1952. It is my firm belief that, were we to grant unconditional protection to all works of foreign origin, the present trend toward adherence to the UCC would cease. The suggestion that unqualified copyright protection might be cancelled by Presidential proclamation, although a theoretical safeguard, is also not realistic. It is one thing to withhold a proclamation in the first instance and another to denounce relationships after they are created. A good example of inaction is the copyright status of works of Dutch origin. Although The Netherlands has for many years made it clear that it does not afford reciprocal protection to American works, our own Government has done nothing about it. As far as I know, we have never cancelled or withdrawn a proclamation under the Copyright Act, and I suggest that there is very little likelihood of such action being taken against a friendly nation in the future. Accordingly, it is my suggestion that we either keep our present structure in relation to foreign works, or else eliminate the proclamation feature and rely entirely on treaty or convention procedures. At the same time we should eliminate the manufacturing clause in respect of works of American authors and should afford statutory protection of the unpublished works of alien authors who are domiciled in the United States. In reference to the copyright revision study by Arpad Bogsch entitled "Protection of Works of Foreign Origin", it is my view that the present system should be retained subject to minor modifications needed for clarification. Mr. Bogsch has clearly stated in Chapter V, 1(a), modifications which might properly be made. Quite definitely protection under the American system should not be opened to nationals of countries notorious for theft of American works. ELISHA HANSON Melville B. Nimmer AUGUST 5, 1959. With respect to the study "Protection of Works of Foreign Origin” by Arpad Bogsch, it seems to me that all foreign works should be accorded the same protection as domestic works without discrimination. Recognition by our government of the dignity and status of the creators of literary property should not be dependent upon the acts of foreign governments. Moreover, it would appear to be in the interests of domestic users of copyright as well as creators here and abroad that the present complex and archaic proclamation system be abolished. In order to achieve full equality of treatment between domestic and foreign works it would be necessary not only to abolish special conditions precedent for pro |