COMMENTS AND VIEWS SUBMITTED TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE ON DEPOSITS OF COPYRIGHT WORKS I have read Mrs. Dunne's "Deposit of Copyrighted Works" with a great deal of interest and profit. Insofar as the subject of deposit rests on acquisition of works for various libraries, there is no comment that I can make. It is most interesting to note the apparently small extent actual copyright deposits have been involved in litigation. This is in sharp contrast to the experience in the patent law (where the originally filed patent application is normally scrutinized in great detail by the courts) and in the law of confidential disclosures (where controversies frequently arise as to the subject matter disclosed). It is hard to resist some feeling that the value of copyright deposits for litigation purposes is underestimated. Mazer v. Stein provides at least one illustration of the use of such deposits in litigation. There the actual deposited works were shown to the Supreme Court and were viewed with interest by the Court. The fact that they were in the form of statuettes in plaster and not complete lamps had at least some relevance to the controversy. Of course this incident does not justify sweeping requirements for physical copies in all instances (requirements that have at least not been present in recent years). But it does suggest that there is a definite value in Copyright Office records that adequately identify what has been created and is copyrighted. The only question raised in Mrs. Dunne's study that seems to require answer in veiw of the above is A-2. My present reaction is that the statutes should be in sufficient detail to assure in every instance that the subject matter copyrighted can be ascertained by reference to Copyright Office records. Considerations of expense and cost of storage should, of course, be reflected in the requirements as to what must be deposited (as they now are in 17 U.S.C. 12). Some thought might be given, however, to statutory language that would assure that the burden is on the copyright registrant to assure full identification of the work from what is deposited. GEORGE E. FROST. I have read with considerable interest the exhaustive study by Mrs. Dunne on "Deposit of Copyrighted Works." I believe that my comments concerning Study No. 17 on "The Registration of Copyright" are also in point with regard to the question of deposit. More specifically, my answers to the questions raised under VIII A and B would be these: A. (1) I would not favor a separate deposit system but would be inclined to recommend that the basic structure of the present combined system be retained in the new act. (2) Based on my past experience, it would be my view that the statute should not set forth complete details for the various kinds of works but that such details should be left for administrative determination based on joint action by the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights. It has always troubled me that the present law was so inflexible as to provide no material differences in the deposit system with regard to the type of work in which the Library of Congress would be interested and those works which are registered and deposited for copyright purposes only. As you know, it was only quite recently that we finally had the statute changed with regard to the deposit of three-dimensional works of I believe that matters of this sort could well be left to the administrative discretion of the agencies involved. art. B. (1) As already stated, I believe that the statutory prescriptions should be in general terms and not be as inflexible as they have proven to be under the present Act of 1909. (2) This is the point I feel most strongly about. Under no circumstances should failure to deposit, lead to forfeiture of the copyright itself. We had to give up this notion, anyway, as a result of our ratification of the Universal Copyright Convention, and I feel strongly that we should not retain it even with regard to our own citizens or with regard to works first published in the United States. We may consider the imposition of a fine or other penalty, but we should not make the deposit a condition of copyright even after filing the demand. WALTER J. DERENBERG. Robert Gibbon (the Curtis Publishing Co.) JANUARY 29, 1960. We feel that there are few comments which need to be made concerning the latest Copyright Office study, "Deposit of Copyrighted Works." As Mrs. Dunne explained, the present system of using deposits required for registration to supply the needs of the Library of Congress, works quite adequately. If a new copyright law does not provide for compulsory registration, public interest will demand a deposit procedure which will work at least as effectively as the present one. Without knowing in detail how such a revised copyright law might operate, it is next to impossible to say now how to cope with failures to submit copies. We do believe, however, that a reasonable time limit should be imposed and that a monetary penalty should be established for willful failures. Revocation of copyright, as a penalty, is too drastic a measure. Under such a new law, where there is no benefit accruing to the copyright owner who must deposit copies, it would be only reasonable to grant free mailing privileges and give a free receipt to him upon deposit at the post office. A. A new copyright law should provide for a registration system within the following framework: (1) The deposits should include copies for the Library. A separate deposit system seems to me to be unnecessary. (2) The statutory prescription should be written in general terms. Copyright statutes obviously have a way of remaining with us for a long haul and too much specification leads to early obsolescence. B. Registration should be compulsory but, assuming it is not (1) The statutory prescription should be in general terms subject to interpretation by administrative regulation. (2) The obligation to make the Library deposit should be on the copyright proprietor. If he is not the publisher, as between himself and publisher, he can put it on the publisher by contract if that appears advisable to him as probably in most instances it would. (3) A receipt for the Library deposit should be issued in all cases; there should be no charge for the receipt. C. The present provisions of [title] 17, United States Code, Section 214, should be retained except that the notice-before-destruction-of-a-manuscript to the copyright proprietor of record should be made contingent upon the payment of an extra fee by the original copyright registrant. The purpose of this requirement would be to confine the necessity of such notice to cases where the registrant really believes he might want the manuscript returned. D. The free mailing privileges under [title] 17, United States Code, Section 15, should be eliminated except with regard to cases where the postage would exceed nominal postage charges. HARRY R. OLSSON, Jr. Robert L. Talmadge (The University of Kansas Libraries) APRIL 26, 1960. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to study Mrs. Dunne's admirable statement on "Deposit of Copyrighted Works." Perhaps understandably, my particular concern with regard to the deposit of copyrighted works is its important contribution in the public interest through additions to the library resources of the United States. The availability of copyright deposits to the Library of Congress is, of course, indispensable. It seems to me, however, that the benefits which would result from the deposit of, say, three or four additional copies of selected classes of materials in other regions of this broad land should not be overlooked. The increased accessibility and the increased safety of research resources which would result from moderate use of this principle would seem to me far to outweigh the disadvantages of slight additional cost to publishers and of a more complicated system of deposit and distribution. It seems to me that both the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union are ahead of us in this respect, though I would not propose that we need go even as far as the six copies required in the United Kingdom. It seems to me, however, that at least two additional copies for deposit in other libraries, say, somewhere in the Midwest and in a suitable location on the West Coast, would make a great deal of sense. Beyond the above general observation, I would submit the following views regarding the questions listed under VIII A and B: A. (1) A separate deposit system does not appear to be required. (2) I would strongly favor a statute set forth in general terms, with provision for detailed arrangements to be prescribed, and altered from time to time as circumstances change, through administrative regulation by the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights acting jointly. Flexibility is highly desirable. B. (1) Again, I should favor provision for administrative regulation of deposit, rather than the relative inflexibility which would result from a detailed statute. (2) A fixed deadline for deposits should be prescribed, and it should be set immediately (ten days?) after publication. The longer the interval provided, the greater would seem the possibility of procrastination or forgetfulness on the part of publishers. The penalty for noncompliance should be sizable-$250 would not seem too much-but it should not entail forfeiture of the copyright. (3) It seems to me that it would be sensible to place the obligation for Library deposit upon the publisher. There should be no great inconvenience from the standpoint of the publisher, for whom such deposit would become a regular part of the publishing routine. It should also facilitate correspondence and followup for the Register of Copyrights. (4) Automatic issuance of a free receipt in all cases should be provided for in the statute. C. The present provisions of [title] 17, United States Code, Section 214, seem satisfactory. D. I would favor retention of the free mailing privilege. ROBERT L. TALMADGE. Herman H. Fussler (The University of Chicago Library) APRIL 27, 1960. I have read with great interest the study prepared for the U.S. Copyright Office by Elizabeth K. Dunne on the "Deposit of Copyrighted Works". The study is a very useful account of an intricate and important subject. In any revision of the Copyright law, it seems to me essential that at least the following points be covered with respect to the deposit of copyrighted works. 1. In one way or another the deposit of copyrighted works should be mandatory and the law should provide for adequate and easily enforceable penalties to insure compliance on as broad a basis as possible. From the point of view of research libraries certain classes of material, e.g. forms, labels, etc., might be excluded if such classes can be defined in ways satisfactory to the Library of Congress. 2. The requirements as to deposit should be such as to insure the prompt deposit with the Library of Congress. Publishers should be encouraged to deposit copyrighted works prior to publication if they wish to do so; for others a specified period of time after publication seems highly desirable. 3. The Library of Congress should be given great discretion to dispose of material that in its judgment need not be retained. This discretionary power should be exercisable with the fewest possible restraints on the Library. I do not believe there is any appreciable risk of such discretionary authority being abused, while failure to grant such authority can be extremely costly to the Government. HERMAN H. FUSSLER. William S. Dix (Princeton University Library) * MAY 5, 1960. * Speaking from the point of view of the University Library, and with a general concern for making the materials of research available to scholars, I should say that quite apart from technical legal aspects the scholarly community has a right to expect that there will be preserved at the Library of Congress one copy of each work which has been copyrighted. The remaining issues outlined in your study, while interesting and important, seemed to me essentially matters of procedure. If in order to make sure that it maintains this one copy the Library of Congress feels that it should receive two copies, this requirement would seem to me reasonable. Whether the Library receives its copies as a part of the process of copyright registration or in some other manner seems to me a matter to be determined by the convenience of the Library and the person seeking to obtain copyright. In general, I should be prepared to endorse any position in this matter which the Librarian of Congress might take. While it goes beyond the scope of the present study, some consideration might be given of the system something like the British system by which other appropriate libraries in the country might receive the second copy. In other words, some sort of "Farmington Plan" system by which libraries having great strength in particular fields might receive copies of all copyright works in those fields might help call fugitive and esoteric publications to the attention of the scholarly community. I fear however that the operation of a system of this sort might be expensive. WILLIAM S. DIX. We believe that the present law serves the need of libraries as well as any system could and we therefore think there is little to be gained by a new system. Some of the conclusions to which we have come and which we pass along as suggestions are the following: A. (1) Deposits required for registration should include copies for the Library of Congress. (It seems doubtful that copyright owners should be required to furnish additional free copies for use in possible regional depositories.) (2) Statutory prescriptions should be in general terms. B. (1) Deposits required for the Library of Congress should be prescribed in the statute in general terms, subject to relaxation by administrative regulation. (2) Deposits should be required within definite time limits, perhaps within thirty days following publication. A similar limit should be set for complying with a demand for the deposit. A suitable monetary fine should be imposed for noncompliance. (3) Because of practical considerations, obligation to make the library deposit should be placed on the publisher rather than the copyright owner. (4) A receipt for the deposit should be issued on request and for a fee to cover costs. C. The Copyright Office might consider the feasibility of a plan whereby items not wanted by the Library of Congress be returned to the publisher, etc., if the latter indicated at time of deposit that he would want to have it returned. A suitable fee to cover costs would need to be charged. D. In view of the statement in paragraph F, page 39, abolition of free mailing privilege may well be considered. R. B. Downs. Page Ackerman (University of California Library) JUNE 21, 1960. *** It seems desirable to work toward a system of legal deposit combined with copyright registration, if such a system can be devised as to be constitutionally valid. Concerning the following points: A. Assuming registration system to be provided for in a new copyright law: 1. Deposit and registration systems should be combined. Advance copies sent for precataloging should be accepted in place of deposit copies, if these copies are identical in every respect. 2. Statutory prescription should be in sufficiently general terms to allow for special cases and types of material. B. Assuming registration not to be compulsory: 1. Statutory prescription should be general. 2. Two months' time limit would seem sufficient. Loss of copyright seems too severe a penalty; a warning followed by a fairly stiff fine should be enough. 3. The obligation for deposit should be on the copyright owner. Although, in practice, the publisher usually would, and should, make the deposit, the responsibility should rest with the copyright owner, to insure deposit of privately printed materials. 4. The receipt should be issued automatically, and without charge. If registration is not compulsory, every inducement to registration should be offered. C. No change in [title] 17, United States Code, Section 214. PAGE ACKERMAN. Frederick H. Wagman (University of Michigan Library) * JUNE 30, 1960. * I think that the deposits required for registration should include copies for the Library. Whether or not the deposits be prescribed in the statute in complete detail or in general terms should be a matter for decision by your office in terms of the wealth of your experience. However, I should like to introduce a completely new element here and suggest that for books, periodicals, pamphlets, maps, and newspapers the deposit required should consist of one copy of the best edition and one copy in microfilm form. In fact it would be better if instead of asking the copyright owner or publisher to supply the microfilm, a fee were substituted to cover the cost of making this film at the Library of Congress. This would insure that the microfilm was up to standard and it would be possible to include a catalog card in the film. The value of this film record is self-evident. First and less important it would reduce very greatly the space required for the storage of copyright deposits. Second, it would insure the availability for purchase by libraries or individuals of copies when the copyright period had lapsed and would eliminate the necessity for the retention of a great many publications in a great many libraries throughout the United States after they have reached the category of little used materials. Such a provision in the copyright law would alter very greatly the need for storage buildings, cooperative storage arrangements among libraries, concern about |