COMMENTS AND VIEWS SUBMITTED TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE ON THE CATALOG OF COPYRIGHT ENTRIES

John Schulman

MAY 20, 1960.

I have read with great interest the study made by Mrs. Dunne and Mr. Rogers concerning "The Catalog of Copyright Entries."

It is my opinion that the printed catalog should be continued, since the proposed substitutes would not be adequate.

The American Guild of Authors and Composers advises me that the catalog has been most useful, not only for music but also in connection with dramatic works and motion pictures. The usefulness of any system of registration, whether voluntary or otherwise, would be of small value without rapid, convenient, and inexpensive access to the registration data.

JOHN SCHULMAN.

Samuel Tannenbaum

MAY 31, 1960.

Mrs. Dunne and Mr. Rogers are to be complimented on the comprehensive study "The Catalog of Copyright Entries," undertaken under your efficient supervision.

My observations herein are based on many years of personal experience and that of my late partner Ligon Johnson, as one of the oldest continuous subscribers and daily users of the catalog.

The purpose and function of copyrights were aptly expressed in The Congressional Report No. 2222 of the 60th Congress (Feb. 22, 1909), accompanying the 1909 Copyright Act:

It is "not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public. * * *

The late Thorvald Solberg, the first Register of Copyrights, an eminent bibliographer and a stanch champion of the continued and uninterrupted issuance of the Catalog, is quoted on page 58 of The Study thus: "the Catalog is the most available index to copyright business, used constantly in the Copyright Office itself and making the record available to the public without recourse to the Office*** it is the official contemporaneous record of the country's intellectual production. ***”

The study also states that the present Copyright Office finds the Catalog to be "a tool supplementary to the card catalog, especially to check original registration data in the processing of renewals or for other reasons when the date of publication or registration is known, and to check for entries possibly misfiled or removed from the card files" (p. 63). By thus insuring the accuracy of the public record, the catalog is invaluable.

Significantly, the Copyright Revision bills of 1924-40 provided for the continued publication of the Catalog with slight changes in former sections 56 and 57 (now secs. 210 and 211).

The Study demonstrates the indispensibility of the continued publication of the catalog not only to the Copyright Office but especially to the public. Practically the only argument advanced against its continued issuance is the cost of production as compared with the small amount realized from subscriptions.

The public benefit demonstrated over the past 50 years and prior thereto should be paramount. The small monetary return from subscriptions of the entire catalog or various parts thereof should not interfere with its continued publication.

The last issued Register's Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, states on page 2 that the "earned fees collected totaled 3.6 percent more or $979,941” than in the previous fiscal year.

According to that report on page 16, the balance on hand July 1, 1958, was $222,032.07 plus gross receipts from July 1, 1958, to June 30, 1959, of $1,030,099.70, totaling $1,252,131.77.

The efficient administration of The Copyright Office under the able stewardship of Hon. Arthur Fisher is reflected in the following comparative figures:

It is evident that the cost of the catalog is but a small segment of the Copyright Office business.

The fine public service rendered by The Copyright Office by the issuance of the catalog should not be interrupted, even though the revenue received from sunscriptions falls short of the cost of production.

As neither the 1959 report nor any prior annual report of the Register contain a breakdown of cost of production or the net annual income, or deficit, if any, we are not in a position to determine what effect the deficit resulting from the catalog operation has on the net income derived from the overall operations of the Office.

The observations of Virginia C. Gildersleeve, Dean of Barnard College for 36 years before her retirement in 1947, in an article "The Lost Half Century," published in the SATURDAY REVIEW, May 14, 1960, on pages 45-46, are quite apt: "I notice in the laments of librarians great alarm at the 'prohibitive cost' of some suggested expedients.

"They seem to feel presumably from 'bitter experience, that the richest country in the world will not be willing to spend enough money to embody its great books in a form destined to last.'"

Although Dean Gildersleeve was discussing the various means of preserving many of the valuable books of the past, her statement is quite appropriate in refutation of the arguments advanced that the Catalog should be dispensed with because the total cost in 1958 of publishing the Catalog was $109,000 while the receipts from "Sales of the various parts of the Catalog totaled $4,033” (p. 67). Should public libraries, museums, and many of the public institutions be abandoned because income fails to pay for their operation?

The Copyright Office is not a private institution. It was conceived and established as a public service in language frequently quoted in The Study. The Catalog is a tool which implements copyrights granted by Congress which was established "for the benefit of the great body of people" (Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1909).

With respect to the queries stated on page 72 of The Study:

1. I do not believe that the registration records should be reproduced and made available outside of the Copyright Office, to the exclusion of the Catalog.

The Catalog is a convenient and readily accessible tool to the general public, for obtaining copyright registrations, checking renewals and obtaining other indispensible official data. Such service now rendered to subscribers supplementing the Catalog should continue to be made available for purchase.

2. The issuance of microform copies of registration records available for purchase would impose a burden on the public.

The requisite paraphernalia would be too costly to the average user. It would also be inconvenient, cumbersome, and impracticable.

Furthermore, to be of value, microfilm would require a complex and comprehensive index; without which the catalog would be practically useless.

In the aforementioned article by former Dean Gildersleeve, she discusses the possible use of microfilm and states on page 13: "and though microfilm will obviously be of great value in preserving records, its use presents grave administrative and practical difficulties."

DUPLICATE SETS OF COPYRIGHT OFFICE CARDS, ENTRIES, AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE According to the Register's 1959 report, page 14, there were 241,735 registrations of all classes in that year. Books comprised 59,009 registrations; periodicals, 62,246; musical compositions, 70,707; and renewals of all classes, 21,533.

It is obvious that the public generally could hardly afford the expense of subscribing to the card service. Only the few specializing in rendering such professional service have been compelled to bear the expense in order to supplement the Catalog due to its tardy publication of over a year.

Then too, the accumulation of the great volume of cards presents a serious space problem. The average drawer containing 3 x 5 cards holds 1,000 cards. It is obvious what increasing space would be required under prevailing and constantly increasing rentals.

PLACEMENT OF MICROFILM COPIES IN GENERAL REGIONAL CENTERS

This is both impractical and exceedingly inconvenient. Registration and renewal data to be useful must be handy and readily accessible.

How much more useful is a bound catalog within easy reach than records at points distant from the user?

RECORD SEARCHES BY THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE

The present system of record searches by The Copyright Office should be continued as a supplement to, but by no means in lieu of the Catalog.

The elimination of the catalog would impose a great burden on the Copyright Office. The tremendous flood of inquiries would not only delay the service to the public, but would necessarily increase the personnel of the Office.

As to Item 4 on page 72 of The Study: Assuming a system of registration is continued, the statute should prescribe the classes of works, form and frequency of publication of the Catalog. The price should be left to the Register's discretion, except that a price limit should be set. The present price is admittedly low and a reasonable increase would be justified.

The importance of issuing the Catalog more expeditiously cannot be overemphasized. Delayed publication seriously affects its usefulness and dependability.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in my opinion, based on many years of the use of the Catalog, the Catalog should not be discontinued for the following reasons:

1. It is a convenient, accessible, and important (in many cases daily) tool. With the tremendous increase in the Arts and Sciences and culture generally, and the economic exploitation thereof, its elimination would result in a serious disservice to the public, violative of the purpose for which it was established for over 50 years of its existence.

2. Its abandonment would immeasurably increase visits and communications to the Copyright Office, imposing a serious burden on the staff, increasing operational costs, and preventing expeditious service to the public.

3. If adequately publicized, in my opinion, the number of subscribers would increase not only for the entire Catalog but also the separate parts.

4. It is an indispensible source of evidence in litagation, without which litigants would be prejudiced and trials would be delayed.

5. In view of the pending proposed Program of Revision of the Copyright Act, especially with respect to notice of copyright, registration, term of copyright and other items, the final decision with respect to the Catalog must await the conclusion of the revision program.

SAMUEL TANNENBAUM.

Foster Palmer (Harvard University Library)

MAY 19, 1960.

1. It is perhaps superfluous to point out that the argument made in the 1830's (pp. 55–56) to the effect that a published record of copyrights is as important as a published record of patents is not valid. Every invention for which a patent is sought must be compared with other inventions; no such comparison is necessary or, in effect, possible in the case of copyright.

2. The "Catalog of Copyright Entries" is used in this library principally in two connections. Literary historians sometimes find the exact date of copyright of interest in tracing the history of a particular publication. Persons wishing to reprint material wish to know whether it is in the public domain; the principal use of the "Catalog of Copyright Entries” here is to determine whether a copyright was renewed. These are the two uses of the section on books which have