1

2

3

4

15

"(e) If the artistic author of the motion picture listed above is deceased or incapacitat

ed, are you the heir of the artistic author?

5 SEC. 4. MEETINGS RESPECTING DISCLOSURE REQUIRE

6

7

MENTS.

No amendment made by this Act shall be construed 8 to prevent the copyright owners of films, their representa9 tives, or the appropriate professional guilds representing 10 directors, screenwriters, and cinematographers of films 11 from meeting for the sole purpose of developing and agree12 ing upon the disclosure requirements and reasonable peri13 ods of time necessary for compliance with the require14 ments of section 43(c)(1) of the Lanham Act (as added 15 by section 3 of this Act), if such joint activity is not in 16 violation of the antitrust laws.

17 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

18

(a) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subsection 19 (b), this Act and the amendment made by this Act shall

20 take effect on the date of enactment.

21

(b) SPECIAL RULE.-Paragraphs (1) and (2) of sec

22 tion 43(c) of the Lanham Act (as added by section 3 of 23 this Act) shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 24 enactment of this Act.

O

•HR 3051 IH

Mr. HUGHES. The Chair recognizes the distinguished ranking Republican, Mr. Moorhead of California.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Over the last several years, beginning with our consideration of the Berne Copyright Convention, this committee has held a number of hearings on the so-called moral rights.

The United States is the world's leading exporter of copyrighted materials, and consumers around the globe benefit from American creativity and the unrestricted distribution of our books, records, magazines, TV shows and other works. The law seems to be meeting the goals set out in the copyright clause of our Constitution.

Today's hearing focuses on films, and a specific proposal for government-mandated labeling of films that have been formatted for the TV screen or other video presentations.

I believe it is important that before we amend the Lanham Act, there should be a showing that there is a problem and that the consumers are being misled or deceived. I am also concerned that the issues put forth in this legislation might be better left to the collective bargaining process.

I will be listening carefully and reading the testimony of the people that are here today and I hope that we can come out to a conclusion that is satisfactory to the industry. I am looking forward to this morning's testimony.

Mr. HUGHES. I thank you, gentlemen.

We have a lot of members of the subcommittee here. It is a very interesting and difficult issue, and we have a long list of witnesses today. I am going to recognize members for a brief opening statement.

The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ČONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to just briefly weigh in on this as a supporter of creative arts and American culture. This is an important juncture between the legislative branch and all our friends from Hollywood out there in the audience.

I have looked favorably upon film disclosure because it is merely a modest attempt to insure that consumers are fully informed about the true nature of the films that they are about to see on TV or rent, and without the labels, consumers may never know that the movies that they are viewing have been materially altered from the original release, and this curves the unique ability of artists and filmmakers to express the artistry that is brought to this very important craft and sacrificed and undercut by bottom line consid

erations.

And so I think this bill in a small way may give the artistic creators some measure of bargaining power to protect the integrity of their creations and I think this will be an important hearing.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I applaud you for holding these hearings. I am pleased to see we will explore this issue today.

My focus will be on one point above all others. It is critical in our deliberations here to preserve and protect the interests of the first amendment. I think all of us have that in mind.

I care a great deal about preservation of the rights of those artistic producers. It is unfair, it is wrong and misleading oftentimes for consumers to see something they think was made by an artistic author when it turns out it wasn't.

However, we must never depart from our first amendment guide in so doing. And so my focus in today's hearings will be, is what we are doing or proposed to be doing the minimum intrusion upon free speech appropriate to achieve the objective?

Can we achieve the desirable objective with less intrusion upon free speech?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SANGMEISTER. I, too, would like to thank you for scheduling this hearing on H.R. 3051, which is to require labeling of films. This issue presents the members of this subcommittee with some very compelling arguments on both sides. I sympathize with the directors, writers and cinematographers with whom I have met, and the stories they have recounted to me about late night broadcasts of their movies which completely omit scenes or fail to reveal the intention of the artist and the pride they have in their work.

Equally convincing, however, is the argument put forth by the film studios and others. The film industry remains one of our country's economic and cultural treasures. More and more the industry says profits come from overseas and from subsequent revenue streams.

I believe it is in our best interest to seriously consider the impact that this legislation might have on an industry that is so dependent upon the wide distribution of its products over different media in different countries in different languages and so on.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I hope the hearing will go beyond the general arguments that have been set forth on this topic and address some of the potential details.

For instance, will this legislation disproportionately affect national and independent broadcasters that already have a difficult time getting-competing against cable television?

How will it affect video stores who will have to label their films with their packaging and promotional materials as well? And moreover, what is the extent of the film alteration problem and is there any other legitimate vehicle about which to address it? I think it is important that the subcommittee look at these other specifics. Thank you.

Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. JAMES. I will be interested in listening to the testimony concerning not only the notice of the changes but to what extent there can be a contract for-under the bill for one or more versions of the same product.

In other words, I would assume that there could be an anticipation in advance that there would be more than one version for different audiences and would there be an allowance for a contract in that event.

Two, I would be interested to see to what extent there is going to be an argument for just labeling or hearings concerning those issues. It is one thing to label. It is another to have a hearing as far

as the economic expense that is involved. So I will be most concerned about the testimony on both of those issues.

I will look forward to the testimony. Thank you.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you. The gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in this debate over film labeling and creative expression for some time. It is an issue we seem to revisit more often than most other issues.

I have come to better understand, I think, through the years, the myriad of parts and players that come together to finalize these films that I had the pleasure and millions of Americans have the pleasure of viewing. In examining the matter again, however, I am not sure that anything has changed that would alter my position from previous years.

There are several matters that would have to be addressed to convince me that such a bill like H.R. 3051 is essential or even needed: Where is the evidence of the great public outcry over deception of the viewing public? Who is the Government really protecting with such legislation? This is not the equivalent, I would argue, of a public health issue regarding notice.

Who has the right to decide who is the, quote, artistic author and why is it only limited to the quote, principal director, screenwriter and cinematographers out of the hundreds of persons who make the film?

And who defines principle? What if these people all have different objections? What is the economic impact on the copyright owner?

Would there even be a film without the money put up for the production and how are those rights protected?

Why is it necessary for Congress to intervene in this matter when it would be best described and left to the collective bargaining arena?

And finally, can anyone guarantee me that this label would not be the end of the labels? What about those groups that desire other types of labels, such as the ones often advertised by Senator Helms.

You know, I always learn something from these hearings. However, to change the law I think I need a lot more. Unless direct economic or other harm can be proven, I do not believe at this juncture that there is a need for this legislative response.

Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. This situation, unlike many up here, in my opinion, does not involve a good guys versus bad guys scenario. It rather involves a good guys versus good guys sce

nario.

I met with both groups. Both groups are reasonable, not onerous in any way that I can see. I find merit in arguments submitted by both sides, Mr. Chairman, and I am in a dilemma.

I don't know whether others in this subcommittee share my view, but I am in a dilemma on this and I would like to see if all else fails, I would like to see these good guys and good guys maybe get

together and perhaps come up with some sort of compromise, if all else fails.

So having said that, Mr. Chairman, I hope that I see lucid illumination as we advance today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.

The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. GLICKMAN. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to go to a hearing that is going to be a lot of fun. I mean it is the movie producers, directors, they are going to bring a level of interest to this process, which is often pretty sterile, but-and I am a movie lover.

I am pleased that Martin Scorsese is here because I think he is the best film director in Hollywood, and I hope the other directors in this room will not take umbrage at this, but this issue of film labeling is not at the top of my priority list for issues involving this country of ours.

I understand why it is important to directors, but given the current state of affairs in this country, I am not sure it makes sense for Congress to devote a lot of time to the issue. A few years ago I was at a luncheon and Woody Allen stood up and said that moral rights was one of the most important issues facing our country today, and he was referring to the fifth amendment issue.

And my thought at that time was, he better get himself a wide angle lens. His focus was just too narrow, as often all of ours are, depending on what kind line of work we are in. We think the world revolves around us and nothing else.

This is an interesting issue and I don't demean the issue that is raised in the Mrazek legislation, and I will listen to it with an open mind, but I want the witnesses to understand that I come to this issue with the feeling that maybe Congress should stay away from it, that it strikes me as more a matter of contractual terms between studios, directors, producers, and all those involved with the creation of a film and it is very difficult to start down this-once you start down this road, to decide who, other than the copyright holders, should have rights over a movie.

So my prejudice is revealed. I will stop talking and do my best to keep an open mind and listen to the witnesses today.

Mr. HUGHES. I want to detour just a little bit. I think Martin Scorsese is certainly one of the outstanding directors, but we have some very fine directors here today.

Mr. GLICKMAN. I stand corrected. I am sorry.

Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I won't take but a moment to say thank you for letting me participate today. I am an original cosponsor of this bill and appreciate the courtesy extended to me.

We are here today to try to-in response to my colleague from California, we are here today really to defend free speech, the integrity of free speech as it is manifested through the creative efforts of these people here today, and my colleagues from Oklahoma and Texas, I would just say that with regard to whether or not there is a great public outcry.

If we only legislate in this Congress with regard to things that have caused a great public outcry, we would only need to be here