Then we also have the technological capacity to colorize films that were originally made in black and white. While it is terrific that we have so many opportunities to view films, we are faced with difficult questions as to whether our laws are adequate to protect individual filmmakers who are not the copyright owners under our laws, when works were modified for post-theatrical release, and whether we need to protect consumers who may think they are seeing the movie exactly as it was shown in the movie theater. The Film Disclosure Act introduced by Bob Mrazek, seeks to protect the rights of filmmakers who fear that that post-production changes in films threaten the integrity of their creative work. The legislation would also inform consumers about the modifications made after the theatrical release. To achieve this, the bill will require that films be labeled to indicate what alterations have been made, and to indicate if the director, screenwriter or cinematographer objects to these alterations. Actually, filmmakers would like more than the right to object to alterations. They would prefer to have greater control over the post-production changes that are made to their films. However, I understand that they generally do not have this right under their collective bargaining agreements or with their individual contracts, and our copyright laws do not grant this right to the film director, cinematographer or screenwriter. Instead, our copyright laws recognize the producer, or the production company, as a copyright owner and author of a film. While Congress has assumed that individuals involved in the making of the film will negotiate with the producer as a copyright owner to achieve a fair distribution of the rights to control post-production changes, the filmmakers believe that such rights are moral rights that exist independent of economic rights-and that these rights should not be the subject of contract negotiations. Today, this subcommittee will have the opportunity to learn firsthand about the kinds of alterations that are made to films to prepare them for broad distribution following a theatrical release. We will hear from directors, cinematographers, and screenwriters about their concerns that our laws do not protect the integrity of their work. We will also hear from many witnesses who oppose the proposed legislation, and who, in fact, oppose any legislation that would alter the rights of copyright owners to freely distribute motion pictures. They are particularly concerned with the labeling requirements proposed in the Film Disclosure Act. They suggest that these requirements are extremely onerous, and could harm the economic viability of films, especially those already made. They also suggest that the legislation may run afoul of the first and fifth amendments, and we will hear such testimony today. I would like to thank the Copyright Office and the Patent and Trademark Office for sharing their expertise and views with the subcommittee on the proposed legislation. I would also commend Representative Mrazek and Senator Alan Simpson for their interest in addressing this complex issue. They have been the leaders in the Congress on this issue in the last few years and I am looking forward to the presentation of tes timony of the many, many distinguished witnesses who appear here this morning. [The bill, H.R. 3051, follows:] I 102D CONGRESS H. R. 3051 To amend the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the registration and IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. MRAZEK (for himself, Mr. BONTOR, and Mr. BRYANT) introduced the A BILL To amend the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the regis- 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 4 This Act may be cited as the "Film Disclosure Act 5 of 1991". 1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The Congress finds that (1) motion pictures are an American art form that uniquely captures and preserves our national and cultural heritage; (2) the integrity of a motion picture is compromised and diminished when the motion picture is sold, leased or exhibited in a materially altered form; (3) the public is misled when motion pictures are sold, leased or exhibited in a materially altered form; (4) the public has a right to know whether a motion picture which is being sold, leased or exhibited has been materially altered; (5) the reputation of the artistic author of a motion picture may be harmed when the original work is sold, leased or exhibited in a materially al tered form; and (6) the artistic authors of a motion picture must have the right to indicate their objections to any material alterations made to their work. 22 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE LANHAM ACT. 23 Section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for 24 the registration and protection of trademarks used in com25 merce, to carry out the provisions of certain international 26 conventions, and for other purposes", enacted July 5, HR 3051 IH 3 1 1946, commonly known as the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 2 1051 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the follow3 ing: 4 "(c)(1)(A) Each public exhibition of a materially al5 tered theatrical motion picture, and each copy of a materi6 ally altered theatrical motion picture offered to the public 7 through sale or lease, and all advertising, sales and promo8 tional materials relating to that motion picture, its sale, 9 lease, or exhibition, shall include a label which clearly and 10 conspicuously discloses the following: "(i) That the film has been materially altered from the form in which it was first released to the 11 12 15 16 17 18 "(ii) The nature of that alteration. "(iii) The fact of objection, if any, by the artis tic authors of the motion picture to any such alteration. "(B) Any syndicator, distributor, network or vendor, 19 who proposes to exploit a materially altered film in the 20 manner set forth in subparagraph (A) shall “(i) make a good faith effort to notify in writ ing and by registered mail and in a reasonable amount of time prior to such exploitation those individuals described in paragraph (5)(B). The require ment of a good faith effort is satisfied if a syndica •HR 3051 IH 4 tor, distributor, network or vendor who has not pre viously been notified by each individual in paragraph (5)(B) requests in writing the name and address of each such individual from the appropriate profes sional guilds listed in section 4 of the Film Disclosure Act of 1991 and, upon receipt of such information, notifies such individual as provided in this clause; "(ii) determine the objections of any individual so notified to any specific material alteration of the motion picture. Any individual so notified must indicate such individual's objection within a reasonable period of time after receipt of such notice; "(iii) determine the objection of any individual so notified to any type of future material alterations which are in addition to those specifically proposed for the motion picture to be exploited. For this pur pose a form that asks the questions set forth in paragraph (9) shall suffice; "(iv) include or affix the label required under subparagraph (A) prior to the public performance of a materially altered motion picture already in distribution or the initial distribution of a materially altered motion picture to any exhibitor or retail dis HR 3051 IH |