2. In the opinion of lawyers familiar with the provisions of the Havana Charter, the terms of the charter do not, either directly or by implication, repeal the manufacturing clause of the United States copyright law. The Habana Charter deals with restrictions upon the importation and exportation of goods; the manufacturing clause does not affect either the importation or exportation of published works. It affects only the right to a copyright in such works. Furthermore, the Habana Charter employs terms customarily used in dealing with such problems as duties, tariffs, embargoes, and other matters relating to the external and international relations of countries, as distinguished from the regulation of their internal affairs, such as the right to the obtaining of copyrights. 3. As a practical matter, if H. R. 2285 should be passed and the Habana Charter, contrary to the opinion expressed in the preceding sentences, should be held to repeal the manufacturing provision of the United States copyright law, no harm will have been done by the enactment of the pending bill. On the other hand, if the Habana Charter be enacted but H. R. 2285 does not become a law, then until an adjudication as to the effect of the Habana Charter, we will not have the benefits provided by H. R. 2285, and should it be held that the Habana Charter does not effect a repeal of the manufacturing clause, then we will be confronted with the same situation which we have at present and which even the State Department agrees is undesirable. When the fact is that no possible harm can be done by the enactment of the pending bill and retaliatory legislation is threatened in many foreign countries, which might be forestalled by the enactment of H. R. 2285, it is difficult to justify the position of the State Department. With reference to the second proposition, which is embodied in the first sentence of section 3 of H. R. 2285, all the parties who appeared before the committee concurred in the desirability of this or similar legislation to alleviate the hardship imposed upon foreign authors and publishers in acquiring American dollars to pay the fees of the Copyright Office. There is, however, an essential change which should be made in line 1, page 4. At that point the words "1 year" should be changed to "6 months" so that the foreign author or proprietor is limited to 6 months from the date of first publication abroad if he desires to deposit the extra copy of the work and the catalog card in lieu of paying the $4 fee. The reason for this change is that this period should be made consistent with the 6 months' period set forth in the amendment to section 22 embodied in section 2 of the act, that being the period for the obtaining of ad interim copyright. If the period of 1 year is retained in section 3, a question of statutory interpretation will arise as to whether it was not intended to give the foreign author or publisher the period of 1 year to obtain ad interim copyright if he used the alternative method of depositing an extra copy and a catalog card in lieu of payment of the monetary fee. In any event, it is not asking too much of the foreign applicant to act promptly after publication if he desires to avail himself of this privilege. As to the final provision of section 3 by which the Register of Copyrights would be authorized to forward copies of works first published in the United States to foreign countries where the foreign countries require the deposit of such copies as an incident to copyright, it is felt that, although this service which the Register proposes to offer would be of value to publishers and others, nevertheless, in view of the arguments against the inclusion of such provisions and the difficulty which might ensue in obtaining passage of H. R. 2285 if said provisions were permitted to remain, they should be stricken. Apparently, the Register of Copyrights concurred in this view at the hearing. Attached to this letter is a statement of the changes in drafting which would be required if the views expressed herein are adopted. Respectfully yours, ARTHUR E. FARMER. PROPOSED CHANGES IN WORDING OF H. R. 2285 1. Amend section 1 as follows: On page 2, line 16, change "work" to "works". On page 2, line 25, strike the balance of section 1 commencing with the words "in addition to" and substitute the following: "if said copy shall contain notice of copyright in accordance with sections 10, 19, and 20 of this title and if ad interim copyright in said work shall have been obtained pursuant to section 22 of this title prior to the importation into the United States of any copy except those permitted by the provisions of section 107 of this title: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not affect the right of importation under the provisions of section 107 of this title, nor the extension of time within which to comply with the conditions and formalities prescribed by the provisions of this title for the obtaining of copyright, granted by Presidential proclamations issued under the act of September 25, 1941. "" 2. Add a new section 3 to follow section 2, which shall provide as follows: "That section 23 of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 23. SAME; EXTENSION TO FULL TERM.-Whenever within the period of such ad interim protection an authorized edition of such book or periodical shall be published within the United States, in accordance with the manufacturing provisions specified in section 16 of this title, and whenever the provisions of this title as to deposit of copies, registration, filing of affidavits, and the printing of the copyright notice shall have been duly complied with, the copyright shall be extended to endure in such book or periodical for the term provided in ths title'." 3. Amend the present section 3 as follows: On page 3, line 22, change "SEC. 3" to read "SEC. 4." On page 4, line 4, change "1 year" to read "6 months." On page 4, strike the balance of this section beginning with the words "Anv United States * * *"" 4. Amend the present section 4 as follows: On page 4, line 20, change "SEC. 4" to read "SEC. 5." MCGRAW-HILL PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, M. C., New York 18, N. Y., February 24, 1949. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CELLER: As chairman of the committee on copyrights of the National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., we endorse H. R. 2285 which, in effect, amends various sections of United States copyright law, with respect to relaxation of provisions governing copyrighting of foreign works, subject to the following change which we have discussed with Mr. Warner, and which he has approved. Our suggestion is that the words "in addition to those imported under the exceptions set forth in section 107 of this title" in lines 25, of page 2, and 1 of page 3, of the bill, be deleted, and that the following clause be added following the word "title" in line 6, of page 3, of the bill: "; Provided also, That the provisions of this section shall not affect the right to import under the provisions of section 107 of this title." Very truly yours, J. A. GERARDI, The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc. NEW YORK 28, N. Y., February 19, 1949. Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, you. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CELLER: It is indeed long ago that I had the pleasure of meeting It is your amendment of the Copyright Act of 1909 which brings us again together. The Netherlands American University League has in its meeting of today unanimously voted two motions concerning copyright, copies of which I herewith submit to you. The first motion refers to your amendment, the second motion refers to the situation existing between the Netherlands and the United States. Books first published in other than the English language are protected in the United States and books first published in the United States are not protected in the Netherlands. It is also contrary to the interest of the bonafide Netherlands publishers, who pay instead of royalties so called courtesy fees to owners of American copyrights. There is a small group of Netherlands publishers, who are not members of the Netherlands publishers organization and who are pirating American books. I have been working on this matter for the last 4 years. In November 1948 the Netherlands Government published in the Netherlands that it had promised to the United States Government that it will submit to Washington a draft for such an agreement in order to establish a reciprocity in the protection. Since nothing has happened in the matter, it may be that you can use your influence also in respect to this problem. The President of the United States has at the time an incomplete and wrong information received from the Netherlands, erroneously issued a proclamation granting to the Netherlands the benefit of the American copyright protection. The Department of State presumed that there was reciprocity in the protection, but in fact there was no such reciprocity. I am personally of the opinion that this is an impossible situation and that in the shortest period of time it should be taken care of. With my best regards, I remain Sincerely yours. MOTION 1 E. VAN SAHED Whereas in the House of Representatives on February 3, 1949, Congressman Emanuel Celler, introduced a bill, H. R. 2285, to amend title 17 of the United States Code, entitled "Copyrights" with respect to the relaxation of provisions governing the copyright of foreign works, and Whereas the acceptance of this amendment would afford the American scientific and literary world a better opportunity of following developments abroad, the Netherlands American University League, having heard the suggestions of Edward V. Saher, of New York Resolves I. To express its gratitude and appreciation for the initiative displayed by Congressman Emmanuel Celler. II. The Netherlands University League strongly favors the passage of this amendment. It respectfully suggests that the normal limit for books to be imported be increased to at least 2,500 and that provisions be made to raise the limit still further for books of a high scientific or literary order which have involved much research and expense in preparation. III. This meeting directs the league to bring this motion to the knowledge of Mr. Emanuel Celler and of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. MOTION 2 Whereas owing to a regrettable misunderstanding between the Governments of the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands a situation has developed in which books first published in the Netherlands can obtain the privilege of the protection of the United States Copyright Act, whilst at the same time books first published in the United States do not enjoy a similar privilege in the Netherlands, and Whereas the General Meeting is of the opinion that there should be reciprocity in copyright protection and that this reciprocity should be established as soon as possible the Netherlands American University League, having heard the suggestion of Edward V. Saher, of New York Resolves I. To express its gratitude and appreciation to the Royal Netherlands Government which has stated that it will submit to the Government of the United States the draft of a bilateral reciprocal copyright agreement (see Netherlands Publisher's Weekly of November 22, 1946). II. The Netherlands Úniversity League urges both Governments to enter into a bilateral agreement as soon as possible. III. The Netherlands University League directs the Board to bring a motion to the knowledge of the Department of State and of the Netherlands Ambassador in Washington to be forwarded to the Royal Netherlands Government at the Hague. H. R. 2285. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, WHITMAN, RANSOM, COULSON & GOETZ, Member of Congress, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CELLER: This will acknowledge your letter of February 8, 1949, enclosing a copy of bill H. R. 2285 and a copy of a memorandum, dated February 1, 1949, on the subject of that bill to you from Mr. Strackbein, of the International Allied Printing Trades Council, and Mr. Warner, Register of Copyrights. We have sent copies of the bill and memorandum to Mr. Arch Crawford, president of the National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., to ascertain whether the association desires to submit views on the bill to the committee. If so, they will be submitted to the committee prior to the opening of hearings on the bill. After a hasty perusal of the bill, it has occurred to us that, solely for the purpose of consistency between the bill and the present copyright law and without going into the merits of the bill, some consideration might be given to (1) inserting the words "or periodicals" after the word "books" in section 10; (2) inserting the words "or periodicals" after the word "books" in section 23; (3) inserting the words "or periodical" after the word "book" in section 23; (4) inserting the words "or periodical" after the word "book" in the opening paragraph of section 107; (5) inserting the words "or periodical" after the word "book" in subsection (c) of section 107; (6) inserting the words "or periodical" after the word "book"-in the three places where the word "book" occurs in subsection (d) of section 107; (7) inserting the words "or periodicals" after the word "books" in paragrap fourth" of subsection (d) of section 107; and (8) inserting the words "or periodicals" after the word "books" in section 108. We very much appreciate your kindness in advising us of the introduction the bill H. R. 2285, sending us a copy of the bill and a copy of the memorandum and inviting our views on the bill. Very truly yours, HARRY G. HENN. PUBLISHERS' WEEKLY, Hon. SAM B. WARNER, New York 19, N. Y., February 24, 1949. DEAR MR. WARNER: I attended yesterday a meeting of the Copyright Committee of the Council, and went over the matter of representation at the hearing tomorrow on the Celler bill. We had one amendment we were going to make, which was quite simple, as to the length of time of one of the periods mentioned, and Arthur Farmer, our attorney, was representing us. I did not know about the planning for our representation, but was a little disappointed that some of the big-name publishers were not to be there, just to make an appearance, but they apparently decided that as usual they would be represented by counsel. I am sorry I could not go myself, but something very urgent here keeps me away from Washington. I talked with Mr. Lloyd King of the American Textbook Institute, and they want to be on record in favor of the bill. I suggested that they send a letter to Mr. Farmer to file. It seems that they had voted in their executive committee to ask me to represent them there, without checking as to whether I was going to be able to go. I thought I would send you this comment, so you would know that there is a unanimity of opinion on the matter, even if it is the judgment of the group that they should be represented by counsel only. While I am writing, I am going to enclose a letter I had from Eugene Engel. He is an émigré lawyer who came over here from Vienna and who had been a high authority on copyright law in his own country. As I was writing him the other day, I thought I would ask him about that question of "oeuvres publiees" in the Brussels Conference. I thought you and Mr. Fisher might like to look this over, and see whether his comments added anything to our knowledge of this rather confused section. Please return the letter to me when you have finished with it. Sincerely yours, Mr. SAM B. WARNER, FREDERIC G. MELCHER. LOS ANGELES, February 21, 1949. Registrar of Copyrights, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WARNER: In going through accumulated mail, after arriving home from my trip around the world, I have come across H. R. 2285 in which you appear to be interested. The whole Copyright Act is so antiquated as to make one wish that an entirely new copyright bill could be worked out. From practical experience, however, I know that this will not happen in the foreseeable future and it is heartening, therefore, to find constructive efforts being made to amend the law as it now stands. I am heartily in favor of the proposed changes. R. S. PEER, [Copy] AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS, and Publishers, Hon. SAM B. WARNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WARNER: Thank you for your letter of February 9 enclosing a copy of H. R. 2285 introduced by Congressman Celler. I think the purposes of the bill are extremely laudable, and I know the British authors and publishers will welcome an extension of the ad interim copyright period from 6 months to 5 years with the additional privilege of importing 1,500 copies during that period. There may be some question as to whether 5 years is a long enough period, and I think we should try for a longer period if that is agreeable to the International Allied Printing Trades Council. As to the second branch of the bill, I am very fearful that you are inviting foreign countries to require the deposit of copies of American works without any substantial gain to ourselves. As I understand it, foreign countries have been complaining about the increase of the registration fee from $2 to $4. In fact there are authors and publishers who tell us that they cannot even pay the $2, let alone the additional amount. This bill proposes to waive the registration fee for any foreign applicant for copyright registration who furnishes an additional copy of the book "accompanied by a catalog card in form and content satisfactory to the Register of Copyrights. The bill further provides that "any United States author or proprietor may, if he so desires, use the facilities of the Copyright Office to forward to any foreign country with which satisfactory arrangements exist for deposit or registration in conformity with the copyright laws of such country, copies of any United States work * * * under payment of such sums as the Register of Copyrights may determine from time to time to be sufficient to cover the cost of such services. * * *"" The memorandum of Mr. Strackbein enclosed in your letter states that you expect that the foreign national library, which must catalog books for its own purposes, will print additional cards to send to the Library of Congress. Except for England, these cards are in a foreign language, and I doubt whether they will serve the purpose of the Library of Congress. If the situation were reversed and if foreign countries required American writers and publishers to deposit their works throughout the world, we would be in very serious difficulties. In fact any concentrated movement in that direction throughout the world would probably force us into the Bern Convention as the only means of avoiding the necessity of complying with the requirements of deposit throughout the world. As I understand it, most countries require their domestic publishers to deposit copies of published works, but do not make that requirement for foreign writers or publishers. I think there is great danger that this kind of a bill will suggest to foreign countries that they require Americans to deposit in their countries copies of works which have been published here. As I understand it, the United States has not received more than $10,000 a year from foreign countries for all copyright registrations. If that is so, it would seem to me the better part of wisdom for Congress to authorize the President to waive the payment of fees for copyright registration during the present period of economic stress, rather than to provide for an alternative which is apt to hurt our own authors and publishers in the long run. As I said at the outset, I know the purpose of the bill is splendid, but I feel that an amendment which will authorize the President to waive the payment of fees during the present emergency and so long as the Marshall Plan shall remain in effect, will produce much more good will and will be less costly in the long run than the proposal contained in the bill. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Congressman Celler. |