they have been well enough done to turn the wheels of the American shoe business for 10 years. They are still being used-those same designs. Now, those same groups who will oppose us were blissfully pirating the works of authors and they came down and cried "Wolf! Wolf!" They said, "Our businesses will be ruined; we cannot pos sibly do it." They said, "This will disrupt all American commercial progress, if you pass this copyright law on books." Gentlemen, the law was passed. There was not a ripple on the surface of American business. All that happened was what was supposed to happenthey stopped pirating books. So when those groups come before you again and ask to use our property, just remember that once before they cried "Wolf! Wolf!” Mr. LANHAM. Miss Bendelari, may I think out loud for just a minute or two and have you reply to what I say? Miss BENDELARI. Yes. Mr. LANHAM. I understand from the splendid presentation you have made of this matter that there has been a purpose, ever since our Government started, to give a design protection, but it has been placed in the Patent Office, rather than in the Copyright Office. Miss BENDELARI. Yes. Mr. LANHAM. I understand, in the first place, especially with reference to things that are seasonal, for instance a style, as designs of silk patterns and things of that kind, that a pattern is useful for only a short time in the industry and it requires so long to get a design patent that before the time protection is afforded there has been ample opportunity for the pirates to make money out of that design by copying it; whereas those who put it out originally have gone to great expense in employing designers, and so forth. That is one feature of it, especially with reference to seasonal things, that they get no protection because of the delay in getting a design patent. Miss BENDELARI. Yes. Mr. LANHAM. Now, if this should be shifted to copyright and you would get a copyright on designs, your design would then be available, would it not, to any one who would pay you, as in the case of other copyrights, for the use of that? Miss BENDELARI. Yes. Mr. LANHAM. In other words, it would not mean that nobody else in the world could use your design, but that they could use it, as in the case of other copyrights, by paying you what you are entitled to receive by way of royalty for the use of that design? Miss BENDELARI. Exactly. Mr. LANHAM. Just as in the case of a song that is copyrighted, it can be used by anyone else upon proper compensation to the author. Miss BENDELARI. Yes. That is the object of it. Mr. LANHAM. In other words, the object of it, as I understand it, is to put those who make artistic designs exactly in the same class with reference to the disposition of their property that the authors are? Miss BENDELARI. Yes. Mr. LANHAM. And I infer, from what you say of some of these designs of yours being used in the manufacture of shoes, that you are getting no compensation for them-little or none? Miss BENDELARI. I stayed in the business until the copying got to be so fast that I could see my business would eventually go up, and all small businesses in this country which existed on their designs would be wiped out, and the depression has made my prediction come true very completely. Mr. LANHAM. Now, then, many of those industries-take, for instance, in the field of textiles, many of those industries that would want to use certain textiles, they could use them, could they not, by paying compensation to the designer? Miss BENDELARI. Oh, yes, without any question. Mr. LANHAM. And just as in the case of your shoes, the American manufacturing concerns could put out your shoes if you made a contract with them and they allowed you compensation? Miss BENDELARI. Certainly. And, furthermore, there would be so many more salable designs. It may be the reason these people think they have to continue their so-called pirating and copying of designs is because the number of designers is limited; but you have to feed the artists before they can give up everything else and create art, and they tell me there are 250,000 artists or designers in this country and we could produce any number and they could create designs, many more salable designs, of all kinds of things. Mr. LANHAM. In other words, you are wishing the same protection for your designs that I might wish for a book, if I could write one? Miss BENDELARI. Exactly-a better legal status; that is, a more workable legal status. Mr. DALY. Am I right in assuming you would be very anxious to sell the right to other people to use your property? Miss BENDELARI. That would be putting it very mildly. ter.] [LaughMr. LANHAM. Are there any other questions to be asked by members of the committee? Mr. DUNN. Why would not that be a practical law, to allow the designer or person having a patent to let it be manufactured by others, if he desired to do so, provided they were willing to compensate the designer or person who created the patent by the payment of a fee which was suitable to the one who originated the idea? I think that would be a law that would make for progress. I speak not only of the ones who design, but also for the people who invent. For instance, I think we have a 17-year clause in the law which says they have an absolute right to their patent, and after 17 years it becomes in the possession of the public domain, and we could change that law and give them about 5 years and, at the expiration of the 5 years, any person who desired to manufacture that design would have that right, provided the person who created it would be given a royalty. Would that be satisfactory to you people? In my opinion, I believe that would solve this problem somewhat, to have the Government give these people protection, the designers and people who make patents, and, instead of waiting for 17 years, because many people do not have the money to manufacture an article and that is the reason they wait for 17 years, if you drop it down to 4 or 5 years and then say to any person desiring to manufacture or imitate in any way, the Government requires that you have to give that person a royalty, and then let everybody go ahead and manufacture that design. Would that be satisfactory! Miss BENDELARI. Oh, yes. I think that might be a good thing, Mr. Dunn. And I will tell you another thing I have done Mr. DUNN. In fact, I am thinking of introducing that kind of a bill, because I think it means progress and it means the Government would protect you; because, as I heard you say, the people do not have the money to take these cases into court and, if they did have, they probably could get a decision. Miss BENDELARI. That is exactly the case. Mr. DUNN. I think the law today is very unjust to the men and women who have patents and designs, and so forth. That is all I wish to say, Mr. Chairman. Miss BENDELARI. Thank you. Mr. LANHAM. There are several who wish to be heard with reference to this feature of designs, both proponents and opponents. The time has been assigned for this purpose next week. Mr. Solberg very graciously this morning yielded time to Miss Bendelari and we will give Mr. Solberg his time next week. Are there any further questions, before we adjourn, to be asked at this time? Miss BENDELARI. Mr. Lanham, I wish to submit this exhibit for the record. I do not know how they can print it, but I want the artists of the country to be able to get, free of charge, a statement of this thing which will give them some idea of what their rights are when the law passes and will help the judiciary in getting right on what this thing should be, and I want that made available if it is possible. Mr. LANHAM. Unfortunately, I am very doubtful whether, under the regulations with reference to printing, that could be printed. Certainly the committee could have the benefit of the use of it during the time of its deliberations. Mr. DALY. Possibly the Senate Patents Committee, animated by the same thought that animated me this morning, might want copies of it. Miss BENDELARI. I would be charmed. I hope we have changed the gentleman's opinion somewhat. (The committee thereupon adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, Apr. 3, 1936, at 10 a. m.) REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1936 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Fritz G. Lanham presiding. Mr. LANHAM. The hearings this morning have been set aside for magazines and various publications and we will be glad to hear from those of you who wish to appear before the committee. STATEMENT OF MARVIN PIERCE, CHAIRMAN, COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION Mr. PIERCE. My name is Marvin Pierce. I am the chairman of the copyright committee of the National Publishers' Association. This organization is an association of 241 general, women's, religious, farm, and trade magazines whose combined circulation exceeds 60,000,000 copies per issue and whose total business normally is about $300,000,000 annually. We appear before you as purchasers and users of literary material. Hence, our interest in copyright legislation is primarily that of the buyer who is interested in seeing that the title to the property he is acquiring is clear, and that the penalties of unknowingly using material bought from someone who is not entitled to sell are not unreasonably severe. This interest is no mean or casual affair. Our best estimate of the amount of money spent annually in the 10 largest magazines for editorial and illustrative material, subject to copyright, is $6,000,000. The commitments to readers and to advertisers in these same publications are many times greater. Since copyright law not only affects the title to the material purchased and used, but also jeopardizes the fulfilment of our commitments to readers and to advertisers, we would be derelict if we did not closely scan the provisions of any proposed changes to our statutes. It is from this viewpoint that we ask your permission to comment on the bills now pending before your committee. The Duffy bill, S. 3047: For many years and in many similar hearings the National Publishers' Association has recorded itself as opposed to the entrance of this country into the so-called Bern Convention. Our opposition is based primarily upon the business difficulties arising from the establishment of copyright upon creation, generally called automatic copyright, without the requirement of any formality or of registration, and the extension of this nebulous right in this country to the nationals of most of the countries of the world. The impossibility of checking the authenticity of submitted manuscripts and illustrations must be obvious. The result can only be that purchasers of copyrightable material will be forced for their own protection to deal as much as possible with established sources. Such a result is damaging to both magazines and authors, since it is to the marked advantage of publishers to secure new writers and illustrators, and no deterrent to the acceptance of their work should be placed in the way of new and unknown writers. This statement is especially true at this time when entrance to the Bern Convention would mean the opening up of the richest literary market in the world without restriction, in return for copyrights for our authors hemmed in and limited by governmental ukase and pronouncements abroad. If, however, in the judgment of Congress the wishes of those who desire automatic copyright and entrance into the Bern Convention should prevail, the Duffy bill with certain exceptions is not sufficiently destructive of the interest of the publishing industry to call for our active opposition. These exceptions are: 1. We believe that the Vandenberg amendment, which gives copyright protection to commercial designs, should be eliminated as having no place in copyright law, and as being a source of considerably more trouble than benefit to those who sponsor it. If it is not stricken out, then the publishers ask that they be protected by the insertion on page 5, line 1, after the word "design", of: Provided, That the rights and remedies so secured do not apply to reproductions of such artistic models or designs in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals. From what we can gather from those interested in design copyright, it was not their intention to limit the reproduction of their designs by any printing process. As a matter of fact, their position was quite the contrary; yet the amendment as drafted open all the penalties of the act to the publisher who prints a view of a room interior, for example, which contains a carpet, chair, or andiron, the design of which has been copyrighted. 2. We also feel that in the last line on page 17 of the bill, the words, "magazine or periodical" should be inserted after the word "newspaper. This change would fix the same limit on statutory damages resulting from the reproduction of a copyrighted photograph for magazines as is now in the bill for newspapers. We do not believe the framers of the bill intended to discriminate as between types of publications. 3. We think that section 28, paragraph (c), of the bill, starting on line 13, page 30, should either be taken out or amended by adding the words except where the said photograph is published as an item of public or general interest or in the dissemination of news. This exception would amend that section of the bill which provides that no copyright shall exist in the photograph of an individual without his consent. Exclusive newspaper and magazine photographs are frequently taken under conditions which make it impractical to obtain the consent of the photographed person and yet they are deserving of |