« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Mr. FENNING. Quite right; but put a limited period on it, so we will know when it stops, so we will not have to inspect graveyards in the future and guess whether this John Jones is the man who wrote a book or some one else. Make him print the date on it and show he has protection for a certain time after.
Mr. Bloom. But all the time it does not belong to you. You go along the street and see a vacant lot. You know that lot is not yours. It is not necessary to put a sign on there that that lot belongs to me. You see an automobile. It has no sign on it, and you do not take it. It is the same way with writings. You know they do not belong
Mr. FENNING. No; but it may be in the public domain; and if it belongs in the public domain, it belongs to me.
Mr. Bloom. You can find that out from the copyright.
Mr. Bloom. I am talking about the present time. In the future you know it is not your paper.
Mr. FENNING. I do not know whether it is in the public domain and I think I should have some definite way of knowing when it is in the public domain.
Mr. Bloom. Are you presenting the idea of the patents, trademark, and copyright section of the American Bar Association?
Mr. FENNING. No, sir.
Mr. FENNING. The American Patent Law Association, which is not the American Bar Association.
Mr. BLOOM. And the views you state for the record are backed
Mr. FENNING. We are authorized to speak for them in emergencies. The association comprises between 500 and 600 members.
Mr. Hess. How many have expressed the views you have expressed?
Mr. FENNING. I could not say.
Mr. FENNING. Fifteen members on the committee. I think four or five of them met with us. I do not pretend to say that the entire 500 or 600 members have the views that I have.
Mr. BLOOM. Would you mind having a vote taken of your members on the subject?
Mr. FENNING. I might say that the reason I came here without a vote was that I expected the hearings to last a longer time, but I was advised this was the last day. I may be mistaken. There are a few things specifically with respect to this bill that I should like to speak of if I am not taking too much time. If I am, I shall be very glad to stop. I do not think I will take more than 5 minutes longer.
In section 3 there is apparently a clerical omission. The first paragraph is, I suppose, intended to be the same as the second paragraph, section 3. In line 23, page 4, after the word “employment, in order to make it correspond to the second paragraph, there should be inserted “under general employment, under regular sal
Mr. Hess. That was an intentional omission on the part of the framers.
Mr. FENNING. And the last of line 1, on page 5, apparently, the word “such ” should be inserted before the word "relation," to correspond with the second section.
I understand the American Patent Law Association was not invited to participate in the conferences that prepared the bill. Section 19, line 9, provides that an injunction may be served throughout the United States. I am wondering if it would not be desirable to specifically provide who shall serve the injunction. Will it be the marshal of the court issuing, the local court, or anyone who may choose to do it?
Mr. BLOOM. How would you serve an injunction?
Mr. FENNING. I think it would be desirable to have included that the marshal of the jurisdiction where the suit was filed shall serve it.
Mr. WEIL. It works out all right at present.
Mr. Bloom. You are a lawyer and I am not. I am just an ordinary Congressman. If you want to get an injunction, you would find someone to issue it and serve it.
Mr. FENNING. Yes. I would hate to have it served by the wrong man and have another man say that is no good.
Mr. Hess. I understood you to say who issued it. I misunder
Mr. FENNING. I doubt whether section 21 is necessary. The present rule provides for the consolidation.
Mr. WEIL. It is in the present law. Mr. FENNING. I know, but it is not necessary to clutter up the bill with unnecessary requirements.
Mr. BLOOM. know when Canada tried to enter the Berne convention they were refused because they required the filing of copyrights in Canada. Mr. FENNING. I did not know that.
Mr. Bloom. And the Berne convention said they could not enter the Berne convention under the circumstances which are exactly the same as here.
Mr. FENNING. I did not know that.
Mr. Bloom. If that is a fact, that the decision at that time was against entering the Berne convention under the same formalities that are existing in this country or that this law provides for, how would that affect your statement?
Mr. FENNING. I would like to know who interpreted that and how authoritative it was, whether it was an official decision or someone's suggestion.
Ir. Bloom. I would like to send that to you and would be glad to get your opinion.
Mr. FENNING. I find on page 34, section 41, apparently a provision that a book published abroad will not have to be deposited in this country unless it is republished in this country under an assignment or under a license. It seems to me that if the owner of the copyright himself publishes in this country, by the same token he should make the deposit. I see no reason for eliminating him if it is actually published in this country. Maybe there is a reason for it.
Section 42, on page 35, provides that if several editions of newspapers are published, on one day, a deposit of any one of the publications will be sufficient. It seems to me periodicals should be given the same protection, that where several periodicals are published under one date, the deposit of one edition will be a compliance with this section. Numerous magazines publish various editions, some for the East and some for the West.
I am unable to see why an author or a man who builds a statue should have any different treatment from an ordinary man. We find in section 44, on page 36, that correspondence with the Library of Congress is carried on without payment of postage. The remittance may be given to the postmaster. He will give a receipt and transmit it without postage. I see no reason for that. The poor inventor, often poorer than the author, has to pay his fee to the Patent Office and pay the postage.
Mr. Bloom. That is in the present law, is it not!
Mr. FENNING. Maybe. There is no logical reason for it except it is there, and that is not logical.
Mr. WEIL. One of the reasons for that is that the Library of Congress gets the copies.
Mr. FENNING. The Library of Congress gets the fees. Section 59, with respect to fees, seems to me entirely too small. No Government employee at the present time capable of making any search gets as little as 50 cents an hour. It seems to me that fee should be increased so as to make it reasonable for the Government to furnish that service without losing.
Mr. Bloom. How much would you increase it?
Mr. FENNING. Double it, or at least one-half. I would say for each hour or part of an hour. A man may take 59 minutes and get away with nothing
Section 65 I can not understand, and consequently I can not believe it has an excuse for being in the law. It apparently means if a design is capable of being patented and is capable of being reproduced in certain ways it is copyrightable. When will that thing fall into the public domain—when the patent expires or 50 years after the originator dies?
Mr. BLOOM. Does not that apply to models of inventions or discoveries?
Mr. FENNING. It does not say so here.
Mr. Weil. That is to prevent the subject matter of the design copyright bill which you are now considering from coming into this law automatically and having all provisions apply. Everyone knows you need a separate act to cover a design copyright.
Mr. FENNING. Why not say so, then?
Mr. WEIL. That is the language of the British act, which they have found satisfactory. It has worked very well since 1909.
Mr. BLOOM. I wish you would offer an amendment on that.
Mr. Bloom. What is the pleasure of the committee on the question of adjournment?
Mr. GOODWIN. Let us adjourn until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 1 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. of the same day.)
The hearing was resumed at 2 o'clock p. m., at the conclusion of the noon recess.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, and we will proceed with the hearings.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD A. KOSICKI, BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Kosicki. My name is Bernard A. Kosicki, representing the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the Department of Commerce.
The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce is interested primarily in the international commercial aspects of this bill, as well as the Perkins bill, so far as they bear on the entry of the United States into the International Copyright Union is concerned. Both bills agree on that provision. I might say at the start that the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce is in favor of any legislation which would extend copyright protection in the most practicable manner.
The products of genius, which are the subjects of copyrights, create definite values. The value of an intellectual production is not purely intellectual. It forms in its tangible aspects a commodity of commerce. Books, music, motion-picture films, and published music in all its forms are expressions of genius.
Now, personal property is protected internationally through our various treaties. There is almost absolutely no question in the matter of protection of personal property, but copyright protection has been historically limited only to the country where granted; in other words, a party getting a copyright in the United States can not claim an analogous copyright in France. That must be granted by a special treaty.
So, before proceeding with the argument, it would be well for us to look into the nature of our international copyright relations. The copyright relations which we have are with approximately 40 countries. They are arranged chiefly through presidential proclamation on the basis of the copyright act, in which authority is given the President by Congress to make such proclamations. These proclamations are of two kinds: First, the general right of copyright protection granted foreign citizens, and, second, the extension of the copyright protection under section 1-e.
The countries with which we have general copyright relations are the following:
Mr. Bloom. You will put them in the record ? Mr. KOSICKI. Yes, sir. (The countries referred to are here given, as follows:) Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Suba, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunis, and the Union of South Africa.
Mr. Kosicki. Under section 1-e, we have a group of countries less in number than the others. Of these 40 countries with which we have copyright relations over 30 are members of the Berne conven
tion. We also have, in addition to these special bilateral treaties, certain international relations with some of the Latin-American countries. The first is the convention of Mexico City, entered into in 1902, and the number of countries in that convention are six, including the United States. The others are Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicarauga, and Salvador.
In the Buenos Aires convention of 1910, which resembles substantially the Berne convention, and of which we are members, there are 13 countries altogether, which are Brazil, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicarauga, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, and, I believe, Peru.
This gives just a brief survey of our international copyright relations, which, summarized, are that we have copyright relations with some forty odd countries. We do not have treaties with all countries. There are some important countries with which we have concluded no arrangement. For example, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, and Rumania.
Mr. Bloom. You mean copyright treaties?
Then, we have no relations with the following convention countries—Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Greece, Liberia, Monaco, Morocco, Palestine, Poland, and Turkey. I will correct my statement as to Turkey: Turkey is bound by the Lusanne treaty to ratify, within one year after that treaty goes into effect, the Paris Industrial Propert Convention, as revised, and the Berne copyright union. Turkey has ratified the Paris convention for the protection of industrial property, but the Berne convention has not been ratified, but this Turkey is bound to do.
Mr. Bloom. Is not Turkey out altogether at the present time?
Mr. KOSICKI. Yes, sir; we have no special treaty. There is a treaty now which has not been ratified by us, which contains in articles 16, stipulations for the protection of trade-marks, patents, etc.
Now, I shall dismiss, for the moment, the international aspect, in so far as treaties are concerned, and look at the practical feature of the problem, because, as I said before, the protection of works of the intellect' is a matter that concerns commerce just as vitally as it concerns the producer of the work—the artist. We are interested, of course, primarily in what effect our entry would have on our foreign commerce in intellectual products, because, although the bill makes certain innovations in the present law, still its primary purpose is to provide for the entry of the United States into the copyright union.
Our observation in the department has been that because of the insecure relations on copyright matters with foreign countries, our producers here and exporters are exposed to piracy. I think that can be established as a fact, because piracy appears most prominently only where the ability to get protection of law is insecure. It may be important to notice the extent of some of these commodities that we exported in 1924. Phonographic records, $1,722,000; music rolls, $278,000; art works, painting, statuary, etc., $1,270,000, and books, maps, pictures, etc. $19,723,000, making a total of $22,493,000.
However, there is one important commodity which does not ap