Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

cidentally, since there is an entire field of audio/visual production devoted to education and many members of the Screen Actors Guild receive a major share of their annual income from such productions; these are productions made exclusively for the educational field.

It should be obvious that any material taped off-the-air and used in classroom is in direct competition with films made specifically for classroom use. This is a situation which is totally unacceptable to the acting profession because it means that performers who are not being paid for their services-those whose work has been taped off-air in violation of the spirit at least of their collective-bargaining agreement-have been placed in the position of taking away employment opportunities from their colleagues.

As to the Writers Guild East and the Directors Guild East, both of which have asked me to convey their thoughts on this subject, I would enter for the record the fact that they subscribe to this position fully. They, too, have negotiated their agreements in good faith with production companies. And they, too, feel that off-air taping which circumvents the protection of copyright is a violation of that good faith.

The Writers and Directors have, however, asked me to point out another dimension of this problem to you, and that is that their agreements invariably cover not only the economic aspects of the production, but the creative concept as well.

In other words, while the writer and director have reason to expect additional compensation for educational use, they also have an agreement which prohibits the cutting and editing of the material without consultation.

This is not a case of creative vanity. It is rather an attempt to safeguard the integrity of the program, to insure that its message is not distorted.

The off-air taping of segments of programs-including, for example, comprehensive documentaries which have been carefully planned in their entirety to present a fair and well-rounded presentation of all the facts-provides the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild with an area of grave concern.

But where does this all leave us?

Congressmen Kastenmeier and Railsback, in their letters convening this conference, expressed the hope that upon its conclusion we will be able to continue these discussions in detail, leading to the publishing of guidelines by the subcommittee "within a few months."

The Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild, and the Directors Guild pledge to do everything within their power to help accomplish that aim. We do not intend to be obstructionist in any way. Rather, we hope to be able to outline an approach that will make these guidelines successful.

As we see it now, we must oppose any general, compulsory, licensing agreement since the monetary return would be so meager to the performer as to completely cancel out the advantages of any collectivebargaining agreement.

Accordingly, we are currently recommending that any licensing plan must be limited to 1-week use of the material and that if the material is to be retained and used beyond that period the party involved must negotiate with the holder of the copyright.

We also believe that firm guidelines must be worked out as to what type of programs can be taped off-air for educational purposes, prob

ably placing a time limit of no more than 1 hour, for example, on any particular program and completely exempting such material as feature motion picture films.

I also evision that part of any such licensing agreement would include the requirement that educational institutions sign a "fair use" pledge which would include a commitment to use all material in a manner which would not distort its message.

It is, of course, questionable just how enforceable such a pledge might be, but it would at least serve as an indication of good intentions. Something similar might be found in the current CB licensing agreement which calls upon the civilian broadcaster to voluntarily observe certain rules of conduct on the air.

Finally, let me say in outlining our basic thoughts on this problem that our position is firm, but not frozen.

All of us associated with the television industry in any manner recognize the great responsibility placed upon us to see that this medium is used to its greatest advantage. We know that it can be a vital factor in helping to educate our young and in establishing the character patterns that can well determine the future of our society. We do not take this responsibility lightly.

We are eager for the opportunity to be a continuing part of the educational process. We only ask that in terms of "fair use" our definition of "fair" receive full consideration.

And I would just like to thank the committee, not just for holding this conference and for the Copyright Office, but for taking the steps to involve the performing and creative guilds in this process, because we have important interests at stake in this. We have income that is vital to our membership which is affected. And we want to have our interests heard and to work with others to solve the problem.

Thank you.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:]

STATEMENT BY JOHN MCGUIre, Executive SECRETARY, SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, NEW YORK BRANCH SPEAKING FOR SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, WRITERS GUILD EAST; DIRECTORS GUILD, EAST

Mr. C airman and Members of the Committee: In approaching the subject of off-air taping of television programming for educational purposes, we are immediately confronted with a problem in semantics. I am referring to the concept of "Fair Use." The very existence of the term implies that there is such a thing. Now I don't intend to suggest that there isn't, but speaking on behalf of the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, and the Writers Guild-those people who are largely responsible for the creative concept and development of such programs-I must ask "fair to whom?"

Much of the discussion on this subject centers around the end result of this concept * * * the use of such off-air tapings in classrooms for educational purposes. It is, of course, easy to cite many arguments in support of such use and I wish to make it clear at the beginning that the actors, writers, and directors do not oppose the use of their creative output in this manner.

In fact, they realize that the use of television and audio/visual material in general for educational purposes *** helping to mold the character of future generations for the better * * * may well represent the finest possible use of the products we help to create.

So, we are not opposed to off-air tapings for educational purposes.
And we are not opposed to fair use.

What we are saying is that the word "fair" needs to be defined and that some mechanism for "use" needs to be worked out in accordance with that definition. Let me take just a few moments of your time to discuss a little of what has taken place before the material in question has been aired in the first place; before it has become available for off-air taping.

The Screen Actors Guild-as the duly constituted union for the performers— has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the producers of such shows. If the program is to be aired on television, the agreement covers the proper reimbursement of the performers for that use.

If the program is to be subsequently used for other purposes-including educational use our agreement would call for additional compensation, no matter how minor, to the performer. This is an agreement that we have entered into in good faith with the company that has produced the program, with the knowledge that the company has protected the program under the copyright laws and that we can depend upon the company to honor the agreement.

Suddenly, however, that program is taped directly off the air and it is being used for educational purposes around the nation. The producer-having received no money for such use-informs us that he is unable to honor his agreement with the performer and it is at this point that we must ask, "Is that what fair use is all about?"

It is not that we are objecting to educational use as such. What we are asking is whether a doctrine which can be used to circumvent the protection of a copyright and negate a good faith agreement can really be described as "fair."

I must point out at this time that the use of taped materials off-air is not of inconsiderable economic importance to the performer, incidentally, since there is an entire field of audio/visual production devoted to education and many members of the Screen Actors Guild receive a major share of their annual income from such productions; these are productions made exclusively for the educational field.

It should be obvious that any material taped off-the-air and used in the classroom is in direct competition with films made specifically for classroom use. This is a situation which is totally unacceptable to the acting profession because it means that performers who are not being paid for their services-those whose work has been taped off-air in violation of the spirit at least of their collective barganing agreement-have been placed in the position of taking away employment opportunities from their colleagues.

The Writers and Directors have, however, asked me to point out another dimension of this problem to you and that is that their agreements invariably cover not only the economic aspects of the production but the creative concept as well.

In other words, while the writer and director have reason to expect additional compensation for educational use, they also have an agreement which prohibits the cutting and editing of the material without consultation.

This is not a case of creative vanity. It is rather an attempt to safeguard the integrity of the program; to insure that its message is not distorted.

Off-air taping of segments of programs-including, for example, comprehensive documentaries which have been carefully planned in their entirety to present a fair and well rounded presentation of all the facts-provides the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild with an area of grave concern.

But where does this all leaves us?

Congressmen Kastenmeier and Railsback-in their letter convening this conference expressed the hope that upon its conclusion we will be able to continue these discussions in detail, leading to the publishing of guidelines by the subcommittee "within a few months."

The Screen Actors Guild *** the Writers Guild *** and the Directors Guild pledge to do everything within their power to help accomplish that aim. We do not intend to be obstructionist in any way. Rather we hope to be able to outline an approach that will make these guidelines successful.

As we see it now, we must oppose any general, compulsory, licensing agreement since the monetary return would be so meager to the performer as to completely cancel out the advantages of any collective bargaining agreement.

Accordingly, we are currently recommending that any licensing plan must be limited to one-week use of the material and that if the material is to be retained and used beyond that period the party involved must negotiate with the holder of the copyright.

We also believe that firm guidelines must be worked out as to what type of programs can be taped off-air for educational purposes, probably placing a time limit of "no more than one hour", for example, on any particular program and completely exempting such material as feature motion picture films.

I also envision that part of any such licensing agreement would include the requirement that educational institutions sign a "Fair Use" pledge which would include a commitment to use all material in a manner which would not distort its message.

It is, of course, questionable just how enforceable such a pledge might be, but it would at least serve as an indication of good intentions. Something similar might be found in the current CB licensing agreement which calls upon the civilian broadcaster to voluntarily observe certain rules of conduct on the air.

Finally, let me say in outlining our basic thoughts on this problem that our position is firm, but not frozen.

All of us associated with the television industry in any manner recognize the great responsibility placed upon us to see that this medium is used to its greatest advantage. We know that it can be a vital factor in helping to educate our young and in establishing the character patterns that can well determine the future of our society. We do not take this responsibility lightly.

We are eager for the opportunity to be a continuing part of the educational process. We only ask that in terms of "fair use" our definition of "fair" receive full consideration.

Mr. BENDER. Thank you, John.

Sanford Wolff is executive secretary of AFTRA.

And I guess you have the envious position, perhaps, of being the last formal presenter.

TESTIMONY OF SANFORD WOLFF, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS

Mr. WOLFF. I hope not, because I think like all of you, and that is really my primary reason for being brief, I want to hear from Ms. Barbara Ringer. So, I shouldn't be the last.

Second, there is very little-I know so many of you and have dealt with you I can say no matter how long I take that is going to provoke sincere applause.

I think all of the previous speakers have first addressed themselves to their dedication to education and the public good. We agree with that. None of us has a monopoly on good citizenship.

Second, you have then launched into a much more detailed defense of your own enlightened self-interest. And we agree with that.

Mostly and most significantly, we agree by bargaining in good faith, we can overcome whatever obstacles there may be. I have no doubt about it.

I would like to pronounce one caveat. The previous speaker warned us of the consequences of impasse. Don't do that. You may have to reestablish your bona fides before going into negotiations.

I thank you for inviting us. We are determined to work with you in attempting to solve the problem. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, we are almost done with our work, except, perhaps, for the best part. Anyone who has been involved in copyright law for any length of time throughout the entire world is familiar with our next speaker, our concluding speaker.

We began this morning with the father of the new copyright law for the largest producing Nation of copyrighted works in the world, and now we are going to conclude with the mother of the copyright law, a copyright law which, largely because of her efforts during the last 15 years or more before she was register of copyrights, as a lawyer in the Copyright Office, is a great monument to public service.

In fact, if any of you have read the recent 1,000-page report of the Copyright Office on performance and sound recordings, a totally different issue, Chairman Kastenmeier, in his introductory statement, refers to Barbara Ringer as the "highest example of public service that

the U.S. Government permanent cadre of executives and workers has to offer."

I think that that is a completely accurate statement of her abilities and her contribution. And we are really happy that she can be here with us today and that she can sort of tie up all of the things that have been said and guide us toward the future.

Before going on to hear Barbara, I just want to mention something about the negotiating committee which we have heard so much about. That committee will be announced not today but within, I would say, the next 10 days or 2 weeks. And since we have a mailing list, every one of you will get notification in the mail.

And it will include representatives of all of the affected groups, which will include the copyright proprietors, the guilds, the broadcast networks, public broadcasting, and librarians.

And we hope to have that information with you as soon as possible so that we can go on with the real meat of the business that this meeting is only beginning.

With that, I would like to introduce Barbara Ringer. [Applause.] TESTIMONY OF BARBARA RINGER, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

MS. RINGER. Thank you very much, Bruce.

I really appreciate what you said, and I also appreciate everybody sticking with this long day to listen to my wrap-up remarks.

These are not formal. This is not a formal speech. I have tried to take some notes during the meeting and tried to write something up at lunch.

I am grateful for the opportunity to try to sum up, but I hope that we can have time-I think we will, actually-to have some discussion and see whether you agree with some of my conclusions. And maybe you have some more.

I am a very interested observer in this whole matter. I do consider this probably the most serious problem left in U.S. copyright right now. And I am generally encouraged with what I have heard today.

In meetings of this sort, I hear these same things over and over again. I know a lot of you have heard this subject discussed to the point of nausea. But what we do, and I think many of you are getting onto this, is that you listen for the nuances, you listen for the little shifts in emphasis, and then you try to judge the whole picture as best you can on the basis of these little changes and so forth. And I think there are some.

I would say on the whole that the interest in this subject is just as intense, just as high, as it was 11⁄2 years ago, perhaps even more so. I think the attendance at this meeting shows that.

I think also the attentiveness with which people listened to the presentations shows that they were really trying to understand what was being said. That was very obvious.

I also think that the emotional tone, the rhetoric and so forth, has been muted somewhat. I think that the tone here was pragmatic and practical rather than oratorical.

And I think that is progress.

I think that it is clear that people now are much more familiar with this problem than they were a year and a half ago. To some

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »