In the case of photographs or other works of graphic art, a further question arises as to the relation between the original physical picture and the right to reproduce it.

Moreover, the manufacturing clause bears down heavily on U.S. contributors to foreign books and to some extent foreign magazines and newspapers. In most cases the U.S. contributor to a foreign collective work has absolutely no control over where it is published, although he may lose his copyright because his contribution appears in such a work.

But there is another problem dwarfing all these problems, and in the interest of saving time, I would like to address myself to the reasons why a term of life plus 50 years is infinitely preferable, indeed virtually a necessity, for the contributions to collective works of magazine writers and magazine photographers. I speak pragmatically and from experience as someone who has struggled with this problem on behalf of a number of contributors to collective works, as well as their wives, children, estates, and next of kin where the original author was not alive on the renewal date.

For magazine photographers and writers the right to renew is often no right at all. It may not be too difficult, although I think it is undesirable, for those who write books, symphonies, or paint a few great pictures to see to it that their works are correctly copyrighted in the first place, and that after 28 years they are properly renewed. But until this bill no attention has been paid to the plight of the members of the organizations I represent here today. A single photographer may contribute a hundred or more photographs in different collective works in 1 year; a single poet may contribute, similarly in 1 year and before they are collected in a book, literally hundreds of quatrains, sonnets, odes, epic poems, and so forth. Then, of course, there is the feature writer or the columnist who writes for the public 5 days a week for decades or the cartoonist whose works appear over many years in newspapers, magazines, and books.

To keep track of and renew all these requires an elaborate filing system, to say the least. When I say "elaborate," I mean really elaborate, because merely trying to keep track of all of these contributions to collective works is an enormous job as is the collating the material and the filing of applications for renewal-all together all of this means the expenditure of huge sums of money just to protect one's own property. The alternative is to let valuable properties which represent usually their creators' chief or sole means of livelihood go into the public domain. Bear in mind that a good filing system and reminder system must be retroactive to the time that the writer or photographer first starts operating. My experience is that creative people don't even know what copyright means when they start out. A number of our clients at the present time, members of the organizations I am speaking for, are in a position where they have virtually no way of finding out what their contributions were, to what they were 28 years ago, and how to go about finding, no less renewing them.

In this connection the Copyright Office itself can be of only limited assistance no matter how hard it works because, unless the particular contribution is indexed in the front of the periodical or newspaper in which it appears-which magazine articles may be but cartoons, poems,

photographs, and so forth, are not-then when you ask for a copyright search, you will get an inadequate document, not due to the fault of the Copyright Office, but due to the physical fact there is no way of tracking down contributions.

The result is that unless the present recommendations are adopted, most contributors to collective works will continue, in effect, not to have any protection for a great part of their works for more than a 28year period, which not even the most ardent exponent of short periods of copyright protection have suggested is fair.

There are many other provisions of the bill which will help the creators of contributions to collective works. Mr. Linton will develop the question of the ownership of copyright as distinct from the ownership of the material object and the whole question of notice for collective works; namely, that under the bill there may be one notice which obviates the major research job of uncovering the prior notices of all contributions to a collective work, which often turns out to be impossible.

Unfortunately the manufacturing clause, section 601, does not adequately cover the needs and desires of the magazine writers and the magazine photographers. If a work falls under the ban of that clause, then the photographer or the magazine writer may lose his copyright even though the clause itself does not apply to his contribution as it would in the case of a photographer.

If Mr. Linton's photograph is in a work which under the bill is "of American origin," then that work falls under the manufacturing clause, and his photograph will suffer unless possibly he puts a separate notice on it, which is one of the things this bill is designed to

obviate.

All in all, I should like to conclude by saying that, for the American Society of Magazine Photographers and Magazine Writers not only will H.R. 4347, if enacted into law, be an improvement over existing law, but in many contexts, perhaps most contexts, it will for the first time give to these groups any really important protection after the first 28 years and in some instances during the first 28 years. (The full statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAGAZINE PHOTOGRAPHERS AND THE SOCIETY OF MAGAZINE WRITERS

My name is Harriet F. Pilpel. I am general counsel to the American Society of Magazine Photographers and the Society of Magazine Writers. These two groups support-with enthusiasm-H.R. 4347 for the same cogent reasons that other groups of authors and other creators of copyright property support it. But, in addition, they have special reasons to advance in support of the bill because of the peculiarly onerous impact upon them of several aspects of the present copyright law applicable especially to collective works. And the magazine photographers and writers believe that the confusions and unfairnesses and the utter impracticability of the present law in its impact on them as prime contributors to collective works defeats not only their best interests but also the best interests of the American public.

H.R. 4347 defines "collective work" in section 101 as a "work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole." Obviously this defines the medium in which the magazine photographers and magazine writers operate. Their importance to life and letters in the United States is considerable. One need only remember the statement that 1 picture can be worth 1,500 pages of text or to recall that such major

seminal contributions to the law as the very concept of "the right of privacy" first appeared in a periodical. Under the present law, confusion and hardship keynotes the copyright situation of contributions to periodicals or other collective works. It is not clear, in the absence of a separate copyright notice, who owns what part of such works or the separate contributions of which they are comprised; or what kind of copyright notice the collective work should carry; e.g., is one overall new notice in the name of the owner of the collective work sufficient or must there be a listing of the prior effective copyright notices of all the constituent works or both?

Moreover, in the case of photographs or other works of graphic art, a further question arises as to the relation between the original physical picture, for example, and the right to reproduce it. The present manufacturing clause of the Copyright Act bears down heavily on U.S. contributors to foreign books, magazines, and newspapers-with respect to illustrations and photographs as well as text. In most instances, the U.S. contributor to a foreign work, of course, has no control over where it is printed, so that loss of his copyrights is an everpresent threat. And this despite the fact that surely among our best ambassadors of good will to friend and foe abroad, are magazine photographers and writers who are in a unique position to interpret the United States to the rest of the world.

But dwarfing all these problems is another of even greater dimensions, practically speaking. Other witnesses have testified fully as to the many and important reasons why a term of life plus 50 years is infinitely preferable for all copyrighted works to the present system of an original term of 28 years and the right to renew for another 28 years. Pragmatically-and I am speaking as someone who has struggled with this problem on behalf of a number of contributors to collective works as well as their wives, children, estates, and next of kin-the so-called right to renew is often no right at all. It may not be too difficult for those who write major works like books and symphonies or who paint great pictures to see to it that they are copyrighted in the name of the creator in the first instance and to keep track of the expiration of 28 years from the creation or copyrighting of each. But think for a moment of the creator who in 1 year has, let's say, 100 or more photographs in different collective works; or the poet who contributes to such works each year and before they are collected in a book, literally hundreds of quatrains, sonnets, odes, and the like; or the feature writer or columnist who writes for a large public 5 days a week for decades; or the cartoonist whose works appear over many years in newspapers, magazines, and books.

To keep track of and renew all these requires an elaborate filing and reminder system and the expenditure of vast sums of money. The alternative is to let valuable properties which usually represent the creator's chief or sole means of livelihood go into the public domain. A good filing and reminder system must, mind you, be retroactive to the time the writer, photographer, or artist first creates a time when only the most sophisticated know anything about copyright law, most of them having had no contact with it before. In my experience, by the time most writer and photographer contributors to collective works find out that they must scrupulously guard their copyrights and their copyright records it is too late for them to do so. I recently had occasion to try to track down for renewal purposes the early pictures of a now famous artist. The Copyright Office supplied, after working very hard at it, a woefully incomplete list-they, too, had no way of tracing pictorial illustrations in magazines unless they were listed with the name of their creator in the table of contents which, of course, they rarely are. Inevitably, because of the present system of renewal, many of this artist's works-and many of the works of many other authors and artists and poets-may go into the public domain despite their immense value to their creators. The hardship is particularly intense where the early untraceable works contain a character in graphic form which has later become famous. If the earlier pictures are not protected, the value of the later ones may be greatly diminished, perhaps wiped out entirely. If a now famous cartoon character first appeared in cartoons now in the public domain, can anyone copy him despite the fact that he may continue to be his creator's chief stock in trade? If the recommendation that works be protected for life plus 50 years which is embodied in H.R. 4347 is adopted, then most contributors to collective works will for the first time realistically have any copyright protection after the first 28-year term.

There are, of course, many other provisions of H.R. 4347 which will greatly improve the copyright lot of those whose contributions make up the nonadvertising portion of our magazines, newspapers, anthologies and other collective works. Section 201 (c) clarifies and makes meaningful provision for the ownership of the contributions to collective works. Section 202-"Ownership of Copyright as Distinct From Ownership of Material Object" makes plain-as it should be made plain-the copyright position of the magazine photographer, and indeed all other creators of art and art objects. Section 401 (b) (2) and 403 resolve the existing ambiguities and confusions as to what is a proper notice for a collective work, and, of course, the provisions as to reversion are important to all creators of copyright property. As to these and as to the proper protection against any group, educational or otherwise, having the right to make copies without compensation to the creator of the material copied, the ASMP and SMW take their stand with the Authors League of America whose testimony you have already heard. Of all the copying that goes on now, perhaps the most prevalent is that of contributions to periodicals so this question is of great importance to all magazine writers.

There are many other provisions of H.R. 4347 which represent a needed and tremendous improvement over the existing law. But the spokesmen of other groups have called and will call these to your attention in detail. We wish to refer specifically only to one other provision of the proposed new law, namely, section 601, the revised "manufacturing clause." We wish to state that we do not think it proper (or indeed perhaps even constitutional) to have any manufacturing clause in our Copyright Act. If, however, one is to be included the proposed new one has many advantages over the present manufacturing clause for contributors to periodicals and special advantages for creators of nontextual material like photographers to whom the clause would no longer apply. However, it still leaves much to be desired. For example, if a photograph, story, or article appears in a collective work that runs afoul even of this revised manufacturing clause, it may suffer the penalties imposed by the clause despite the creator's inability to do anything about it. We understand that consideration will be given to further modifications of the clause and as to these, we hope to have a further opportunity to be heard.

All in all, I should like to conclude by saying that, for the American Society of Magazine Photographers and the Society of Magazine Writers, H.R. 4347, if enacted into law, will be not only an improvement over existing law but in many contexts will for the first time give to these groups any really effective copyright protection in a number of important respects.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mrs. Pilpel.

I think Mr. Linton, on behalf of the Society of Magazine Photographers, will be first, and then Mr. Mahoney.

STATEMENT OF DAVID LINTON, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAGAZINE PHOTOGRAPHERS

Mr. LINTON. My name is David Linton. I am past president and chairman of the copyright committee of the American Society of Magazine Photographers. The members of this society take most of the photographs that appear in magazines and many of those in books, encyclopedias, television programs and publications of all sorts. Our society strongly endorses the bill presently before this subcommittee and urges its prompt enactment.

I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the long and careful efforts of the Copyright Office in drafting this bill. We have been in touch with them for at least 5 years, I would say, on this matter, and have watched their patient, scholarly, and conciliatory work with profound admiration.

I regret that my distinguished colleague, Capt. Edward Steichen, was unable to be here this morning. He is 86 years of age and his

health did not permit him to make the trip from his home in Connecticut today. He did, however, give me a brief statement which I would like to read:

Photography is a young, vigorous art; one that speaks directly from man to fellow man. It is here to stay. It is man's mirror held up to the world. It deserves the fullest protection and encouragement of the law. Yet the present copyright law discriminates against photography in many ways-not because Congress intended to do so but simply because photography had barely begun when our present copyright law was written.

It is high time that this young giant among the arts be given equal rights by having its peculiar problems taken into account. The bill now before you will do this and we urge you to approve it. Respectfully submitted.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAGAZINE PHOTOGRAPHERS, By EDWARD STEICHEN, Copyright Committee.

Captain Steichen is a living example of one of the reasons why this bill should be passed. He was born in 1879 and took up photography in 1895 at the age of 16. He first won recognition as a photographer when his work took first place in the Philadelphia Salon of 1899. He went on to become chief photographer of Condé Nast, publishers of Vogue and Vanity Fair. In 1945 he was appointed director of the U.S. Navy Photographic Institute and placed in command of all Navy combat photography. In that year he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal.

In 1947 he became director of photography at the Museum of Modern Art where he created that great exhibit, the Family of Man, which has since been seen all over the world. In 1963 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Kennedy. A group of his photographs are presently on exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. He is probably the most famous living photographer in the world, yet the photographs he made in the early years of his career no longer belong to him. By the inexorable operation of the present copyright law, they have passed into the public domain.

We join with all the other creators of "original works of authorship" in supporting the proposed copyright term of the creator's life plus 50 years thereafter. We also share with our colleagues of the Society of Magazine Writers a special concern for the provisions relating to composite works since it is in composite works that most of our and their work appears. The provisions of sections 401 and 403 of the present bill, relating to notice of copyright in such works, will remove the number of difficult problems in our field.

The chief of these problems is the question of what date is required in the notice of an individual contribution in a collective work if that individual contribution has previously been published and registered. The proposed law, this bill, will resolve this problem by the statement that a single copyright notice is sufficient regardless of the prior copyrights of individual contributions in a composite work.

The abolition of the renewal system is also of great practical importance to us, because a photographer may produce hundreds of individual works in the course of a year. The much improved definition of "works made for hire" in section 101 and the provisions of section 201 (c) which relate to the presumption as to what rights have been acquired by the proprietor of a collective work in the absence of a spe