of creative artists more supportable, and make them feel welcome and honored members of our society. It would be unthinkable for any responsible representative not to give his full support to so vital a measure. Sincerely, JOHN LA MONTAINE, NYACK, N.Y., May 7, 1965. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3, House Judiciary Committee, DEAR MR. WILLIS: After reading the draft of the newly proposed copyright bill, H.R. 4347, I was very relieved to feel that the proposed bill goes a long way toward rectifying the injustices which have resulted from the present law and recognizing the changes in the whole concept of copyright which have taken place during the past 50 years. Ultimately one factor in history's judgment of American culture will be the quality of its artistic output. In order for creative artists to produce at the highest level of their potential they need time to work. Up to the present the vast majority of composers in this country, including those who have received the Pulitzer Prize, have been forced to carry on other activities as their main means of support. Composition has been to some extent only a dearly cherished hobby. When they have achieved their highest potential, it has been at the expense of quality. And very often the very works which do not get written are the shorter and technically simpler works which are badly needed for students during their training periods. The provisions of the new law will materially benefit the composer and because of that fact will ultimately prove to the benefit of our entire society. Sincerely, ROBERT Ward. PIERSON COLLEGE, YALE UNIVERSITY, April 21, 1965. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, House Committee on the Judiciary, YOUR HONOR: I feel that the 1965 bill for general revision of the U.S. copyright law (S. 1008 and H.R. 4347) is a great improvement in many ways over the existing law. I am tremendously in favor of it and hope that it may be passed. Respectfully yours, QUINCY PORTER, Battell Professor of the Theory of Music and Master of Pierson College. PEEKSKILL, N.Y., April 23, 1965. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, Subcommittee No. 3, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I write you in connection with the hearings on the proposed new copyright law now before the subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. As a practicing composer of more than 40 years' experience, I am fully aware of the injustices and inadequacies of the present copyright law and of the great need for the general revision of U.S. copyright law as outlined in the new bill now up for consideration. I have examined the principal provisions of the suggested changes in the new bill and cannot express too strongly my hope that every possible support will be given toward recommending favorable action on the bill by the House subcommittee. There is no doubt in my mind but that the artistic and cultural future of American music will be enhanced by the passage of a bill which will provide greater economic security to those men and women who devote their lives to the creation of works of art in our country. Respectfully yours, AARON COPLAND. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, ROME, ITALY, April 23, 1965. Subcommittee No. 3, House Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: It is time to put an end to those provisions in the present copyright law which, in effect, discriminate against composers in their ability to protect under law the use of their creative products. Just compensation-or rather the lack of it-is the key to the complaints which have been voiced for so long against the present copyright law. Especially should Congress act favorably on the following provisions in the proposed new copyright law: 1. Duration of copyright.-Author's life plus 50 years. This is minimal protection in most European countries. 2. Protection for sound recording.-Recordings represent a unique creative effort as deserving of copyright protection as any other aspect of the composer's or author's work. 3. Compulsory license.-Under the present law, infringement of licenses is practically encouraged because of the law's limited provisions for recovery against infringers. Morally indefensible, the present law. 4. Exemption of performances "not for profit."-Is there a Representative in the Congress wise enough to know where the profit motive starts and where it ends? 5. The present jukebox exemption.-Clearly scandalous. The undersigned urges you, Mr. Congressman, to work actively for the passage in the House of Representatives of the proposed new copyright law. Passage of that law will correct longstanding injustices perpetrated against a group of Americans who serve the Nation's cultural needs. The Nation's self-respect requires its adoption. Sincerely yours, GAIL KUBIK. Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, THE COLLEGE OF CHURCH MUSICIANS, Subcommittee No. 3, House Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR SIR: I am gratified to learn that your committee is to hold hearings on the proposed new copyright law commencing on April 28. The present law is not only antiquated, but it certainly does not serve the interests of the creative artists. May I point out that the elimination of the jukebox exemption is particularly to be wished for, as this will serve to augment royalties through public performance which should accrue to the creator of the music; he is now actually being defrauded. This matter is especially of importance to composers of serious music, as it is to be hoped that the inequities of the present law may be done away with and the benefits of the proposed law many be made available to all those who are exercising their God-given talent to create. Very sincerely yours, (Subsequently, Dr. Hanson submitted the following:) LEO SOWERBY. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, MR. HERBERT FUCHS, Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR MR. FUCHS: I am enclosing the corrected copy of my testimony before Subcommittee No. 3. There was one additional resolution which I did not present because I wanted to make my testimony as brief as possible. I do not know whether anything can be done about inserting it into the record at this late date but in any case I am sending it on to you. It is a resolution passed by the National Music Council at its general meeting of December 20, 1962. It is a very strong and excellent statement and I would be happy to have it made a part of the record if this is possible. It was a pleasure to meet you in Washington and I enjoyed testifying before the committee. It is most encouraging to observe the meticulous attention which the committee is giving to this very important matter. With kindest regards, Yours sincerely, HOWARD HANSON. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE NATIONAL MUSIC COUNCIL AT THE GENERAL MEETING, DECEMBER 20, 1962 The National Music Council recognizes the fundamental principle that a composer, like any other contributor to our society, should be compensated for the use of his work. Unfortunately, in the United States there exists a void in our copyright law, which excludes the composer from receiving payment for public performances of his music which are not "for profit." The result is that many educational institutions feel that they should not recognize the composer's right to remuneration for performances of his works, even in cases where payment is made for the electric current supplied by utilities, and oftentimes for the services of a promoter or manager of the concert and others who participate in it. In other countries, the composer is paid for all public performances of his works, whether the concerts be for profit or not. We strongly urge that this inequity in our copyright law be removed and that the creator's right to compensation be clearly set forth. We feel that regardless of the possible legal limitation on the rights of the composer to demand payment for public performance of his works which may not be "for profit," it is morally right that educational and cultural institutions recognize the right of the composer to be paid whenever his works are performed publicly. There has been a tremendous growth in music-making in our universities, colleges and conservatories which, in turn, has greatly raised the cultural level of the entire community. There has also been a growing desire on the part of educators to have composers of stature, some of them in residence, contribute music of quality for their orchestras, bands and choruses and to program this material frequently. We know that for all dramatic performances in these institutions, authors are paid. For concerts, however, the composer, who has provided the basic ingredient, usually remains unpaid. We feel that our educators and administrators have no desire to deprive composers of both the economic dignity and encouragement needed to continue in their profession; that, on the contrary, if made fully aware of the fact, they will be in the forefront in recognizing the right of the composer not only to be encouraged by performances of his works, but also to be sustained by payment for those performances. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Next I would like to call Miss Evelyn Burkey and Mr. James R. Webb, and I would ask Mr. Richard B. Jablow whether, even though he represents the National Council on the Arts in Government, he would care to appear with this group or not. Mr. JABLOW. Yes, I would. STATEMENTS OF MISS EVELYN BURKEY AND JAMES R. WEBB, WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA; AND RICHARD B. JABLOW, ESQ., WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA AND NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS IN GOVERNMENT Mr. KASTENMEIER. You may proceed, Mr. Jablow. Mr. JABLOW. Mr. Chairman, if I might I would like to just introduce the two witnesses for the Writers Guild. I will make no statement on behalf of the guild but will restrict myself to a very brief statement on behalf of the National Council on the Arts in Government, after these two witnesses. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Proceed. Mr. JABLOW. I would like to introduce Miss Evelyn Burkey, executive director of Writers Guild of America, Inc. I would like then to introduce Mr. James R. Webb, who is a former national chairman of the Writers Guild, presently president of the International Writers Guild. Mr. Webb is a professional writer who has achieved much success with over 30 screen plays, one of which, "How the West Was Won," got an Oscar for him last year. Mr. WEBB. That sort of cuts the beginning of my speech out, but as long as it is on paper I will read it again. My name is James R. Webb, and I am a former national chairman of the Writers Guild of America, which comprises two affiliated organizations, one in the East, one in the West. Together they are the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representatives for writers employed to write literary material in the motion picture, television, and radio media. Our present membership numbers some 3,800 professional writers in the aforesaid fields. My writing activity in recent years has been primarily in the motion picture field but because of the various offices I have held in this guild I have been exposed to many of the problems confronting all members of our organization. Together with Miss Evelyn F. Burkey, the executive director of Writers Guild of America, East, Inc., I come before this committee with the authorization of the guild as a proponent of H.R. 4347. We support the passage of such bill with some few changes which Miss Burkey and I will briefly touch upon, and most specifically we endorse those provisions of the bill that (a) extend the term of copyright to the life of the author plus 50 years thereafter, (b) that provide for the reversion of rights to the author upon the expiration of 35 years, and (c) that limit the uses to which any person, firm, or corporation can put copyright material without the authorization of the copyright proprietor including the restrictions on CATV and so-called general educational usage. Although Miss Burkey will discuss more fully the guild's objection to the "work made for hire" provisions of the bill, I would like to address myself to subsection 2 of the definition of a "work made for hire" which includes, for the first time, a reference to motion pictures. In effect, subsection 2 provides that a work specially ordered or commissioned will fall within the definition of a "work made for hire" if it is "part of a motion picture" regardless of the nature of the literary work itself, whereas this same literary work if written under the same circumstances for a different medium would not automatically be deemed a work made for hire. Why then should it be so considered merely because it is a part of a motion picture? Is there any historical or economic difference which should set the motion picture medium apart from other media and give to corporations in that industry rights which their television, publishing, and legitimate stage colleagues do not have? Certainly this provision appears to discriminate against writers of literary material used in the motion picture medium. To this we are unalterably opposed. As to the remaining objections to the worksmade-for-hire provisions, I will defer to Miss Burkey. Thank you for your courtesy in having received this statement. Miss BURKEY. As Mr. Webb has stated, the Writers Guild of America in general supports the passage of H.R. 4347. However we feel that the proposed "for hire" provisions, admittedly a compromise, will create more problems than will be solved and discriminate against certain authors. The present Copyright Act provides that unless the parties have otherwise agreed, an employer is the copyright proprietor with respect to literary or dramatic works created under a "for hire" relationship. Although the statute sets up a presumption of ownership in the employer, subject to a contrary intent manifested in the agreement between the employer and employee, it does not diminish nor reduce the copyright protection itself. H.R. 4347 would extend the area in which there would be a presumption of copyright ownership in someone other than the intellectual creator. This obviously would adversely affect such creators. In addition, the duration of copyright would be less favorable. The bill would differentiate among authors in this respect not on the basis of the nature of the work, fixation, nationality, or any such criterion, but solely on the basis of the relationship existing between the author and the producer or production company at the time the work was created. In the fields of mass communication in which members of the Writers Guild of America are professionally engaged, the creators of literary and dramatic works function almost without exception within an employment or commissioned relationship. It is worth noting that all three-motion pictures, radio, and television-developed and grew subsequent to 1909. The framers of the "for hire" provision then examined with care the various situations in which they deemed such a provision to be warranted. But they did not examine, nor could they have reasonably been expected to foresee, the possible growth of these new media with their own peculiar business problems and practices. We sincerely believe that the extension of the "for hire" provision into these new fields went beyond the areas envisaged by the drafters of that provision. We do not question the application of these provisions to such collective works as maps and illustrations in books, front matter, and appendixes, or contributions to dictionaries and encyclopedias. We do question their application to radio plays such as "Sorry, Wrong Number," teleplays such as "Requiem for a Heavyweight," or motion picture plays such as "How the West Was Won." Bearing in mind the main purpose of copyright protection, namely, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, the enactment of these provisions might well operate to direct the creative efforts of writers from broadcasting and motion picture fields to other forms of communication or entertainment where a writer could better protect his creative work. Under the proposed provisions, he would not even have as favorable a position as would an inventor under the provisions of the patent law. At present the fact that the author has written his work in the form of a television play would not be the basis for denying to him the same |