Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

copyright term and other protections which would be accorded him if in the first instance he had written his work for a theatrical production or for publication as a book or in a magazine.

In the broadcasting and motion picture industries, it is a common occurrence for an author of an original work to be party to a contract with a producer (individual contracts as well as collective bargaining agreements) whereby various rights, other than rights involving the main business of the producer, are reserved to the writer.

Sometimes the writer is acknowledged to be the copyright owner, frequently there is provision for assignment of copyright to the writer, and always, in the instance of reserved rights, an agreement by the producer to execute any necessary documents to evidence the writer's ownership of such reserved rights.

We believe that copyright ownership should be the subject matter for contract negotiations between the writer and the producer of his work. They are in a better position to judge the respective needs of the two parties than a statute imposing absolute limitations into which the requirements of a specific industry must be compressed.

It is not uncommon for a television play thereafter to be the basis for a motion picture, a legitimate theater production, or a book; on occasion, for all three. So too with radio plays and motion picture scripts which frequently appear in book form.

Where a different author dramatizes the work for the stage or writes a novel based on the teleplay, and such new version does not fall within the "for hire" provision, the differences in duration of copyright could well create à condition of chaos.

Creativity should be encouraged and protected in all media. Every professional writer needs and deserves that encouragement and protection on the basis of his having made a creative contribution. He should not be penalized because of the medium in which his work first. sees the light nor by the fact that a "for hire" relationship prevails therein.

We therefore recommend: (1) that the "for hire" provisions be deleted; or, in the alternative, that such provisions (both as to the proposed (a) and (b) sections of the definitions) be restricted to collective works such as we have previously indicated, and (2) that if the "for hire" concept is retained in any form, there be no distinction among the copyright proprietors as to the duration of copyright where such distinction is based solely on the existence of the "for hire" relationship.

Thank you for giving the guild this opportunity to present its views. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Miss Burkey, you heard the statements of the various composers in connection with the "for hire" provision. From your own analysis, would you say you agreed precisely with them on that?

Miss BURKEY. Yes, sir.

In most instances there might be some differences due to the fact that in one case it is a composer and in another it is an author. Basically we are in agreement.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. As far as creative work is concerned in the "for hire" provisions, it would appear that it is only in connection with the television and film industry, that this appears. Is there some his

torical reason why it does not appear, for example, in magazine publishing?

Miss BURKEY. The reference to a motion picture appears first in the proposed act. It is not in the present law. The difference, I believe, comes about because of the nature of the employers in that field. Motion picture companies are usually large corporations. Sometimes you have independent producers but they usually are financed by the large motion picture companies. I am sure all of the members of the committee are aware that the broadcasting companies, both television and radio, are large companies that primarily do most of the producing of programs or the employment of our writers. Or else the packagers who employ our writers are financed or related in some way, some financial way, to the broadcasting companies.

You do not have as much of an individual relationship between the author and the utilizer of his work as would be true in the dramatic field or in the book publishing field where there is a more direct personal relationship and you are not dealing with the representatives of a large corporation.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Edwards?

Mr. EDWARDS. No questions.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Poff?

Mr. POFF. You are also interested in the reversion and termination rights?

Miss BURKEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. POFF. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Jablow, would you care to say anything in connection with this particular problem or with the Writers Guild of America? Would you care to make your statement now in connection with the national council?

Mr. JABLOW. Yes; I would like to do that. Of course, I completely agree with what Miss Burkey and Mr. Webb have said.

Mr. WEBB. I would like to ask one question either before or after, however you would like it, concerning the ramifications that this gets into. I am not positive that I understand the intent here of including the motion picture provision and only the motion picture provision, because it runs into so many other things.

For instance, in the case of "How the West Was Won," this was written definitely for hire. As a matter of fact, no one in connection with that motion picture had a percentage at all, none of the stars, directors, or anyone. But it was an entirely original screenplay on my part though I did it for hire, but it was based on nothing, except we did have the title which had belonged to Life magazine.

Now as a result of collective bargaining in our previous contract with the screen producers, if they want to put out a paperback novelization of a motion picture, because it does help to publicize the picture, the writer of the screenplay, if it is his own original screenplay, is offered the right to write the novel, or, if he does not want to bother to write the novel, he can let some other writer write it. He then gets a royalty, too.

What happens with the difference in the duration of these copyrights? It would seem to me that the motion picture producer has got, as I understand it, a maximum of 75 years in his copyright of

that picture but does my contribution to the novel-and of course this man who wrote the novel had to add to this because even the longest screenplay is much shorter than a novel-carry with it a longer right? Do I have life plus 50 in my contribution to that novel and only 75 for the motion picture itself?

So I really don't quite understand what the intent of this thing is, which is one reason that we do object.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think it is fair to comment that the committee appreciates the question, because we too have a number of questions and we seek clarification from witnesses and from others. We trust that in the weeks ahead this clarification will come.

Mr. WEBB. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Jablow, did you want to make a statement? Mr. JABLOW. I am here testifying as counsel to the National Council on the Arts in Government, Inc.

The NCAG, as it is called, is composed of some 60 outstanding representatives of the fields of music, drama, dance, literature, architecture, painting, sculpture, crafts and photography, motion pictures, radio and television.

The NCAG is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the strengthening of governmental relationship to the arts for the benefit of the general public and to improving the lot of the arts and artists on county, city, State, and Federal levels.

I have been authorized by the NCAG to appear before this committee as a proponent of H.R. 4347. We enthusiastically support those predominant aspects of the bill which enlarge the rights of the intellectual creators of artistic material.

At the same time we endorse virtually all of the changes in such bill sought by such groups as the Authors League of America, the Writers Guild of America, and the American Guild of Authors and Composers.

We applaud the proposed duration of copyright provision, as well as the reversion principle, while wholeheartedly seconding the statements made by the Writers Guild of America, as well as the Composers & Lyricists Guild of America, Inc., in connection with their criticism of the works made for hire provisions of the bill. We believe that the creator of a work should have the widest possible control of its use and receive the maximum benefits from the exploitation of its copyright.

Although many of the members of our council are closely allied toand in some cases are integral parts of the educational community, the NCAG is of the opinion that those uses of copyrighted works, whether for educational, scientific, or religious purposes, that do not require the prior authorization of the creator of the material, should be kept to the barest possible minimum.

It is, nevertheless, the position of the NCAG that, despite the objections heretofore mentioned, the proposed bill is a great step forward for those of us directly concerned with the progress of the arts and artists.

Thank you for permitting my appearance here.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Edwards?

Mr. EDWARDS. No questions.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Poff?

52-380-66-pt. 1-21

Mr. POFF. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We thank all three of you, Mr. Webb, Miss Burkey, and Mr. Jablow.

The Chair would like to announce that this concludes our hearings for today. Witnesses are invited to present next week the views of educators, librarians, and educational television. Witnesses will be invited for the third week as follows:

June 9, jukebox industry; June 10, the record industry; June 11, community antennas.

May the Chair also state, observing the 3 days of hearings, that we would like to compliment the witnesses and members and all others present for the way the proceedings have gone. I hope we are as fortunate in the weeks ahead.

That, then, concludes the hearings for today. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday next.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m. Wednesday, June 2, 1965.)

COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 oF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, St. Onge, Edwards, Tenzer, Poff, and Hutchinson.

Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel; and Allan Cors, associate counsel.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The subcommittee will come to order. I regret to announce that our distinguished chairman, who was to have been here today, Mr. Edwin E. Willis, has been taken sick the last 2 days. He assures us that it is nothing serious but it will keep him from attending and presiding at today's and perhaps other meetings of the subcommittee this week.

We trust he will be back soon in good health.

The committee today would like to hear from a group presenting objections that teachers have to the proposed revision. First, we welcome to the committee Dr. Harold E. Wigren and Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, representing the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision.

Dr. WIGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission if I might— Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I am sorry, would the witness allow me to make an additional announcement that I neglected to make, namely, that our Republican members of the subcommittee, Mr. Poff and Mr. Hutchinson, will be required at the Republican conference this morning at 10:30. We will accordingly miss them for a portion of the proceedings today.

Please continue, Dr. Wigren.

STATEMENTS OF DR. HAROLD E. WIGREN AND HARRY N. ROSENFIELD, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS ON COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION

Dr. WIGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I request permission to have my statement filed for the record and then in the interest of time just comment orally from the statement itself?

315

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »