like in 1965 so that our good teaching practices which are creative can be supported by the new law.

Mr. FUCHS. I wonder how long the educators have felt this serious handicap?

Dr. WIGREN. We have felt for some time that we may be doing some things that we are not supposed to. This "gets on your nerves" after awhile.

We feel that we would like to have it clearly written into law so that we don't have under-the-table uses. We would like to get things out in the open more so that we know where we stand. It is sort of like crossing the street in Washington. You are not supposed to cross in the middle of the block. I have seen people check to see if anybody is looking, and, if not, risk it, and I have done so myself.

This is what we have been doing. I don't think we should put teachers in this position, particularly if they are trying to set standards for youngsters.

Mr. FUCHS. I am curious to know whether you feel that the new law, the proposed new law, imposes new restrictions on teaching that are not present under the existing one.

Dr. WIGREN. The new law does not contain, in our estimation, anything about the "for profit" limitation. We have a double-barreled protection now under the existing law. We have the judicial interpretation of "fair use" plus the "for profit" limitation and we find this latter lacking in the proposed law. This worries us a good bit because we feel that we have now this extra kind of protection. Neither do we have the words "teaching, scholarship, or research" in the new fair use provision.

Mr. Fucns. You have the "not for profit" provision under existing law for public performance?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes; and this would include educational television in the main. The new law, of course, would take this away, which would mean that educational television would in effect be cut back, too.

Mr. FUCHS. But your face-to-face teaching would be totally exempt? Dr. WIGREN. I think face-to-face teaching would remain pretty much the same. Again you are asking me legal questions. I would rather not be in this area because I am not a lawyer.

Mr. FUCHS. I think the record should show what your understanding is.

Dr. WIGREN. My understanding is this.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. St. Onge?

Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, without trying to pin you down to legal specifications-we will leave that for Mr. Rosenfield-is it the feeling of your committee. that if H.R. 4347 were to be presented to the Congress that your committee would prefer the existing copyright law to the proposed law without any changes?

Dr. WIGREN. I hate to be put in this position but I think it correct to say that we feel that the present law has some advantages that the proposed one does not have. I tried to point those out. I can't speak for the committee in saying whether we would want to make that flat statement but there are those I know on the committee who

feel strongly that the present law is more advantageous to us than the proposed one.

But I do want to say that all of us feel we do need a new law. The other one is outmoded, there is no doubt about it. But as we write a new law let us write one that is supportive and reflective of good practice in teaching and not one that cuts teaching back.

It may be true, and I will stick my neck out on this one, that teachers are doing some things that are not legal, and we suspect that may be true. But it certainly is in the area of good teaching practice.

Now they have not had lawsuits galore so they have continued to do these things. Whether you realize it or not teachers would consider it as a cutback because they have been doing these things.

If a law were written that would prescribe certain other things, as you have written here, teachers would undoubtedly feel it would be taking away some of the things they are now doing. They feel they are doing them under the not-for-profit limitations.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Have there been any lawsuits against teachers? Dr. WIGREN. Yes; there has been one. I think our attorney will speak to this. Publishers say, "Well, why don't you trust us?" We can say in return, "Why don't you trust us, too?" It works both ways. Mr. ST. ONGE. I gather that your feeling, without being specific as to language or endorsing any specific language, is that you would like to see written into the law very specific proposals that every teacher could read and determine for himself whether or not this practice

Dr. WIGREN. Guidelines for the teacher are needed. I think the time has come now for these, as other witnesses before this committee will be saying to you, and even pointing out instances where teachers have been concerned about using materials because of certain policies which have been set up by school districts in this regard. Teachers in these districts are going to think twice before they use something. We don't want teachers to go back to the single textbook concept. This is a retrogression in teaching. We want to be able to take advantage of many new developments and new resources for learning. I would like to read just one or two lines here from a copy of a letter I received this morning, and which some of you will be receiving, from a staff member of the Chief State School Officers.

He says:

In any event what preserves or extends copyright restrictions must be considered in connection with the great need of education to take full advantage of technology that can be used to improve teaching. For instance, teachers should not be required to seek permission to reproduce materials for their own class on modern copying machines. Unless it is clear that fair use extends to such practices, many teachers will take no chance of violating either the law or their own ethical standards. The doctrine of fair use needs expansion and clarification in view of the tremendous social responsibility to facilitate education.

Mr. ST. ONGE. You realize of course that one of the difficulties that the committee is going to face is the fact that we have made such tremendous strides in the copying process. We understand from testimony already submitted to the committee that there are new processes or procedures that have been developed and are not yet on the market so that, if we propose fixed guidelines, there is a danger that in the future these new methods will not be available.

Dr. WIGREN. If you fail to do this though, sir, wouldn't you also be making teachers run the risk of not knowing when they were violating or when they were not?

Mr. ST. ONGE. Would that change the existing situation?

Dr. WIGREN. We would hope the existing situation could be changed.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Now one final question. In your discussions with the authors and the publishers did anyone from either side propose any system to handle this problem, a clearinghouse?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes. The Authors League of America did present a clearinghouse. It was full of "administrivia." I mean by that it had many cumbersome problems in connection with the administration of it. Our committee examined this in detail. I was going to comment on this in the concluding statement so let me do this now in answer to your question.

The Authors League has proposed what might be called a statutory licensing system. In effect I suppose you would call it an "educational ASCAP." But we have met with the Authors League subcommittee and have had discussions with them. Their plan was not satisfactory to our committee. I don't think that it was satisfactory, likewise, to the publishers' group although I can't swear to this. I don't think it is.

Now we have also asked the publishers 1 year ago, as I recall, to draft such a proposal and I understand that one is in the mill, and of course we would be only too glad to look at it.

We are keeping an open door on the matter. I do want to say that our committee does have some philosophical problems in connection with any clearinghouse proposal because we feel in the first place that we would, in effect, be having to have everything cleared by the clearinghouse and that we would be having to pay for something we now get free.

Any kind of clearinghouse procedure could not be a substitute for "fair use" but would have to be something over and above this. We keep the door open. This is not an irreconcilable situation, but certainly both sides must come to grips with this. To date we have been doing most of the compromising. I really can't point to where they have compromised a bit. I wish we would not talk about “we” and "they." We need them and they need us.

We can't get along without them. We need their materials. We will continue to buy the materials despite what happens in the hearings. We want to work in peace and harmony but we do want to have our point of view known because we feel you gentlemen must know how we feel and how the teachers of America look at this.

Teachers are not misinformed; they know what is happening but they want the Congress to know this and also to know the difficulties and the confusion which now exists.

Mr. ST. ONGE. I think, Doctor, the teachers of America should feel that you have made a very good presentation on their behalf this morning.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Edwards?

Mr. EDWARDS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Tenzer?

Mr. TENZER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my questions until after I hear Mr. Rosenfield but I would like at this time to say that the word "administrivia"-if it is original, because I have never heard it before is now in the public domain.

Dr. WIGREN. It is not copyrighted.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No questions.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Cors?

Mr. CORS. Dr. Wigren, in regard to the practices on pages 7 and 8 which you indicated would be, perhaps, infringements of the proposed copyright law, these are practices that you would like to see exempted under the new law but you do acknowledge are

Dr. WIGREN. Good teaching practices which should be supported, yes.

Mr. CORS. You do acknowledge that most of these would be improper under the present law?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes.

Mr. CORS. You do acknowledge it?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes, as far as I understand the present law. If they are not, I think we ought to have this clarified for the record. We would be very happy to know if all these things were proper. The fact of the matter is, I wish I had started last Wednesday to make a list of what everybody said thus far was fair use. We would really have quite a collection. We would be able to have this written into the statutes and the record would show that we have these things we can fall back on.

I think some people are being very liberal before this committee, when they may not have been so liberal when we see them individually. Mr. CORS. Has your organization made any attempt to accurately advise the teachers of this situation-that it is not something new under this act, that they are living with this situation now?

Dr. WIGREN. Some of them have been told, in a statement my office put out. We did put out this statement, but we do want to say also that we put two footnotes on here which are very important. One has to do with the fact that this was written before the new report of the Register came out on the new bill; and also—

under certain circumstances which are not specified in the bill and which must be settled by individual court cases, copies of quotations may be allowed as fair use.

Now we have said certain things are prohibited, on the bottom of page 1. All of these are multiple copies of excerpts. We understood Mr. Cary to say that multiple copies of excerpts would not be permitted, neither would a single copy of a whole work; multiple copies of excerpts would not be, but a single copy of an excerpt would be permitted. We need these. We have said, "for the use of your pupils you could not photocopy, Thermofax, for the use of your pupils." So we have talked about multiple copies on page 1 "for the use of your pupils." We have included something which we should not have. We have said "you could not duplicate tests from weekly news maga zines." We don't expect this any more. After our last meeting with the publishers, we went ahead and changed our draft to preclude this.

This was written before that meeting.

Mr. TENZER. Will you please identify the statement so that the record may show it?

Dr. WIGREN. Very good.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Do you want to offer that?

Dr. WIGREN. Yes, "Implications of the New Copyright Bill for the Classroom Teacher." I am not sure I put the date on the thing. (The statement referred to follows:)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW COPYRIGHT BILL FOR THE CLASSROOM TEACHER1

The copyright law has not been revised since it was enacted in 1909. A new bill to replace the present law was introduced into both Houses of the Congress on February 5, 1965 (H.R. 4347 and S. 1006).

The new bill has important implications for you, the classroom teacher.

It would permit you to use any copyrighted material in the classroom in the course of face-to-face teaching activities, providing you don't copy it!

Examples:

You could read aloud, recite, render, play, dance, or act a copyrighted work.

You could play a tape recording or a phonograph record to your class.
You could tune in a television or a radio program in your classroom.
You could project material on an opaque projector.

You could show commercially produced transparencies on an overhead projector.

You could show a motion picture, filmstrip, or slides to a class.
You can act out a play in your class or in the auditorium.

It would prohibit you from making copies of excerpts or quotations from copyrighted works for teaching purposes, unless clearances are obtained and specified royalties are paid.

Examples:

1. You could not photocopy, Thermofax, mimeograph, hectograph, or otherwise duplicate copyrighted materials for the use of your pupils.

2. You could not make overhead transparencies of charts, diagrams, or other materials from a copyrighted work.

3. You could not include, as part of a dittoed examination, excerpts or quotations from contemporary poems or paragraphs for pupils' interpretation or for choral reading.

4. You could not reproduce maps, charts, or experiments from either current or old textbooks, even if you own the book.

5. You could not duplicate math problems selected from various books, pamphlets, and magazines for use by your pupils.

6. You could not duplicate tests from teacher's editions of weekly news magazines for use in class.

It would prohibit you from making a single copy of an entire copyrighted work for teaching, home study, or research purposes, or for use as a teacher's copy, unless you obtain necessary clearances and pay specified royalties.

Examples:

7. You could not duplicate or make a transparency of a separately copyrighted chart, graph, or column from a newspaper or magazine.

8. You could not make a tape recording at home of a TV or radio program for use at school the next day.

9. You could not reproduce short poems from several books to supplement the class anthology or for oral interpretation.

1 These comments are prepared in advance of the publication of the report of the Register of Copyrights stating his intention and purpose in drafting H.R. 4347 and S. 1006, and may need to be reevaluated in the light of that forthcoming report.

Under some circumstances which are not specified in the bill and which must be settled by individual court cases, copies or quotations may be allowed as "fair use."