Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Library copying is not a recent development but is, of necessity, a practice that came into being when the first library was established several thousand years ago.

Our studies, as summarized in our 1961 report and our final revised recommendations in 1963, establish that the present practices of libraries with respect to single copies are traditional and essential and are not damaging to the interests of copyright holders. Libraries and copyright owners will continue to be interdependent and we are persuaded that library practices will be conducted in the future, as they have been in the past, to provide essential services that are consistent with the interests of copyright owners.

Statutory provisions codifying present practices or limiting present practices in anticipation of new technology would crystallize with statutory permanence a subject better left to the flexible adjustment of interdependent forces. The Joint Libraries Committee knows of no possible statutory provision that would not either limit essential library services beyond what is necessary to protect the interests of copyright owners or limit the interests of copyright owners beyond what is necessary to permit the continuance of essential library services. (b) Multiple copying

In its treatment of library copying, the Joint Libraries Committee has concerned itself only with single copies, and has taken no position with respect to duplication in multiple copies.

(c) "Fair use"

The committee is persuaded that the provisions of the present bill, which do no more than acknowledge the existence of the judicial doctrine of "fair use" are preferable to any attempted statutory delineation of the scope or content of the fair use doctrine such as the provisions contained in section 6 of H.R. 11947 introduced in the 88th Congress, and in section 6 of the 1961 preliminary draft prepared by the Copyright Office for purposes of discussion.

A proposal to substitute statutory certainty for difficult professional and commercial and academic decisions is tempting to all of us, including librarians. But the "progress of science and useful arts" would not be promoted by accepting such proposals. To whatever extent there is or may be conflict between the practical demands of research, teaching, and similar uses of copyright material, the conflict must be resolved by a flexible doctrine that can be adapted to the realities of a given situation. We are persuaded that the present bill is, in this respect, entirely satisfactory.

2. NOTICE

The copyright date is of vital importance to libraries as dispensers of information and as purchasers of books. When assisting readers, librarians need to know the timeliness of information as indicated by the copyright date. Publication dates alone can be extremely misleading, concealing the fact that a work was originally prepared 10 to 50 years earlier and that it stands unchanged despite the date of the current printing. The lack of copyright dates on maps is an excellent example of the confusion that can prevail under the existing law. If one is looking for post-World War I boundaries in central Europe, he could tell immediately that a map copyrighted in 1914 would be of no help, but without the copyright date, time can be wasted and even misinformation given.

Also, in adding books to their collections, librarians need to know the exact version of a work they are buying and, more often than not, are concerned that they acquire the most up-to-date version.

The Joint Libraries Committee has no direct interest in statutory provisions that result in inadvertent loss of copyright through failure to comply with technical requirements under the present Copyright Act, and we are in complete sympathy with the purposes of the changes proposed by the present bill, which we understand are intended to avoid the inadvertent forfeiture of copyright. We do have an indirect interest in the existing provisions to the extent they furnish an incentive to the inclusion of dates on published works. Indeed, on this ground we would urge the extension of the year requirement to such graphic works as maps, rather than the relaxation of requirements for all works contemplated by the current bill.

We are concerned that the provisions of the current bill would result in practices by copyright owners that may make notice of copyright with year date the exception rather than the rule for copyrighted material.

The provisions of section 404 (a) (2) of H.R. 4347, by effectively eliminating the incentive to comply with the notice requirement, may encourage publication without notice or without a complete notice including the year of first publication. As incidental beneficiaries of the requirement that the year of first publication be made a part of the notice, the Joint Libraries Committee therefore urges the inclusion in section 404 of a requirement that the omission of notice be inadvertent. Under the present language of section 404 an intentionally omitted, or more likely, incomplete, notice of copyright is invited.

It is obvious in the language of section 404 (a) (2) (which requires an effort to add notice to all copies distributed after an omission has been "discovered") that the provision still contains some vestiges of section 27 of the 1961 preliminary draft submitted for discussion by the Copyright Office. That preliminary draft expressly provided that deliberate omission of notice would invalidate copyright and that only unintentional omission would not.

We urge the subcommittee to adopt the language of the preliminary draft, forfeiting copyright for intentional omission of notice (which we understand to mean any part of the notice) and preventing forfeiture only if the omission is inadvertent.

With respect to the physical location of notice, librarians are greatly aided by the specific requirements of the current law. It is probable that more librarians disagree with this suggested relaxation than with any other provision of the current bill. Although the practical value to librarians of being able to find copyright notice in a specific place for each type of work is an obvious aid in the processing of published material by the libraries, the Joint Libraries Committee does not believe such added convenience would justify continuation of technical requirements that may result in forfeiture of copyright. The committee believes that the exemplary regulations of the Register of Copyrights contemplated by the bill, together with the requirement that the notice be in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright, are sufficient.

3. DURATION

The term of copyright protection should permit librarians to make a prompt determination, for users, of the status of a work without recourse to extraneous records or facts.

Librarians would join users in having a very decided preference for a single fixed term of copyright measured from the year of first publication. The length of the period of protection is not of paramount concern to librarians, and they would join copyright owners in urging that it be long enough to guarantee at least as great a protected period as that generally applicable in Europe.

We also are persuaded, from long experience with the challenge of copyright status for manuscript material, that the current proposal for dealing with unpublished work by Federal copyright statute is desirable.

The Joint Libraries Committee, therefore, recommends that for all works. whether published or unpublished, whether solely or jointly authored and whether or not anonymously or pseudonymously published or made for hire. copyright endure for a single fixed period of years from the date of publication or a somewhat longer fixed period of years from the date of creation. whichever period expires first.

4. OTHER PROVISIONS

Libraries are, of course, directly affected by one additional provision: the express library exemption from the import restrictions in section 601 of the current bill. We are not aware of any opposition to this exemption. It is evident to all that, whatever the merits of import limitations, they should not prohibit importation for library purposes, and the joint committee is confident that the library exemption must and will be a part of any import limitation.

The provisions of the so-called manufacturing clause have unnecessarily hampered publication of many works and are of concern to libraries. The "manufacturing clause" is out of place in a copyright act. It is, in any form.

[ocr errors]

unfair to American authors and places limited private interests in a favored position contrary to the public interests that libraries exist to serve.

The Joint Libraries Committee believes that the current bill does not adequately correct the unwarranted provisions of present law that make domestic manufacture a condition of valid copyright. If any manufacturing clause is to be retained, we urge the subcommittee to retain the first sentence of section 601 (d) of the current bill and to delete the balance of the section.

We are familiar with the views presented to this subcommittee on behalf of the ad hoc committee (of Educational Institutions and Organizations) on June 2, 1965. While it is our belief that most of the illustrative "creative teaching practices" referred to by the ad hoc committee would not constitute copyright infringement under the existing law or under the current bill, we are cognizant of disagreement among copyright authorities and of the difficulties of requiring teachers to decide such issues at their peril. The Joint Libraries Committee therefore supports the recommendation of the ad hoc committee.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Director of the University Libraries of Stanford University and chairman of the Joint Libraries Committee on Copyright. This committee has developed by stages from a committee established in 1956 by the Association of Research Libraries.

It now includes representation from the American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, Special Libraries Association, and Music Libraries Association.

The committee was originally called the Joint Libraries Committee on Fair Use in Photocopying, a name devised by the late Register of Copyrights, Arthur Fisher, who took a lively interest in the committee's work until his untimely death in 1960.

In addition to the regular membership the committee has had the benefit of three consultants: Bethuel M. Webster, William H. Hogeland, Jr., of Webster, Sheffield, Fleischmann, Hitchcock & ChrystieMr. Hogeland is in the room this morning-and Verner W. Clapp, president of the Council on Library Resources.

The Joint Libraries Committee has had a continuing interest in copyright revision and has participated in the panel meetings convened by the Register of Copyrights. There is a considerable similarity between the underlying purpose of libraries and the underlying purpose of the Copyright Act:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

It may fairly be said that our interest therefore extends to all of the provisions of the bill now before this committee.

As a major link between copyright owners and users of copyrighted works, libraries and librarians are more than neutral; we are vitally concerned with the interests of both groups. We have asked to be heard today, however, only on those parts of the overall copyright revision proposals that have or may have a unique impact on the functions of libraries. From long experience with owners and users we know that both groups will speak persuasively to this subcommittee and that neither is in need of our assistance as a representative spokes

man.

There are three specific subjects of particular concern to libraries concerning which the views of the Joint Libraries Committee may be of benefit to this subcommittee. These are: library copying, copyright

notice, and copyright duration. These three subjects affect the ability of libraries to perform their functions and the facility with which those functions can be performed. Libraries function only to the extent that their collections are used. Libraries exist by virtue of copying. They exist for the purpose of disseminating information, which is "copying" in one form or another.

1. COPYING

(a) Single copies by libraries: Since 1957 the Joint Libraries Committee has had a special concern with the examination and formulation of library practices and policies with respect to copying. As part of this function we have participated in the consideration of various proposed statutory provisions dealing specifically with copying by libraries. The Joint Libraries Committee, however, has never advocated the inclusion of any statutory provision dealing with library copying.

We are in complete agreement with the approach of the current Celler bill, H.R. 4347: that is, the silent approach in which no statutory reference is made to library copying.

Library copying is not a recent development but is, of necessity, a practice that came into being when the first library was established several thousand years ago.

Our studies, as summarized in our 1961 report and our final revised recommendations in 1963, establish that the present practices of libraries with respect to single copies are traditional and essential and are not damaging to the interests of copyright holders. Libraries and copyright owners will continue to be interdependent and we are persuaded that library practices will be conducted in the future, as they have been in the past, to provide essential services that are consistent with the interests of copyright owners.

Statutory provisions codifying present practices or limiting present practices in anticipation of new technology would crystallize with statutory permanence a subject better left to the flexible adjustment of interdependent forces. The Joint Libraries Committee knows of no possible statutory provision that would not either limit essential library services beyond what is necessary to protect the interests of copyright owners or limit the interests of copyright owners beyond what is necessary to permit the continuance of essential library

services.

(b) Multiple copying: In its treatment of library copying, the Joint Libraries Committee has concerned itself only with single copies, and has taken no position with respect to duplication in multiple copies.

(c) "Fair use": The committee is persuaded that the provisions of the present bill, which do no more than acknowledge the existence of the judicial doctrine of "fair use," are preferable to any attempted statutory delineation of the scope or content of the fair use doctrine such as the provisions contained in section 6 of H.R. 11947 introduced in the 88th Congress, and in section 6 of the 1961 preliminary draft prepared by the Copyright Office for purposes of discussion.

A proposal to substitute statutory certainty for difficult professional and commercial and academic decisions is tempting to all of us-including librarians. But the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" would not be promoted by accepting such proposals. To whatever extent there is or may be conflict between the practical demands of research, teaching, and similar uses of copyright material, the conflict must be resolved by a flexible doctrine that can be adapted to the realities of a given situation. We are persuaded that the present bill is, in this respect, entirely satisfactory.

2. NOTICE

The copyright date is of vital importance to libraries as dispensers of information and as purchasers of books. When assisting readers, librarians need to know the timeliness of information as indicated by the copyright date. Publication dates alone can be extremely misleading, concealing the fact that a work was originally prepared 10-50 years earlier and that it stands unchanged despite the date of the current printing. The lack of copyright dates on maps is an excellent example of the confusion that can prevail under the existing law. If one is looking for post-World War I boundaries in central Europe, he could tell immediately that a map copyrighted in 1914 would be of no help, but without the copyright date, time can be wasted and even misinformation given.

Also, in adding books to their collections, librarians need to know the exact version of a work they are buying and, more often than not, are concerned that they acquire the most up to date version.

The Joint Libraries Committee has no direct interest in statutory provisions that result in inadvertent loss of copyright through failure to comply with technical requirements under the present Copyright Act, and we are in complete sympathy with the purposes of the changes proposed by the present bill, which we understand are intended to avoid the inadvertent forfeiture of copyright. We do have an indirect interest in the existing provisions to the extent they furnish an incentive to the inclusion of dates on published works. Indeed on this ground we would urge the extension of the year requirement to such graphic works as maps, rather than the relaxation of requirements for all works contemplated by the current bill. We are concerned that the provisions of the current bill would result in practices by copyright owners that may make notice of copyright with year date the exception rather than the rule for copyrighted material.

The provisions of section 404 (a) (2) of H.R. 4347, by effectively eliminating the incentive to comply with the notice requirement, may encourage publication without notice or without a complete notice including the year of first publication. As incidental beneficiaries of the requirement that the year of first publication be made a part of the notice, the Joint Libraries Committee therefore urges the inclusion in section 404 of a requirement that the omission of notice be inadvertent. Under the present language of section 404 an intentionally omitted-or, more likely, incomplete-notice of copyright is invited.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »