countries which are not members of the Berne Convention, we do not get protection at all because we cannot comply with all of these local rules as to notarial certificates and whatnot. It is too complicated and it is uneconomic. In countries that are members of the Berne Convention we do get protection by virtue of the back door. That is protection as a matter of grace. Senator FULBRIGHT. Side door. Mr. KAYE. It isn't even the dignity of a side door when a country of our power gets protection under a treaty under which we accept no concomitant obligations at all. I think it is the family entrance, sir. In any event, we continue here to get our copyright by indirection. It isn't safe for the future. It isn't even sure at the present time because countries try to set up obstacles to our getting rights without assuming obligations. Worst of all, it is a very effective means of propaganda in friendly nations to say that the United States doesn't recognize rights in works of the spirit and mind is an effective means of propaganda. It is used against us all the time. Certainly if it is used against us now, when we haven't had previously offered to us a treaty on our own terms, how much more tenuous will American rights be and how intensified will be even legitimate criticism of us if we now fail to accept a treaty which recognizes our own system of copyright and doesn't require us to make basic sacrifices of our own interests. PROTECTION CONVENTION AFFORDS Not only is adequate protection of United States copyright important for authorship, it goes further. It enables us to protect the expression of the views of our citizens against mistranslation and misquotation. If we do not have copyright abroad people can omit, can leave out characteristic parts of an American work and pervert the intention of our own authorship, whereas an adequate copyright law protects us against that. Of course, finally, it will put us on a good standing with nations whose respect we want. The Universal Copyright Convention does not deprive us of any of the rights of Berne. It is an amplification rather than a superseding piece of legislation. It puts under the protection that we now enjoy as a matter of grace the firm foundation of legal right. The Universal Copyright Convention proceeds on what seems to be the simplest and the most simplified and the most logical of concepts. Any citizen of an adhering country places notice of his reservation of copyright on the work, states the date of first publication, states his name. On compliance with that simple formality he has in every other country of the convention all of the rights which that country gives to its own citizens. In other words, it is a simple passport and no local visas are required, and works of the intellect and works of the spirit can travel through the free world with a minimum of obstacle. We get even additional rights, because there are simple minimums in the Universal Copyright Convention which do not require the alteration of any of our copyright standards, but which give us additional protection. There are countries of the world with whom we have copyright relations today which do not recognize translation rights. It is a little hard on the author of a book to say that he has all the rights but the right he wants, the right to translate his work into the national language and cause it to be published and distributed there. The Universal Copyright Convention cures that sort of thing. It does give translation rights subject to certain reservations if the work isn't translated into the national language within a term of 7 years. CHANGES REQUIRED The law which represents the price we pay for these overwhelming advantages calls for very few changes. There are three purely formal and technical changes. We no longer have to have a separate presidential proclamation with respect to the rights of mechanical recordation, such as the manufacture of phonograph records. That might have been a good reason when we first enacted the recording law. It is now obsolete in our case. Secondly, we no longer require the initial deposit for the countries of the convention of copies in the copyright office, although, those copies still have to be deposited as a prerequisite to suit and the formalities incident to renewal of copyrights. The Register of Copyrights has not required the deposit of foreign copies and the Library of Congress has said it will not suffer thereby. Thirdly, we allow the symbol C in a circle to be used in place of the word "copyright," accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication of the work. We will permit the notice of copyright to be placed in the work in such a manner and such a location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The use of the symbolic C in a circle is now not permitted for certain classes of United States copyright. We will, incidently, allow our own citizens to use this symbol instead of the word for all classes of copyright. HARDSHIPS OF THE MANUFACTURING CLAUSE Finally, we come to the one change of substance which is the change in the manufacturing clause. I think you have to visualize the manufacturing clause in terms of its impact upon human beings, to see what it does. A young novelist in Ireland, in Australia, in England, or writing in the English language in France or Germany, writes a book. He would love to have the book published in the United States. It would disseminate his work further and he would get more money. But he cannot find a publisher here who wants to publish his book. He himself doesn't have the money in American dollars to print his own work here. There is nothing he can do about it. So he is disappointed. In addition to being disappointed because he cannot find an American publisher, which isn't his fault, there is nothing he can do to keep his work from coming into the public domain in 5 short years. That has no analogy to a trade restriction. That doesn't keep his book merely out of the country or increase its price. It means that at the end of 5 years if he has gained some reputation by that time, he may find his book printed here in a 25-cent edition. He may find the subject matter of the book used in a radio or tele vision script. He may find it produced on Broadway as a play. He isn't entitled to a penny of royalty. He has lost his work. Whether he has imported a few copies under the law or whether he has kept the copies out, he has lost his work. Surely it is not a sensible way of protecting American manufacture, to expropriate the rights of authors. That results in justified resentment against our law all over the world. It is just as though you deprived a man of property, a piece of real property because he couldn't find a tenant who would improve the real estate by erecting a building on it. He would be glad to see the building built. We impose a penalty without fault. That is not an appropriate part of our copyright law. It is not proposed to eliminate the manufacturing clause from our copyright law. All that is proposed is to modify it for the benefit of other countries that adhere to this treaty. The manufacturing clause will still apply to all works written by citizens of our country or by persons who are domiciled here. It will still apply to all works first published in the United States. It will still apply to all works which do not get their protection under the Universal Copyright Convention. I am not an authority on the economics of publishing, but I do buy books, and I see that most of the books I buy in this country, all of them practically, are published here. That applies equally to the works which have no copyright protection in this country, the books which are classics and which are free and in the public domain. As to those books the market can be calculated. If those books are printed here, how much less would we expect to find a current novel printed here when the market cannot be calculated and when the man has to have copies on hand and print them immediately to meet public demand lest he lose sales. I do not blame the printing trades that have had the benefit of that clause for a long time from feeling trepidation about it, but I know that this is an infinitesimal part of the market, and I do not believe that they will be affected. I think they are in the position of a strong swimmer who is in ankle-deep water, but who has had water wings so long he doesn't know he can get along without them. The water isn't deep enough for him to drown in and he is a strong swimmer besides. Beyond that, I want to look at this manufacturing clause as a matter of principle. If this is a good clause in the Copyright Act, we ought to welcome a similar clause in the laws of all of our friendly sister nations. Yet isn't it clear that if every country required this sort of manufacture, it would stifle the dissemination of information, it would destroy the legitimate rights of authors and other copyright proprietors and it would redound to the enormous disadvantage of the United States as an exporter of works. So in short, we have to measure the trepidation of this one group against the legitimate copyright interests of all of the people in the United States who are interested in copyright and against the international needs of our country in having a Universal Copyright Convention which will entitle it to the respect of the intellectual circles in friendly countries whose esteem we need. Thank you. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kaye. Senator FULBRIGHT. No. It was a very good statement. I feel as if I know more about the subject. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Senator Mansfield? Senator MANSFIELD. No questions. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kaye. It has been a very interesting statement. We appreciate your appearing here. I am informed by the staff that Mr. Jennings Bailey, Jr., who represents the American Bar Association, has notified them that it is imperative that he leave very shortly. He has just 5 minutes, he says. So we will hear Mr. Bailey right now and attempt to accommodate you, Mr. Bailey. STATEMENT OF JENNINGS BAILEY, JR., WASHINGTON, D. C., ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jennings Bailey, Jr. I am a member of the committee on legislation of the section of patents, trademarks, and copyright law of the American Bar Association and am a past chairman of the section. I am not an expert on copyright law and will not attempt to present any of the technical sides of this matter. The convention was carefully considered by our section as well as the section on international and comparative law. Both sections recommended its approval by the house of delegates and on March 8, 1954, at a meeting of the house in Atlanta the following resolution was adopted: Resolved, That the American Bar Association endorses the ratification by the United States of the Universal Copyright Convention signed at Geneva, Switzerland, on the 6th day of September 1952, with such implementing legisìation to be enacted by the Congress of the United States prior to deposit of the United States instrument of ratification as will be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the convention, and that the section of international and comparative law and the section of patent, trademark, and copyright law are authorized to present the position of this association in this matter hofora Congress. That is all I have. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. I might say, if I neglected to say awhile ago to Mr. Kaye, that his full statement will go in the record in addition to his verbal remarks. His statement will be part of the record as will be the formal remarks of all other witnesses. Any questions, Senator Fulbright? Senator FULBR.GHT. No questions. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Senator Mansfield? Senator MANSFIELD. No questions. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Senator Wiley? SECTION 16 OF S. 2559 Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether the bar particularly paid any attention to section 16 of S. 2559. It seems to me that as the chairman has brought out, everyone seems to be in favor of the convention. The objection seems to be to section 16. I wondered whether that was considered by the bar. Mr. BAILEY. Senator Wiley, the association very definitely, I think, considered the fact that a modification of the manufacturing clause would be necessary in order to join in the convention and that is the reason in this resolution that it refers not only to the approval of the convention but also to the approval of such implementing legislation as will be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the convention. It was certainly clearly understood in our section that that change was necessary. Senator WILEY. Thank you. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. The next witness will be Mr. John Schulman of New York City, an attorney representing the Authors League of America and the Songwriters Protective Association. STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHULMAN, NEW YORK CITY ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING THE AUTHORS LEAGUE OF AMERICA AND THE SONGWRITERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. SCHULMAN. I ask that my statement be filed. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Your statement will be printed in full, Mr. Schulman, together with any extemporaneous remarks you may make on this matter. (The statement filed by Mr. Schulman follows:) STATEMENT BY JOHN SCHULMAN IN SUPPORT OF EXECUTIVE M AND S. 2559 My name is John Schulman. I reside at 77 Park Avenue, New York City, and my law office is at 120 Broadway in that city. My firm, Hays, St. John, Abramson & Schulman, and I are and have for many years been counsel for the Authors League of America and the Songwriters Protective Association, both of which are well known writers' organizations. The members of these organizations, being creators of books, plays, and music, are concerned with copyright protection of their works both here and in foreign countries. It is by virtue of copyright systems that their property rights are safeguarded and their prestige and reputation preserved in both domestic and foreign markets. Although I have from time to time had the privilege of appearing before committees of the Senate and the House to express the view of writers and composers concerning the copyright laws, I should presently like to speak not as an advocate for any special interest or viewpoint, but as a member of the United States delegation to the Geneva Conference in 1952 where the Universal Copyright Convention was drawn and provisionally signed by the United States and our allies of the free world. Neither copyright nor international copyright is a new subject to me. I have spent the greater portion of my professional career in dealing with these subjects. It was my privilege to be a member of the various international copyright committees which did preparatory work on the new convention and a member of the United States observer delegation to the Brussels Conference in 1948 where the Berne Convention was last revised. In 1951 I was a member of the United States delegation at Paris where a preliminary draft of the Universal Copyright Convention was prepared and also at the 1952 meeting in Washington where the convention provisions concerning Western Hemisphere copyright relations were discussed. I refer to my experience in this area in the hope that this statement will not be considered as partisan pleading. It is submitted as an expression of my deep conviction that the Universal Copyright Convention is of vital concern to the United States and to all of its nationals, and that its ratification is essential in the public interest. The Universal Copyright Convention was prepared and tentatively signed at a diplomatic conference in Geneva, Switzerland, on September 6, 1952, by 39 countries of the free world in addition to the United States. The signatory nations include the countries of Western Europe, the British Commonwealth and the Latin American Republics. |