Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

That is our principal argument; I should merely expand it by going further. I think you understand it.

I will try to answer any questions which may be addressed to me. Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Cheney. We reserve the latter part of the morning for questions. Do you wish to file any additional statement?

Mr. CHENEY. No; I have no particular wish to do so. Our people merely feel this, that if a card index or something of that sort must be kept to show that this design is copyright [indicating]; this design is copyrighted [indicating], and so on, we will have to carry a suit-case with us every time we go to market, and it will be very difficult for the retailers.

Mr. LANHAM. We will now hear Mr. Hall.

STATEMENT OF HUGH F. HALL, ASSISTANT WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Hugh F. Hall; I am assistant Washington representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation, located in the Munsey Building, in Washington. The American Farm Bureau Federation is an organization of State farm bureaus with something over 300,000 members and perhaps 1,200,000 to 1,500,000 persons. Our Federation has for many years been opposed to this type of legislation when it has been presented to previous Congresses.

The grounds of our opposition largely lie in the fact it is one of those elements of control introduced into the economic fabric which creates price rigidity. As is well known, we have to merchandise and market farm products on a rather open market, on a market that fluctuates from time to time, and we buy in turn on a market which is developing an increasing amount of rigidity all of the time, and not having been given a like market for agricultural products causes a serious disparity to arise between the purchasing power of the farm groups and the purchasing power, perhaps, of other groups. There is certainly a disparity between farm income and farm outgo.

To the extent that this bill operates to inject another rigidity feature into the price structure, we are opposed to it, and we hink it does do that. Any type of legislation which tends to give persons the opportunity and right to cement a relationship creates another rigidity in the price structure, and we are opposed to this measure. Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall; and if you wish to file for the record an additional statement, you may do so. We will now hear Mr. Ferry.

STATEMENT OF R. E. FERRY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER, LINOLEUM AND FELT BASE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. FERRY. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my request now for our presentation and ask leave to file a brief with the committee.

Mr. LANHAM. We will be very glad to have you do so, and will you kindly give your name and address and whom you represent to the reporter, in order to show you appeared at this time?

Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir. R. E. Ferry, executive secretary and treasurer, Linoleum and Felt Base Manufacturers' Association, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Mr. LANHAM. Will the filing of a brief meet your requirements satisfactorily?

Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir; we will file a written brief with the committee.

Mr. LANHAM. We will now hear Mr. Boyd.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. BOYD, DETROIT, MICH., SECRETARY OF THE RETAIL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. BOYD. My name is Charles E. Boyd. I am secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association of Detroit, Mich. That is an organization composed of 450 stores, who do about 70 percent of the volume of retail business-all retail business-in the city of Detroit.

I have been instructed by my directors in 'that organization to make a statement before your body relative to certain proposed amendments to the copyright bill, with particular reference to the Vandenberg amendment to the Duffy copyright bill.

I have been instructed to make the same statement, also, on behalf of the directors of the Michigan Retail Dry Goods Association. That is an organization of about 400 stores, primarily in the drygoods business, covering most all of the cities of the State and, roughly, they do about 50 percent of the dry goods volume of the State of Michigan.

Likewise the Michigan Retail Hardware Dealers' Association, representing 2,000 hardware dealers in the State, who do about 85 percent of the hardware business of the State and who likewise go into every city of the State.

Also, the Michigan Federation of Retail Merchants, which is a federation of State associations, such as the dry-goods group I mentioned, the hardware group, shoe retailers, lumber dealers, coal dealers, groups of that type. They represent about 4,000 merchants, who do about 50 percent of the total retail volume in the State.

Likewise I am asked to make this statement in behalf of the Wholesale Merchants' Bureau of Detroit, Mich., an organization of about 200 wholesalers, who do about 80 percent of the wholesale business in the State; that is, wholesale business that originates in the State.

I happen to be serving this year as president of the National Association of Retail Secretaries. That group is composed of about 125 retail secretaries, like myself, who serve the retail groups in their respective cities, most of them in the larger and medium-sized cities of the country, scattered all over the United States, and that group, in session a month ago, discussed this bill, and the statements I am going to make represent the viewpoints of that group.

Regardless of party lines, we people of Michigan think rather highly of Senator Vandenberg and we do not have occasion to differ with him very often; however, our retail merchants, as well as those in many other States, are much opposed to that part of Senator Vandenberg's amendment to the Duffy copyright bill which affects our methods of doing business..

Our people feel that in the final analysis the Vandenberg amendment virtually holds retailers responsible for assuring themselves that the designs in the goods they sell are not infringing any copyright granted prior to the sale. As they read this amendment, they believe it would mean that the burden of the responsibility to prove originality would fall on the shoulders of the retailer, and you gentlemen know all too well that such a task would be one which positively could not be done by the average merchant in your home town.

You will recall that the Vandenberg amendment passed the Senate without any hearings. When it came time recently for our Detroit and Michigan merchants to register their protests to the Members of the House against Senator Vandenberg's amendment, we informed him of the position we were taking. A prompt reply from him contains several sentences which I desire to quote to you:

* I have no pride of opinion whatever in connection with the so-called Vandenberg amendment to the Duffy Copyright Bill. Its sole purpose was to stop the piracy of designs from which our Michigan furniture factories have tragically suffered. At the request of the automobile interests, I specifically exempted them from its terms. The question of retailing difficulties was raised at the time we had the matter under consideration and I was assured by the Copyright Office that the matter can be handled in a practical way without any undue difficulty for retailers. If this is not true, hope you will succeed in correcting any situation which involves a real hazard. * * *

The only answer that we can make to the Senator's statement is that as we read the amendment it places on the retailer the responsibility of protecting original designs and I ask you in all seriousness to consider the absurdity of expecting the average retailer in any representative city to comply with such an unreasonable assignment. It simply could not be done and any attempts to enforce it, if it should become law, would be absurd.

While we are quite appreciative of the right of the original designer to enjoy the fruits of his genius, we do not believe that legal protection should be extended him to the point of placing a penalty against retailers who buy and sell merchandise in good faith and whose functions are wholly unrelated to production. Certainly it is illogical to place upon your retail constituents in your district the burden of responsibility for the wrongful acts of pirating manufacturers of which they know nothing and of which they can hardly be expected to know. Yet the passage of this amendment would leave the way open for procedure to be started against these merchants because of some supposed violation of a copyright of which they may have no knowledge whatsoever.

We claim that this amendment places an impossible responsibility on retailers in avoiding infringement. In Senator Vandenberg's letter, which I have just quoted, he states that he had been assured by the Copyright Office that the arrangements as provided for in this amendment could be handled in a practical way without any undue difficulty for retailers, but we believe that the transfer of this system from the Patent Office to the Copyright Office will mean protection without proof of originality instead of protection after search. Certainly this would mean tremendous confusion in the design field because it would be possible for any individual to copyright any design, whether it was original or otherwise.

In this connection let me call your attention to the statement of William L. Brown, Registrar of Copyrights at the Library of Congress, who says:

[ocr errors]

I should like to ask why the committee or the trade should expect the Copyright Office to do better with this procedure than the Patent Office has done. If a search is to be required and can be made, sufficient time must be allowed for making it satisfactorily. If the time limit is too pressing for that, then the alternative must be a registration without search. *

I speak to you on this subject and in this manner in behalf of the hundreds of thousands of retailers throughout the country, many of whom are always on the borderland between red ink and black ink. They are your constituents back in your home districts-the drygoodsman, the hardware dealer, the man from whom you buy your shoes. Can you by any stretch of your imagination expect those people, each in his own store, to be so equipped that he can check with Washington as to the originality of design of every piece of merchandise that he buys or sells? It is preposterous!

Therefore we most urgently petition your committee that the Vandenberg amendment be withdrawn from the Duffy copyright bill and that no such unfair burden as it would cause be thrown on the shoulders of every retail merchant in the country. And on the whole question of copyright design, we believe more time should be given and I can assure you that the efforts of our retail secretaries' group and the efforts of the retail groups of the country will be devoted to a study of this matter more carefully, so that recommendations will be ready for the consideration of this group after the summer, at least, on this style question.

As I say, I make this statement in the name of the Retail Merchants' Association of Detroit and on behalf of these other four organizations I mention, representing the retail groups of Michigan. Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyd. We will now hear Mr. Tibbetts.

STATEMENT OF MILTON TIBBETTS, VICE PRESIDENT, PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO., DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. TIBBETTS. My name is Milton Tibbets; I am vice president of the Packard Motor Car Co., Detroit, Mich.

Gentlemen, the Automobile Manufacturers' Association has asked me to present the objections of the association to design copyright legislation such as heretofore has been proposed. That association comprises practically all of the manufacturers of automotive vehicles. Among its members are the Hudson Co., the Chrysler Corporation, General Motors, Lincoln, Nash Motors, Packard, and Studebaker. I might add that the attorney for the Ford Co. is in the room, also, came down on the train with me last night, and has asked me to say that his company also is against the design copyright legislation. Altogether, there are 25 passenger-car manufacturers and 21 truck manufacturers and 9 motor-bus manufacturers.

We are somewhat surprised at the revival of the drive for this design copyright legislation, because we understood several years ago some of the proponents at least indicated that they would be satisfied if the granting of design patents in the Patent Office could be speeded

53579-36-58

up.

The Patents Committee of the House presented this situation to the Commissioner of Patents, as I understand it, and the work of issuing design patents has been greatly facilitated; so that, as you doubtless know, design patents are issuing now, in many instances, within a month after the application is filed; and most of that month is taken up by the printing of the patent and the publication of the design in the Official Gazette. So delay is no longer a valid reason for the proponents of design copyright legislation to be again forcing themselves on the attentions of this committee.

The Automobile Manufacturers' Association feels, in the first place, that no monopoly in manufactured products should be given to anyone where novelty and invention do not exist. We do not think a slight change in contour here and there in the line of a fender or a door or a window of an automobile should be the subject matter of a design copyright registration and give exclusive use of that changed contour to an individual for a period of 5 years or 20 years or 56 years. And in some of the proposed legislation it is my understanding that not even a registration fee is required to protect the so-called author; he need only make his drawing and put the copyright insignia on it and it is his. How many idle men and women with ready pens would thus be encouraged to harass the automobile manufacturer with the thought that some time that manufacturer will run into one of his or her patents? Even though he should run into it accidentally the charge would be "copying."

There are now issuing annually about 12,000 patents on motor cars, their use, and manufacture. If patents or design copyrights were obtainable at $2 each, it is reasonable to suppose that there would be 100,000 or more every year in the motor industry alone. So we ask that, if there is to be a law for industry generally, the motor industry be excluded; or if this law is to be passed for the textile industry or some other particular industry, the motor industry be entirely excluded from its operation.

We are struck with the various attempts to insert a design copyright bill into the general amendment of the copyright law of March 4, 1909. General copyright and design copyright are so very different that these two subjects should not be in the same bill. This has been recognized even where an attempt has been made to put the two together, in that the term of the design copyright has been made 20 years instead of 56 years, as in the general copyright portion of the bill. But, as a matter of fact, there are many other differences, and much of the language of the general copyright bill does not apply at all to design copyrights. Not only should the term be different and much less than 20 years, but the fees should be different, because the fees should pay for a search and classification of the registration. and provision for a search should be made in design copyright legislation, whereas this is not necessary in general copyrights. Then the remedies are or should be very different.

I would like to quot a brief passage from the report of the Register of Copyrights for the year ending June 30, 1935:

But the change in the law from the patent to the copyright system for protection of designs is so far reaching, the field of manufactured products to which the law will be applied is so extensive, and the business interest affected so important that full and deliberate consideration is required. Moreover, the public must be educated in the ethics of design piracy before

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »