Lapas attēli

destroyed, there is damage to the reputation. I think it can be established with expert witnesses and testimony, and it can be overcome.

Senator KENNEDY. The harm to reputation exists in the California standard?

Ms. CAWLEY. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. And the standard weighs more heavily in assigning damages than in establishing that an injury has occurred. OK.

Well, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Van Sant, if there are any comments on any of those questions that you would like to address or that you might take exception to, we will give you the opportunity. I think that during the course of the hearing these are the principal areas where there has been focus and attention. If there is any additional concerns or comments on these answers, we would hear you out.

Mr. Van Sant. I have one thought I might offer. Most of the testimony deals with the negative consequence of destruction or mutilation. There is also a positive consequence to the legislation. In the State of California, first of all, it was several years before even the first action was taken. There were no frivolous suits. In 1987, we formed the Los Angeles Mural Conservancy, and this was as a direct consequence of the legislation, so now we have cataloged all the murals in the city of Los Angeles. When a building is purchased by a new owner, the Mural Conservancy notifies the new owner that they are the lucky owner of a work of art that is part of the heritage, and they offer their services for maintenance and restoration. Everybody wins and everybody appreciates it.

When a mural on the Beverly Wiltshire Hotel had to be removed for renovation, we were called. The Beverly Wiltshire took the mural down, gave it to the city of Beverly Hills for their new city hall. It was good for everyone. So it seems to be a win/win situation; there don't seem to be only the adverse and negative consequences, but there is the presence of positive consequences.

Senator KENNEDY. Let me ask a rather obvious question on which it would be useful for us to get a clear answer that is on the relative importance of these rights of attribution and integrity. Are they really needed? How much is the bill really needed?

Mr. VAN SANT. I don't know an artist that hasn't suffered from the loss of work at one stage or another in their careers. They have long careers, and some of our major works in California have been lost throughout the years. So we have welcomed this legislation tremendously.

Senator KENNEDY. On another area, did you have an opportunity to talk with anyone who worked on the renovation which destroyed

your mural?

Mr. VAN SANT. Yes. My inquiries over several months were unfruitful. Interestingly enough, when the first breakthrough cameI sort of worked my way down through the hierarchy, down through the owners, the building management company that supervised the renovation, then the contractor, and finally I spoke to the job supervisor. That was the first time I learned about what happened to the mural. He said, “Boy, I sure remember being ordered to put a wall beam through that painting. I told my boss that I didn't feel that that was really the right thing to do, that there was really something wrong with doing that." That was the first breakthrough in finding out what happened.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, it's a sad ending to the story, but again I think it does illustrate the importance of trying to enact legislation in this area.

I want to thank all of you very much. We won't burden you with many additional questions, but there may be some specific areas of interest. Thank you all for your support. We are going to do everything to get the legislation passed.

Ms. CAWLEY. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Van Sant. Thank you, Senator.

(Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

[blocks in formation]

I submit the written views of the Copyright Office on S. 1198,

the Visual Artists Rights bill.

Since I did not testify at your hearing on

this bill, the Subcommittee staff suggested that comments could be

submitted for inclusion in the hearing record.

If I can be of any assistance to the Subcommittee, please let me

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]


on S. 1198




I am Ralph Oman, Register of copyrights in the Library of


At the suggestion of the Subcommittee staff, I am submitting my

written views on S. 1198, the visual Artists Rights Act of 1989, since I did

not appear at the June 1989 hearing.

S. 1198 would grant visual artists new federal rights under the

Copyright Act: 1) a right to claim or disclaim authorship; 2) a right to prevent distortion, mutilation, and other modification of their work, and 3)

under certain circumstances, a right to prevent destruction of a work that

is incorporated in a building.

Known in civil law countries as moral

rights, or "droit moral," the first two of these rights have been granted in

various forms to authors in many foreign countries, and to a limited extent, under various legal theories in the United States. visual artists' rights

[blocks in formation]

In the last congress, I testified before this Subcommittee regarding moral rights proposals when United States adherence to the Berne

Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was under


I urged that Congress should take a "minimalist" approach - 2

regarding the legislative changes needed to conform our copyright law to the

Berne Convention. Congress adopted the minimalist approach, and on March 1,

1989, the United States adhered to the 102-year old Berne Convention without

enacting additional moral rights protection.

Last year, the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice asked the Copyright Office to conduct a study

relating to colorization, time compression, "panning and scanning" of films, and other technologies used in the alteration of motion pictures. On March

15, 1989,

submitted the colorization study.

believe th

ime is now

ripe for a comprehensive examination of moral rights in all fields of


Under the laws of most European countries, moral rights are

included in the bundle of rights that comprise a copyright.

These rights

are considered to be personal rights generally that are different from the

economic and proprietary aspects of copyright. The term "moral rights" does

not have a precise definition; in general, it refers to those "non-economic"

rights ensuring respect for the creator's personal vision, as embodied in a work of authorship. In general, there are four basic moral rights: 1) the right of publication; 2) the right to withdraw a work from public distribu

tion; 3) the right to claim and be credited for authorship (known as the

right of attribution); and 4) the right of respect for the work, known as

the right of integrity.1

The principal moral rights are those of attribu

tion and integrity.

The right of attribution protects an author's ability


These are the most commonly recognized rights at the national level. It is important to note that the Berne Convention refers only to three and four above.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »