E.C. Creations has also refused to return the original artwork. At least The New Yorker Magazine returns the artwork to the creator. I know one artist who sells his New Yorker originals for $1,000. a cartoon. In contrast, a cartoonist/writer who contributed work to E.C. Creations was told that not only would their work not be returned it could be

The economic leverage and the legal fiction imposed upon me has deprived me of thirty-five year's of royalty income and even the right to profit from the sale of my original artwork or gags. My work can be exploited without my earning anything, without my approving anything, without my knowledge, without anything!

I firmly believe that the way I have been treated by E.C. Creations is contrary to the original concept of work-for-hire as it appears in the 1976 Copyright Act, which, at the time, was called the "Creator's Act." By severely limiting the conditions by which

commissioned works could be works-for-hire, Congress attempted to make the bargaining positions of creators and distributors of works more equitable. But the abuses have only gotten worse.

Mr. Chairman, we need a Copyright Law that is fair to all interested parties, as it was originally intended. That is why the Graphic Artists Guild and I wholeheartedly support Sen. Cochran's proposed legislation. Clarifying the need for work-for-hire agreements to be signed before work has begun will certainly correct the kind of abuse I have suffered, when work for hire is presented on the back of

a check as a condition of payment. Senator Cochran's Bill of Rights is a very positive step towards returning to the original concept of workfor-hire described by the 1976 Copyright Act and rectifying the

injustices which have developed.

I hope the committee will look carefully at this work-for-hire issue and realize it is in the same category as the "Copyright Remedies Clarification Act." It is not really a new legislative initiative, but is actually only an effort to return the law to where the 1976 Copyright Act tried to put it.

I would like to express my gratitude to the officers, staff and members of the Graphic Artists Guild for their ongoing efforts that have helped graphic artists like me realize the moral injustice and economic deprivation inherent in signing false work-for-hire statements.

On behalf of the Graphic Artists Guild and myself, I again express my gratitude for the opportunity to present our position on this issue. I'd like to take this opportunity to submit additional statements by the Graphic Artists Guild that are pertinent to these hearings for

appropriate inclusion into the record. Thank you again for your

attention.

###

Senator DECONCINI. Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Clancy, I see that we're not going to get any pictorial descriptions of your work, but I have read several of your books and you don't need a picture because you create such a picture in everybody's mind, whether it's a Soviet helicopter or Backfire bomber or what have you.

So we look forward to your testimony. I understand the pictures are about ready to come, though.

Mr. CLANCY. Yes, the movie form of "Red October" is going to be released next March unless the plans change again.

STATEMENT OF TOM CLANCY, AUTHOR, HUNTINGTON, MD

Mr. CLANCY. Good morning. My name is Tom Clancy. I am the author of five novels-"The Hunt for Red October," "Red Storm Rising," "Patriot Games," "The Cardinal of the Kremlin," and "Clear and Present Danger."

My purpose in being here is to speak in support of Senator Cochran's proposed changes in the copyright statute.

I spent much of last week in Baltimore in my role as national chairman of the Patriots of Fort McHenry, a private group celebrating the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Baltimore and the writing of our national anthem. Last Tuesday evening I had the honor to address 175 new citizens, naturalized right under the replica of the battle flag that now resides in the Smithsonian.

I told them that they had come to the right place. Each of them had a dream, and each had chosen to come to a country built by dreamers, for dreamers. I told them that because of that simple fact, the flag that only 200 years ago flew over a narrow coastal strip soon spanned the continent and now even rests on the Moon, not a bad record for a country that began with little more than a set of rules that we call a Constitution.

One of the reasons we have accomplished so much is that this is the place that harnesses dreams, that allows dreamers to reshape the world. We call America a land of opportunity because dreams that succeed are rewarded. That is what opportunity means; and as with so many things that have shaped America, it was mandated by our Federal Constitution.

The purpose of patent and copyright law is to protect and encourage the creator. From that constitutional guidance we have prospered.

Artists, inventors, and writers need such protection. I can quote Thomas Edison for the reason. When a new man arrived at his research laboratory-itself an Edison invention-and asked what the rules were, Edison told him, "Hell, we don't have rules here; we're trying to accomplish something."

Rules, Mr. Chairman, are the province of lawyers and legislators and have little application to creativity. I offer myself as an example.

It is a matter of public record that I was myself embroiled in a nasty copyright dispute only 1 year ago. I regret to say that the terms of the settlement preclude me from discussing it in public, but I can say the following:

In November 1983, when I signed the contract for "The Hunt for Red October," I was an independent insurance agent with a working knowledge of contracts. On reading the book contract I questioned a clause and was given what seemed to be a reasonable answer. Since I was signing up with a publisher which purports to be the unofficial spokesman for the U.S. Navy, and whose board of control is composed almost exclusively of naval officers-the president, by the way, is the Chief of Naval Operations-I assumed that I could take the Naval Institute at its word. That proved not to be the case. In fact, I was repeatedly lied to, and even now the Institute continues to lie about the nature of the dispute while cravenly hiding behind a wall of confidentiality.

To settle that dispute cost me $150,000 in legal fees. Principles cost money, and even a small publisher like the Naval Institute is a multimillion dollar corporation with assets to hire several law firms. And even when an attorney knows that the law may not be entirely on his side, he can use dilatory tactics to pervert what we like to call the American system of justice. Despite all that, I was very fortunate. I had the ability to fight back.

Mr. Chairman, had I not had the resources to defend myself, my ability to use the characters of my own creation would have been impeded or even lost, all because I asked a simple question and mistook a reasonable-sounding lie for an honest answer.

Mr. Chairman, the nature of publishing is fairly simple. Writers create ideas; publishers publish them. Writers are paid royalties in proportion to the success of those ideas. Publishers gamble their money but make a far greater profit in the event of success, because they make the rules under which the business of publishing operates. That's all the advantage they need.

People hire writers and artists to do that which they cannot do themselves. They have told you, and they will tell you, that they are part of the creative process. Mr. Chairman, if that's true, what do they need us for?

There is a story from antiquity about the King of Petra. He commissioned an architect to build his tomb, demanding that it should be the finest ever made. When complete, the King was so satisfied with that work for hire that he had someone put the architect's eyes out. After all, the King had what he wanted; what did he care about everybody else?

Mr. Chairman, that's the issue. Does the Government of our country wish to promote the progress of science and useful arts or does it not? By an unintended accident, the copyright statute has been perverted out of the shape explicitly intended by the framers of our Constitution and ratified by case law throughout our history. You will be told that correcting this inequity is interference with the marketplace, but the marketplace we address here is the marketplace of ideas.

As the Constitution recognizes and as our history has proven, the good of society comes from protecting those who produce ideas, not those who exploit them. We are a nation of dreamers, Mr. Chairman. Our dreams have built a country. Dreams that began here are changing the world, even while we sit in this room. Protect the dreamers, Mr. Chairman, because we are America.

Thank you.

Senator DECONCINI. Thank you, Mr. Clancy.

Let me ask one question that came to my mind. You talked, Mr. Weisgrau and Mr. Martin, I believe, in your testimony where you left the impression that if you don't sign that check that has the contract printed on the back of it, or if you resist-in fact, I got the impression that certain things would happen to you, mainly, that you wouldn't get further work.

Mr. MAISEL. Or paid.

Senator DECONCINI. Well, yes. That's the second question. If you have a contract or an agreement, you are entitled to go to court and get your money, like you would if you were a bricklayer or a house painter and didn't get paid. But the problem that really troubles me is, do you have any examples-and are they frequent, or do you know anybody we could talk to-of people who have experienced blackballing or whatever you would refer to it as in your trade?

Mr. WEISGRAU. Well, I think there certainly are people who have been blackballed. Of course, the problem you have is creating a legal proof of that.

Senator DECONCINI. But the fact that they resisted and didn't get any more contracts

Mr. WEISGRAU. Senator, I'll give you an example. I was addressing a seminar at Financial Worlds; I do a program each year on corporate annual reports, and I was speaking from a photographer's point of view on the copyright issues. A particular communications director from a drug firm came to me and said, "Do you know Jay Maisel?" And of course, I've known Jay for a number of years. I said, "Yes, I do; why?" He said, "Well, I wish he would change his position because I'm forbidden from working with him because he won't sign a 'work for hire' agreement."

We have many cases reported to us, certainly, where photographers are presented with "work for hire" agreements after the fact on the back of checks. In effect, it is a contract that is imposed after the fact.

Senator DECONCINI. In your opinion, is that a boycott of Mr. Maisel?

Mr. WEISGRAU. I'm sorry?

Senator DECONCINI. In your interpretation, is that a boycott of Mr. Maisel, what that person told you?

Mr. WEISGRAU. I believe so. I believe that when you excludeSenator DECONCINI. Are you familiar with that? Ör have you had any experiences like that?

Mr. MAISEL. With this issue?

Senator DECONCINI. Yes, with this issue.

Mr. MAISEL. There are certain people who just won't have anything to do with me because they know that I'm going to request that I don't sell all rights. I would assume that I and people in my-

Senator DECONCINI. Have they told you that? Are they that bold, to just say, "Hey, as long as you're insisting, we're not going to use you; we're going to find somebody else"?

Mr. MAISEL. People call up and say, "If you're not going to do 'work for hire' don't even send your portfolio up here because you're now out of the review process."