STATEMENT OF GEORGE ABRAMS, PRESIDENT, ALPHABETS, INC.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and Counsel: My name is George Abrams. I am the president of Alphabets Inc. My company produces new original alphabet designs and sets headlines and subheads using these faces. In addition, we offer over a thousand selective typefaces that are in the public domain. As an artist whose entire lifetime has been devoted to the drawing and design of letterforms, I am grateful to you for the opportunity to present the position of hundreds of type designers like myself. Briefly, I have created numerous original alphabet designs some of which are present here for you to see. Because I work with and create for publishers, advertising agencies, printing companies and other segments of the graphic communications industry, I am sensitive and responsive to the needs for new type styles.

Strange as it may seem, some tend to take typefaces for granted as if they emerged on the eighth day, forgetting that an artist can spend thousands of hours in drawing a complete alphabet. The production of an original alphabet of letters, quite apart from the considerable time spent in conceiving the form, requires utmost skill and may take as long as six months of drawing. The rendering and inking would occupy only several weeks of my time. Juxtaposing different letterforms with one another in order to insure confluent readability takes many months to complete.

At this hearing I would like to show just five originals of alphabets I've designed presently in use for advertising clients as well as for Newsweek Magazine who specifically commissioned an alphabet based on the masthead "Newsweek" which I had previously drawn. Also, I will show some examples of advertising each of which has its heading in a typeface that came originally from my drawing table.

(Examples of original alphabets and ads to be offered to Committee for examination.)

It is a fact that advertisers are constantly interested in the development of new typefaces in order to achieve a competitive advantage in marketing. However, because of lack of protection under existing law my skill is available to only a limited clientele.

I have presently a large number of new original designs which I would be pleased to offer type manufacturers. Under conditions that obtain today, I am reluctant to do so. The moment my alphabets appear in advertising they become public domain. Several of my original designs already have been copied, some debased, with no compensation to me except the fear that any time I come out with a new design someone would photocopy my efforts for his own market.

By copying, I mean actually photographing from my prints and reproductions without changing any aspect of letterform. And it is perfectly legal to do so under present copyright law. I must admit being discouraged and disappointed.

The printing equipment manufacturer finds himself in a similar position and I believe the public is being shortchanged and deprived of the artistry of typeface designers. The main incentive for the artist is the likely sale of his fonts through adequate royalty arrangements to foundries and equipment manufacturers for world market. With copyright protection my involvement would extend beyond the present limited number of companies I serve. I would devote all my time to the singular effort of creating new and exciting typefaces.

Fair compensation to an author for the fruits of his labor is an encouragement that our society has always recognized. With copyright for original typefaces assured, I foresee a new climate of incentive that will enhance the dignity of everyone concerned.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present my artwork and comments. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Parker.

Mr. PARKER. My name is Mike Parker and at my left is our copyright counsel, Henry Leeds of Washington, D.C.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Parker, may I interrupt you. I regret to do this, but we have a vote on the House floor, and rather than hope that you might finish while we are all still here, I think the better course of action is for us to recess at this moment, to return in about 10 minutes and reconvene at that time.

57-786-76-pt. 2- -23

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. We shall recess until 11:40 a.m.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will reconvene. When we recessed at 11:30 a.m., we were about to hear from Mr. Mike Parker, director of typographic development for the Mergenthaler Linotype Co., and you were identifying your counsel at the time and about prepared to start your remarks, Mr. Parker.

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At my left is copyright counsel, Henry Leeds, of Washington, D.C. Although I may not sound like it, I am an American. I am director of typographic development for the Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate a few moments to clarify what we are talking about today in protecting typefaces. I direct your attention to page 1 of the statement submitted by Mergenthaler to the Copyright Office in support of the registrability of claim of copyright in original typeface design. A copy of the statement is of record before you.

As stated then, the term "typeface" means a set of designs of (a) letters and alphabets as such, with their accessories such as accents, and punctuation signs, and (b) numerals and other figurative signs such as conventional signs, symbols, and scientific signs, which are intended to provide means for composing texts by any graphic technique.

A typeface is distinguished from other types of lettering in that it is used for setting a page of text. By necessity there must be carefully orchestrated, consistent repeating of design elements in the characters so as to produce a harmonious impression regardless of the combinations in which the specific characters are used.

To further illustrate typeface, you have before you a copy of a grid bearing a font of a typeface. In other words, a typeface is not a single letter but all of the letterforms and symbols necessary to compose a page of text. The design which clothes these letterforms and symbols is what we seek to protect.

Does that clearly say what it is? OK.

My work is to see that Mergenthaler typesetting equipment sets good type and is properly equipped with a broad range of typefaces to do so.

Have you tried, in a competitive commercial environment, to buy and sell an unprotected form of artistic endeavor?

I must decide on the worth to us of each new face knowing that we must:

1. Spend the money to adapt and produce it on our equipment, which usually exceeds $20,000.

2. Spend the money to promote it, which frequently exceeds $50,000. Whereupon, if we are successful, all of our competitors are in a position to copy it without payment to the designer or ourselves.

This simple commercial difficulty inevitably chills efforts to create new typefaces in this country.

The manufacture and sale of type fonts by Mergenthaler and its approximately 40 competitors is a sizeable business. Mergenthaler alone produces and sells in the United States about $8 million in type fonts per year.

Ten years ago we needed approximately $200,000 and 2 years just to manufacture Linotype matrices for a typeface, exclusive of design and selling expenses. For today's photocomposition machines, the equivalent manufacturing time and expense would be approximately one-tenth to one-one-hundredth of that amount. The manufacturing and economic foundations of the industry have drastically altered, favoring and encouraging typographic development, a promise that, in the United States, has been largely frustrated by the lack of effective protection for the designers' and developers' efforts.

It has been erroneously argued by the opponents of protection of original typeface designs that protection would grant to some individual a proprietary right in the basic alphabet that we all share. Typefaces must not be confused with the bare bones of the letterforms themselves. A typeface is a set of coherent design principles worked out and applied to letterforms. We make no claim to the A, B, or C themselves, but only to the way in which we clothe them, or their Greek or Russian equivalents, with a consistent repetition of our own design elements.

It has also been argued that all characters, letters, and numerals of our language are essentially alike, that typefaces are too trivial to be worth protecting. If this is true, why is it necessary to copy the new artistic property of the designer rather than simply use the vast body of material in the public domain? There must be something of real value in each original typeface that differentiates it from the others and encourages it to be copied.

The opponents of protection for typeface designs argue that granting such protection will serve to raise prices and limit distribution. I can only say that this will not be true of Mergenthaler. We will license at a reasonable fee all protected faces, subject only to appropriate quality controls to maintain the integrity of the typeface design. Why? Commercially, because a typeface is most profitable when widely distributed on many manufacturers' equipment. For this reason alone, Mergenthaler would have no objection to compulsory licensing of protected typeface designs if Congress believes such a requirement to be appropriate.

Original typeface designs should also be covered under title II, the design protection bill. We would support such coverage if the present 10-year maximum term is extended to at least 15 years. As adviser to the U.S. delegation to the Diplomatic Conference held in Vienna in June of 1973 that established the Vienna Treaty for the Protection of Typefaces, I took part in the discussions that led to the establishment of 15 years as the absolute minimum period for the international protection of original typefaces, because of the length of time required to properly establish a new design. Anything less would be ineffective. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Parker, your time has expired.

I really have but one question and that is would you restate as succinctly as you can what it is that the bill H.R. 2223 should include in terms of statutory language for the purposes you seek?

Mr. PARKER. Henry, should I ask you to answer that?

Mr. LEEDS. Yes. I would like to answer that if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.

Mr. LEEDS. First, the definition of a useful article in title II, we would like to have it clearly indicated that typeface is to be considered

a useful article. As the bill is presently drafted, the fact that a useful article merely conveys information may preclude it from being a useful article. It is arguable that a letterform is intended for the purpose of conveying information. Also in section 202 of the design protection bill there are exclusions which Mr. Latman referred to earlier, the commonplace symbol or design. Our problem is that in typeface this carefully orchestrated repeating design is usually a composite of designs which have been used in other typefaces but never in the particular arrangement or format to make the new and original typeface design that we are seeking to protect.

So we would want to make it clear that in the case of typeface we are talking about a right which may include existing designs, but in a new arrangement.

Also I think that the design protection bill should be modified to limit the scope of protection which would be afforded to a typeface design. What we are seeking to protect is really the typeface as it is used as a means of composing text. We do not wish in any way to inhibit art directors, publishers, reprint houses, or authors, in having pages composed from typeface. Once on the printed page, it is of no concern to the designer. What is of concern is having the typeface put on the grid such as you have shown on that photocopy.

This is another type of grid. Here is another little grid of plastic. And it is the making of this means for composing a text for which we seek protection and it is only for this means.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. And only under title II?

Mr. LEEDS. No. We would like to have protection under title I also. We believe that title I does in fact, as it is now written, cover typeface designs, original typeface designs. However, there is a problem with section 113 and that problem is that it states that protection will be afforded only for those items for which there was protection as of December 31, 1976, either by statute or judicial decree. Well, there is no judicial decree in connection with typeface and there is no statute expressly permitting protectability for typeface unless you wanted to construe such protection under the design patent law. Accordingly, we think that section 113 should be clarified.

Then finally, coming back to the design protection bill a moment, we feel very strongly that 15 years is the absolute minimum for term of protection on typeface.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Are you presently--under present law, are you presently attempting or presently obtaining protection under either the copyright law of 1909 as presently existing, or any other law? Are you do you have protection presently?

Mr. LEEDS. Well, I have to give that a rather extended answer. I am sorry. The answer is, "Yes," we are seeking protection. We do in fact have an application pending to register the claim of copyright in an "Orion" typeface based on a grid as I am holding in my hand, this little plastic grid. However, the Copyright Office has deferred action on that application pending the outcome of the hearings which they held this past year.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Have you successfully obtained protection under any present law for typeface?

Mr. LEEDS. No, we have not.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. OK.

Mr. PARKER. We find that design patent is essentially ineffectual

for the purpose.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison.

Mr. PATTISON. I take it that you are asking for this 15-year protection, minimum period of 15-year protection which would be different than the protection as afforded by the bill under the design-not design patent but the copyright, title II. I mean this would be a specific 15year protection for typeface, is that correct?

Mr. PARKER. Henry, how would you answer that?

Mr. LEEDS. Our position would be that in the case of all designs it should be for 15 years but in any event, if necessary, at least a specific provision for 15 years in the case of typeface. It is interesting that the original design bill submitted back in the 1950's provided for a 15year term and after proponents said that is too long, it should be for only 5 years, the happy compromise was reached for 10. It is not very clear from the past hearings that I have read exactly how the 10 years were reached other than simply a Mexican standoff.

Mr. PATTISON. You have essentially a different problem, I take it, from somebody who designs a new clock face or something like that. The person who designs the new clock face or table lamp or whatever else is really not looking for a royalty kind of return probably but more like the unfair competition copyright or unfair competition protection from having other people using that, copying it. In your particular case you are really looking for a situation where you can establish more like the normal copyright where you will be getting royalties for your creation.

Mr. LEEDS. Yes; and I would like to expand on that a moment if I might. The basic problem we have is that the technology in the photocomposition field has been such that each manufacturer has his own equipment and there is no common compatibility of equipment. Therefore, it is absolutely essential in order and to have a popular typeface that you have two things. One, it has to be available on a widespread basis, and two, it has to be reasonably priced.

Now, in order to have widespread availability, the typeface has to be available to all manufacturers. This is why we indicated we would be perfectly willing to have compulsory licensing, because that is the only way you are going to get the typeface readily available to everybody and hopefully reasonably priced.

Mr. PATTISON. But you do agree with me that the basic protection that the design people are seeking is to prevent other people from using, from copying as opposed to the basic protection that an author is seeking which is to hope other people do copy, only pay for it. I mean there is a real difference.

Mr. LEEDS. I don't know. I would think the designer of a toaster would want some compensation if somebody else were to copy his design. He would certainly want to stop it, but I

Mr. PATTISON. Stop it for sure.

Mr. LEEDS. And certainly it makes his negotiating position better with the company when he is negotiating for his payment of the design. Mr. PATTISON. Well, the designer of a toaster, for example, isn't very likely to sell it to both General Electric and Westinghouse.

Mr. LEEDS. That is right. There is a difference.