As I read the bill I find no collection provision, I find no penalties involved. This would be a matter where the copyright owner would have to go in and file a suit, as I understand it, to collect his copyright fee if he could not do it through the vehicle of a union.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Would you not say there is a potential benefit to any copyright holder to have his music played at such a fair without charge

Mr. GRAY. No question about it—

Senator MCCLELLAN. Because there are those in attendance who are attracted by the music.

Mr. GRAY. I could not agree more. Any time anybody wants to get up and mention my name on a pubic platform, I am glad.

Senator MCCLELLAN. We are in a little different category, are we not?

Mr. GRAY. That is true. I am not against the copyright owner. I think these people ought to be encouraged to write songs and do other artistic work. But the vehicle-let us say the song, "Winchester Cathedral," which is a hit now, if the author or composers has this out and has it copyrighted and has the various record companies collecting his royalties, I cannot understand why he would care for some livé entertainer at a small fair to sing "Winchester Cathedral." He is only encouraging people to go out and buy that album.

I think certainly the people who are going to be the artists in this field should encourage the small county fairs and other live media, as you pointed out, advertising their various works of art.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Congressman, my people are interested in this bill with respect to county fairs and agricultural fairs, because we are largely an agricultural State. We have a State livestock show and we get some popular entertainers, who are famous in TV and other performance fields. I know that we do have a struggle to make ends meet financially. It does occur to me that there is at least a measure of compensation to artists to have their records played or songs sung. It is pretty good advertising.

Mr. GRAY. True.

Senator MCCLELLAN. However, there is possibly a contrary point of view there. I hope, though, we can bring out a bill that will do justice to the authors, composers, and copyright holders and, at the same time, take into account the great need for these agricultural fairs. I appreciate your appearance very much.

Mr. GRAY. Let me tell you how much I appreciate coming, Mr. Chairman. In answer to your remarks, if I may take just a moment, I did not appear before the House committee because I know how eminently fair the distinguished Senator is from Arkansas, and representing a rural State as he does, I know he will give this some consideration. That is why I am asking you to use your usual fine judg ment in this regard.

Senator MCCLELLAN. We will meditate upon it and hope we can come up with some solution.

Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Mr. Hartsfield?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD, PRESIDENT,

SOUTHEASTERN FAIR ASSOCIATION

Mr. HARTSFIELD. Gentlemen, my name is William B. Hartsfield, President of the Southeastern Fair Association of Atlanta. Incidentally, I served my city of Atlanta for nearly 25 years as its mayor, and also have served as president of the National League of Cities.

The Southeastern Fair Association of Atlanta is a nonprofit organization, giving annual fairs and agricultural exhibitions each year. It operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, on property belonging to the city of Atlanta.

Many of Georgia's fairs are operated by civic organizations such as Kiwanis or Exchange Clubs. In other parts of the Nation, fairs are operated under city, county, or State auspices, or agencies of the same. All funds of the fair, after expenses, go into the improvement of the buildings and grounds and to expenses involved in the encouragement of 4-H and other youth organizations, scholarships, the payment of prizes and premiums designed to promote and encourage better farming, cattle raising, and other agricultural pursuits and youth education.

As a part of fairs, entertainment must be provided; indeed it is a part of the folkways of América-the annual fair, with the sights, sounds, and smells of mooing cattle, grunting hogs, of chickens and rabbits, of balloons, cotton candy, hotdogs, flower shows, homecooked pies, senior citizens, and contests, Army, Navy, Air Force exhibits, beauty contests, school bands, church booths, merry-go-rounds, square dancing, sideshow barkers, and then the fireworks-all to the glorification of American farm life, the pleasure of little children, and the education and entertainment of America's youth. Throughout it all, there must be music. Without music a fair would be a dull and lifeless thing, and that is why we are here.

In our opinion, Senate bill 597 and its counterpart House bill 2512, make no exceptions for fairs and similar nonprofit, public exhibitions and entertainments.

Please bear in mind that fairs and similar exhibitions are sponsored by governmental agencies. State, counties, and cities put public tax funds into them. The Federal Government puts money into expensive exhibits. Through fairs, all over the Nation, the Army, Navy, and Air Force explain and interpret themselves to the public. NASA spends millions all over the country in expensive exhibits explaining to the public America's space progress and does it largely through these fairs. America's fairs serve as invaluable media for the continuing education of the Nation's youth, in the fields of agriculture, scientific progress, and space age.

Both the State and the Federal Government grant to Georgia's fairs, and I presume all over the country, tax exemption, as nonprofit organizations promoting agriculture, education, and youth activities.

It is, therefore, unthinkable that we should be subject to all sorts of possible harassment and penalties by reason of recorded music, often played by little exhibitors or church or civic groups such as the

average fair encompasses. The shows and rides on fairgrounds not only provide entertainment, but also badly needed funds with which to pay the premiums and prizes, scholarships and expenses for youth organizations and farm groups.

Senate bill 597 and its House counterpart not only do not exempt such groups as ours but provide heavy penalties of almost exactly double the penalties of the present law. Indeed, as this bill is now written, if we should be judged in willful violation of this proposed law, the penalties go up to as much as $20,000 fine and 3 years in prison, either or both. Some of the new penalties are as much as 10 times the penalties of the existing copyright law. Pretty steep for some employee willfully playing a copyrighted phonograph record.

The existence of these extra large penalties and increased jail terms as set forth in the new act also tends to frighten innocent or doubtful violators into acceptance of possible unreasnable demands. Anybody who has ever had a dispute with Internal Revenue about a doubtful deduction knows what I am talking about.

May we also most vigorously object to the language of the bill, which makes us the guardian and policeman of our entire operation. If some individual, among the hundreds on our grounds, plays a piece of copyright music-and this I think, refers to jukeboxes on demand, we must, within 30 days, by registered mail, make full disclosure of the operator and his identity, or be held liable ourselves. This would, in our opinion, require us to set up a policing organization, ready at all times of the day and night, to spot and identify those playing music, their names and addresses, for possible future complaint.

The advocates of this new and much harsher law may feel that such fears on our part are farfetched, but we hold with the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln, who once said that "the best test of a proposed law was not what its friends may want to do for you, but what your worst enemies may later be able to do to you."

Therefore, as representing the fairs of Georgia, and in behalf of fairs all over the Nation, may we respectfully suggest that this bill be amended, substantially as follows:

"The provisions of this act, which deal with nondramatic musical renditions, shall not apply to fairs, exhibitions, or other civil events operated by or sponsored by States, counties, and municipal governments or agencies thereof, or to nonprofit civil clubs or similar organizations."

We have no desire to rob any artist or composer of the fruits of his work and genius. In this great country they have ample opportunity to receive their just rewards from those who are engaged in purely commercial operations, without denying pleasure to those average people, young and old, who are the usual patrons of our fairs. After all, every good artist or composer owes a little something to the general public in return for the genius which providence has bestowed upon him, and for the democratic society which gives him protection and makes it possible for him to thrive. And he can do it in no better way than to make possible the better enjoyment of America's fairs.

Gentlemen, we ask that you relieve the fairs of America of the onerous burdens and restrictions and the heavy penalties set forth in Senate bill 597.

Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you, Mr. Hartsfield. Your amendment goes, by the way, beyond fairs, does it not?

Mr. HARTSFIELD. The proposed amendment?

Senator BURDICK. It says "nonprofit civic clubs or similar organizations." That means all service clubs and other clubs not for profit.

Mr. HARTSFIELD. I put that in there, because, in many instances, fairs are given under city auspices or county auspices by such organizations as Exchange Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs. In my case, the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce is the actual operator of the fair through a wholly owned corporation, nonprofit, and all over the country, civic clubs are the sponsors of fairs, particularly the little fairs.

May I say this? I am told that Senator Lausche has submitted a possible amendment to the committee, which, in the case of fairs, I think would be more or less acceptable.

Senator BURDICK. I believe the Lausche amendment is confined to nonprofit agricultural or horticultural organizations. Have you seen -he Lausche amendment?

Mr. HARTSFIELD. I saw it for just a second. As I walked into the room, someone handed it to me.

Senator BURDICK. It is for the performance of a musical work. [Reads:]

(6) performance of a musical work or the use of a sound recording by any natural person or any organization at any fair or any agricultural or hortiultural exposition conducted or sponsored by, or operated on behalf of, any State, any political subdivision of any State, or any nonprofit agricultural or horticultural organization which is exempt from tax under section 501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

Mr. HARTSFIELD. I think that would cover even the Kiwanis Club, if the fair was sponsored by the city or county.

Senator BURDICK. If the committee in its wisdom should follow your advice, would you accept that Lausche language?

Mr. HARTSFIELD. In the case of Southeastern Fair of Atlanta, I think I would. I do not know that I can speak for every fair in the Nation. I do not know how they operate in Wisconsin or Nevada, or even California.

Senator BURDICK. Senator McClellan?

Senator MCCLELLAN. I have no questions.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HARTSFIELD. Thank you.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Potter?

STATEMENT OF WALTER B. POTTER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL CONRAD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION

Mr. POTTER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Walter B. Potter. I am publisher of the Culpeper, Va., Star-Exponent, and president of the National Newspaper Association. This organization includes within its membership some 5,800 weekly newspapers and more than 800 community daily newspapers in all 50 States. Newspapers published by its members go into approximately 25 million homes regularly. I should add that during the first 80 years of its existence, our association was known as the National Editorial Association, the name having been changed in 1965.

With me is Mr. Paul Conrad, general counsel of the association. We wish to address ourselves to sections 105 and 504 of the bill.

Section 504, in its endeavor to achieve uniformity in statutory damages to be awarded for copyright infringement, has eliminated provisions of the present copyright law relating to newspaper reproduction of photographs. Damages for unintentional infringement by a newspaper of a photograph copyright, under present law, are limited to not less than $50 nor more than $200 (sec. 101 (b)). Under proposed section 504 the unintentional infringement of a photograph copyright by a newspaper could subject the newspaper to damages ranging from a low of $100 to a high of $10,000.

It has been said in defense of the proposed change that newspaper infringement of photograph copyrights is not a serious problem. To support this contention it is pointed out that relatively few photographs are ever copyrighted, and instances of infringement actions being brought against newspapers, based on photograph copyright, are virtually unknown. We submit that if there is no problem in this area of copyright law, it is precisely because of the limits so wisely placed on recovery by the present statute. The logic of the limit is obvious. Newspaper reproduction of a photograph is unlikely to injure the copyright holder. It may well enhance the value of the copyright. The House Committee on Patents in its report on the 1909 Copyright Act (H.R. 2222, 60th Cong., second sess., 1909) observed that newspaper reproduction

has little permanent value or usefulness and a reproduction in this form does not damage the copyright proprietor to as great an extent as would the reproduction and sale of copies of the photograph in a different form.

We hardly provide a copy "suitable for framing."

We are not aware of any contention that the proposed change is based on complaint that the present limit is creating hardship for copyrighters of photographs.

On the other hand, exposure to heavy damage claims and certainly an upper limit of $10,000 is "heavy" by comparison with the present $200 maximum-imposes a burden on newspapers. More photographs are used by newspapers today than ever before, to the benefit of the public. Handling literally thousands of photographs annually, a newspaper could so easily overlook the notice on the rare photograph that has been copyrighted. It takes no imagination to visualize the pressure for substantial settlement a copyright owner could and would bring to bear on the unfortunate newspaper facing a potential claim of $10,000.

We appreciate the concern for uniformity which motivates the bill's proponents in drafting section 504. However, we submit that all of the reasons for the newspaper limitation which pertained in 1909 continue and indeed are more compelling in view of the tremendous increase in use of photographs in newspapers.

For these reasons our association urges retention of the proviso by adding to section 504:

Provided, however, That in case of a newspaper reproduction of a copyrighted photograph, such damages shall not exceed the sum of $200 nor be less than the sum of $50.