Lapas attēli

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate a constant argument made against us, and it runs right along the line you have just mentioned. People say, we buy a table and we pay for it. We buy a chair and pay for it. Why do we not want to pay for the use we make of a copy of a book? We own the book. We want to make a copy of a portion of a book to convey ideas—something you don't do with tables and chairs.

Senator McCLELLAN. When you buy a book, I think you own the use of it.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. My answer is exactly that, that when we bought this chair, we do not pay for it every time we sit in it. We bought it, we can sit in it.

Senator McCLELLAN. For your use. I do not think I could buy a book and take it and duplicate it and publish it. What I mean is if I buy the book and I want to use an excerpt from it, a poem that has been published in the book, say, by the author's consent; obviously, they cannot publish the poem and use it that way without getting permission. Once they do it and put it on the market and it is sold and I buy it, I think I have the right to use it unless I take it for the purpose of commercial exploitation.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we have asked that the copies proposed in section 111 be solely "for course work study" in connection with teaching, for research or for archival purposes, “provided that no such copyrighted material is sold or leased for profit and that no direct or indirect private gain is involved.”

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, I wish to thank you. I did not mean to get off on this thing. I have no doubt we shall have a visit from AŠCAP or somebody like that pretty soon. I shall welcome it. I may be wrong. If they can show me I am wrong, all right. But these thoughts have come to me and I think they have a responsibility in this area to come in here with something that is practical, that is workable, that serves them and protects them as well as makes it possible for the educational authorities and people in this country to disseminate that which is good in education and do it on a basis where they know in advance whether they are becoming criminals or whether they are acting in the public image and performing in the public service.

Thank you very much.
Mr. ROSENFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCLELLAN. Call the next witness.
Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Mark Carroll.

Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Carroll, I see you represent the Association of American University Presses, Inc. We welcome you. You may proceed to read your statement if you like-I note it is relatively short-or you may summarize it for the record and it will be appended in full thereto. The choice is yours.



Mr. CARROLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to read the beginning portion of my prepared statement.

My name is Mark Carroll. I am associate director of Harvard University Press, and chairman of the Copyright Committee of the Association of American University Presses. I speak today on behalf of the association, which has 67 member presses (listed in annex I of this statement), 64 of them located in 36 States and the District of Columbia. University presses are nonprofit publishing organizations operating under the control of universities and research institutions, existing for public educational ends. Through the publication of scholarly books and periodicals, they provide a means of communication between scholars and serve the advancement of knowledge in the arts and sciences and the professions.

I would like to direct my remarks to three areas. The three areas are those concerned with copyright of U.S. Government works, the fair use section, an area where we support the present wording of the bill, and chapter 6, dealing with the importation of copies, which we strongly feel should be completely eliminated from the bill.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Which section is that now?

Mr. CARROLL. This is an interpolation, Mr. Chairman, following the first full paragraph on page 2.

Senator MOČLELLAN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. CARROLL. The reasons for our

positions on these matters are set forth in our prepared statement, which I should like now to enter into the record in its entirety.

Senator McCLELLAN. The remainder of the prepared statement may be printed in the record in full at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)



Our Committee has been impressed by the painstaking scholarship with which the Copyright Office has made the studies upon which the present Bill is based, and the fairness to the interests involved with which it has been drafted. There is no question that a new copyright law is urgently needed.

Our Association has been given the privilege of having an observer at the meetings of the Joint Copyright Committee of the erican Book Publishers Council and the American Textbook Publishers Institute, and we have been impressed by the common sense and wisdom of its recommendations, and can generally associate ourselves with these organizations. But as professional publishing organizations that are also members of the scholarly community, we consider that there are a few areas of copyright law in which the interests and purposes of non-profit scholarly publishers, and of the scholar-authors and the educational community they serve, lead them to emphasize or modify the recomendations of their publishing colleagues. This statement will be confined to three such areas.


Section 105 of the Bill should be eliminated, and there should be substituted for it Section 4 of the 1964 Bill, HR 11947. The present Bill prohibits without qualification copyright protection for "a work of the United States Government.” Section 4 of the 1964 Bill, following the recommendation of the Copyright Office, permits copyright in such works under "exceptional circumstances."

The extent and scope of government publication have increased enormously in the last few decades. There are thousands of scholars on the government payroll—not to speak of the tens of thousands whose research is carried on with the aid of federal grants. The federal government is already the major sponsor of research in the natural sciences, and it may well have the same position in the near future in the social sciences and the humanities. A copyright law that does

not recognize federal involvement and participation in research and publication, in every area of knowledge, and that does not have some provision to protect the rights of authors employed by the federal government by permitting copyright of government publications under special and controlled conditions, will be fair neither to authors nor to our society's need for the widest dissemination of useful knowledge.

From the point of view of the scholar-author, a lack of provision for copyright protection of government publications puts a penalty upon his taking employment with the government, rather than with a university, a research institute, or a private enterprise. From the point of view of the general interest in the dissemination of knowledge, prohibition of copyright in governmental publication places a handicap on the operations of publishers, whether they are non-profit or commercial. Experience has shown that the government itself is an ineffective publisher: it can release a book, a report, or a pamphlet, but it cannot advertise, sell and promote it. Non-governmental professional publishing organizations, commercial or non-profit, are the most effective agencies for achieving proper publication and distribution. They can do so only with the protection for their publishing operations that copyright provides.

In the Association of American University Presses we are thinking primarily of works of scholarship written by government employees or by those supported by federal grant funds in line with or as a by-product of their official duties, that make recognizable contributions to their fields of study. Their authors should enjoy copyright protection for their contributions to scholarship equivalent to that of their fellow scholars outside the federal government. They can do so only if they-and their publishers can be assured copyright protection under controlled conditions.


Sections 107 through 110 of the Bill seem satisfactory as written. These sections deal with the limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, the right of "fair use," and special privileges given educational and other nonprofit uses of copyright material. They represent a compromise between the rights of the author and the copyright proprietor to enjoy a return on their literary property, on the one hand, and the rights of educational and other nonprofit uses of copyright material. They represent a compromise between the and effort and expenditure. On the whole, the compromise put forward in these sections seems reasonable. Specifically, it is proper that the doctrine of fair use be recognized in the Bill, but that no attempt be made to define it precisely, leaving it to the courts to give it meaning in terms of rapidly changing times. The exemptions granted in Section 9 to the use of non-dramatic literary works for educational, religious and non-profit purposes seem sufficient.

In general, we would observe that it is important now to attempt to foresee the probable effect that new developments in the field of information retrieval are phrase the Bill broadly enough to allow for such developments. We do not likely to have on the distribution of books and other printed material, and to quarrel with the practice of one-copy-per-user whereby a user makes a single copy of a document or portion of a book or periodical in a non-classroom situation and in lieu of notetaking, for this is now a technological fact of life. We do oppose any wider applications of this practice, by whatever individuals or organizations, for profit or not, without the permission of the copyright proprietor. Technological advance is welcome and inevitable--but not at the sacrifice of all rights of the author and the undermining of the economics of the publishing process.

In his supplementary report, Part 6, the Register has stated, "the intention of section 107 is to give statutory affirmation to the present judicial doctrine, not to change it." We support this view.


Chapter 6 of the Bill, the so-called "manufacturing clause," which denies copyright protection (with some minor exceptions) to books and other printed materials of American authorship manufactured outside the United States, should be eliminated entirely. This has been the unanimous opinion of the members of the Association of American University Presses, recorded at its annual meetings, for a number of years. Most of the associations representing publishers or authors have also gone on record against this clause, as have a number of educational organizations. The Register of Copyrights omitted such

a clause in the original draft of the Bill. There is no question that it was first incorporated in copyright law, and has remained there in modified form in the face of repeated efforts to eliminate it, because of pressure from printers. In our view especially in recent years, this pressure has no economic justification and book manufacturers and the printing trades unions would be helped rather than hurt if the clause were completely eliminated. The United States is predominantly a book exporting country and has no need prote ion the field of book manufacture. Many of our university presses export 20% or more of their entire production.

As a part of the copyright law, it is rankly discriminatory against American authors. There is no provision in the copyright law denying copyright protection to films or phonograph records manufactured outside the United States. Only the authors and publishers of books are singled out to jeopardize their permanent property rights for what is essentially a matter for tariff regulation.

If you had designed and built a house for yourself, which required imported materials for its successful completion, you would not object to paying reasonable tariffs on these materials, if they were required to protect American manufacturers. But you would object-strenuously and on principle-if such foreign manufacture threw a cloud on your title to the house you had built. An author's book is the house that he designed and built. The copyright is his title to that house. It is outrageous that such title should be jeopardized for anything other than malfeasance or no feasance on his part.

The Association of American University Presses speaks with special vehemence on the manufacturing clause because its member presses publish the works of many scholars that require complex composition, as in mathematics and foreign languages, in which foreign manufacture does on occasion provide sig, nificant economies. Sometimes such economies make the difference between publication and non-publication. Publications of this character do not bulk large in the total volume of the printing trade, yet they make a significant contribution to the diffusion of knowledge. In stating our objection to the manufacturing clause, we feel that we are arguing for the scholar as well as the scholarly publisher. But above all, we are opposed in principle to the manufacturing clause because, in the field of authorship it qualifies without just cause a right of property that should be held sacred.



University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama.
The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Bollingen Foundation, New York, New York.
The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Fordham University Press, Bronx, New York.
The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California.
The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky.
Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec 10, Canada.
Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

McGill University Press, Montreal, Canada.
The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.
National University of México Press, México 20, D.F.
University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
New York University Press, New York, New York.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel IIill, North Carolina.
Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois.
University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.
Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, New York.
The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.
The University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois.
Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, Texas.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.
The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada.
The United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland.
Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tennessee.
The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan.
The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Mr. CARROLL. I shall now comment briefly on our views.

The first matter is that of Government copyrights. The far-reaching activities of the Federal Government touch every quarter of our lives, and the Federal presses will have a steadily increasing role in the production of knowledge. For example, the proposed National Humanities Foundation will, in its areas of activity, affect the inception and output of scholarly inquiry as the National Science Foundation has done in its field. It is of great importance that the products of Government research be given proper dissemination and a program of Government-controlled copyright is necessary if effective distribution beyond Government channels is to be achieved. Publication by the Government Printing Office is not sufficient, for that outstanding facility is not fully set up to do a publishing job. Only rarely are its publications reviewed in appropriate media or advertised to appropriate audiences. Books issued by the GPO are not listed in the weekly record of the publishing trade magazine, Publishers' Weekly, and their availability is difficult to determine through normal book purchasing channels.

Partnership of Government and the publishers of the country can be achieved if language can be established in the new copyright law permitting the copyrighting of principal Government works and per

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »