Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

practical point of view, one of two things happens. Either I desire to write something of an educational nature, or a publishing house asks if I would be willing to write such an educational book or monograph. In either event, after an agreement is reached I go to certain mechanics of collecting material, illustrations, photographs, original drawings, and original writing. The implied purpose of this is to educate others. The publisher, regardless of who it is, agrees to proof-read my material, suggest certain corrections, compile the manuscript in book form, arrange the photographs and drawings, type-set in, send it back for my approval, advertise it, promote it, for the express purpose of realizing a profit. While the publisher's motive may be that of profit, the motive of the author is usually that of education. For this the author receives a royalty which varies from publisher to publisher but is fairly standard.

Such material produced by me as an author is then distributed to those who wish to purchase it. I am sure that in many instances such material is copied by photostatic processes and used in individual classrooms, etc. to great advantage. However, the copying and reproduction of this material, of any part of it, in other writing or in any extensive lecturing or series of lectures, certainly deserves credit both to the publisher and to the author and if required, payment for such reproduction.

As an educator I can see no reason why unlimited right to reproduce this type of thing should be allowed. In my opinion the publisher has a right to his profit since he has done the majority of the work on the publication, except for the actual writing of the material. To allow free and total use of all of it under the guise of the need of education for this, is, in my opinion, a subterfuge. There are really few restrictions upon using published material for the teaching of individual classes with or without permission. In my opinion, the changing of a law to allow unlimited copying would lead to considerable plagiarism and certainly would eventually lead to the destruction of certain publishing houses with the concentration of educational publishing in certain houses who would "play the game".

I strongly urge you to carefully consider this situation before any decision is made.

[blocks in formation]

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I am bringing to your attention a letter I have received from Mr. Carl L. Anderson of Corvallis, Oregon, with respect to copyright legislation which is under consideration by your subcommittee.

I will greatly appreciate your courtesy in bringing this letter to the attention of your colleagues through inclusion of the correspondent in your hearings record on the bill.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR MR. ANDERSON: I very much appreciated receiving your letter of June 25, 1965, with respect to S. 1006.

Since I know the view you hold is one which is shared by a great many educators, I thought you would like to know that I have taken the liberty of bringing it to the attention of Senator McClellan so that it may be available to the members of his committee in their consideration of the legislation.

With kindest regards,

Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Education Subcommittee.

CORVALLIS, OREG., June 25, 1965.

Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I will introduce myself as an educator and an author expressing views on the copyright law of 1909 which is now before Congress and undergoing revision. It is my opinion that Section 107 of the bill presently before Congress which deals with fair use should be retained. This section reads, "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 106 the fair use of copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright." As interpreted by the courts this provision has served both educators and authors. It has permitted teachers to use published materials without permitting a wholesale free duplication of textbook material. The proposal of some education groups to substitute for the fair use provision of Section 107 the free use of copyrighted materials would remove much of the incentive for authors to write textbooks for classroom use. The free use of copyrighted materials would be equivalent to using the services of authors without any compensation to the person who labored for years and used his background and talents to produce a textbook.

The provisions of Section 107 of the bill presently before Congress have worked effectively in terms of educational use and have protected the author and publisher against unlimited use of copyrighted materials. I sincerely hope you will have sufficient time to give this matter thorough study.

[blocks in formation]

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am bringing to your attention a letter I have just received from Professor Ronald J. Glossop of the Portland State College, with respect to copyright legislation which is under consideration by your subcommittee.

I will greatly appreciate your courtesy in bringing this letter to the attention of your colleagues through inclusion of the correspondence in your hearings record on the bill.

[blocks in formation]

Division of Humanities, Department of Philosophy, Portland State College, Portland, Oreg.

DEAR PROFESSOR GLOSSOP: I very much appreciated receiving your good letter of June 15, 1965 concerning S. 1006.

Since I know the view which you hold is one which is shared by a great many educators, I thought you would like to know that I have taken the liberty of bringing it to the attention of Senator McClellan so that it may be available to the members of his committee in their consideration of the legislation.

With kindest regards.
Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE.

PORTLAND STATE COLLEGE,
Portland, Oreg., June 15, 1965.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I write to you not only because you are a senator from Oregon but also because you are a proven friend of higher education. I have recently learned that a new copyright bill, Bill S. 1006, has been introduced in

the Senate. I am concerned that certain implications of the "fair use" provision of this bill will unduly hinder my effectiveness as a college instructor. For example, if this bill is passed as proposed, I could no longer use direct quotations on my tests in order to have my students identify which author put forth certain ideas. I also could no longer use photographic copies of library materials for use outside of the library. There are other restrictions which would hamper other instructors in other fields of study. As a person who has high hopes of being the author of books in the future, I feel the proposed restrictions are for the financial advantage of the publishers rather than the protection of the authors. Although publishers need to make money to stay in business, I do not believe their profits should be increased at the expense of unduly restricting the activities of educators. I hope you will seek to amend this bill in order to allow for reasonable educational use of printed materials without procuring the publisher's permission on every occasion. I believe that even the publishers would be better off if they did not have to answer a large number of requests for use of materials in every-day teaching activities.

Thank you again for the wonderful job you are doing for all of us in Oregon and in the United States generally. Sincerely yours,

RONALD J. GLOSSOP, Assistant Professor of Philosophy.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

U.S. SENATE,

June 18, 1965.

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am bringing to your attention a letter I have recently received from Mr. John W. Kohl, Principal of Clackamas High School, with respect to copyright legislation which is under consideration by your subcommittee.

I will greatly appreciate your bringing this letter to the attention of your colleagues through inclusion of the correspondence in your hearings record on the bill.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR MR. KOHL: I very much appreciated receiving your thoughtful June 10, 1965 comments on S. 1006.

Since I know the view which you hold is one which is shared by a great many educators, I thought you would like to know that I have taken the liberty of bringing it to the attention of Senator McClellan so that it may be available to the members of his committee in their consideration of the legislation.

With kindest regards,
Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE.

CLACKAMAS HIGH SCHOOL, Milwaukee, Oreg., June 10, 1965.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am writing to call your attention to my reaction concerning House Bill 4347-Senate Bill 1006 which was introduced into the Congress in February. As a professional educator I am gravely concerned over the restrictions the proposed bill would place on the use of material for instructional purposes.

As you well know, the day is passed when we offer instruction to our students from a single textbook. Any teacher worth his salt will call upon a large reservoir of current, up-to-date material gleaned from the daily newspapers, journals, monographs, publications-prints of all kinds. After reading the provisions of the bill it would appear to me that it would hamper unduly the educational process in so much as it would tend to make every course a historical study of public domain information, updated only to the extent of the local school district's ability to buy the latest information. I think the key factor should relate to the use to which this material is put. Material used solely for instructional purpose for which there is no profit motive should surely not fall under copywriting laws. It would appear to me that society has a right to expect that it's children will be educated with the latest, most up-to-date information possible, whether it be in the field of law, medicine, forestry, sanitation, health practices, or commerce.

Your efforts in defeating this bill as it is currently structured, or in modifying it so that educational institutions are not hamstrung will certainly be appreciated. If I can be of any assistance in supplying necessary information please feel free to call upon me.

Very truly yours,

JOHN W. KOHL, Principal.

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

U.S. SENATE,

June 22, 1965.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Judiciary
Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am bringing to your attention a letter I have received from Dr. Leonard W. Rice, President of the Oregon College of Education, with respect to copyright legislation which is under consideration by your subcommittee.

I will greatly appreciate your courtesy in bringing this letter to the attention of your colleagues through inclusion of the correspondence in your hearings record on the bill.

With kindest regards,

[blocks in formation]

DEAR DR. RICE: I very much appreciated receiving your good letter of June 9, 1965 concerning S. 1006.

Since I know the view which you hold is one which is shared by a great many educators, I thought you would like to know that I have taken the liberty of bringing it to the attention of Senator McClellan so that it may be available to the members of his committee in their consideration of the legislation.

With kindest regards,
Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE.

OREGON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Monmouth, Oreg., June 9, 1965.

Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Among your many responsibilities, I trust that you will find time to consider the revisions of the copyright law being considered by Congress in the light of the needs of teachers. (H.R. 4347 and S. 1006)

The duplication of copyrighted materials for classroom teaching and the use of the tape or other recorder to bring to the classroom materials from radio and

other sources are extremely important activities to make classroom instruction vital and meaningful to students of all ages. If a new copyright law impedes these activities, it will be a serious blow to the effectiveness of our schools.

Thank you for any attention you are able to give to this matter. It could be very important to your constituents who are teachers and students.

Sincerely yours,

LEONARD W. RICE, President.

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, June 23, 1965.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee of the Judiciary,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Mark Hill of Waterford, Connecticut, in which he makes certain suggestions concerning our copyright law.

As your Subcommittee will be considering legislation to authorize a general revision of the copyright statute, I would appreciate it very much if Mr. Hill's views could be made available to your members.

With best wishes.
Sincerely yours,

THOMAS J. DODD.

GALE ART Co.,

Waterford, Conn., June 8, 1965.

DEAR SENATOR DODD: May I explain something to see if there is a need to look at copyright laws more closely in a technical age.

Four years ago independently the idea came to me that leaded stained glass beauty should be brought into the home. We quit a job, developed a line of decorative items in six months which is now sold nationwide.

Since there is a growing interest for more beauty in our everyday lives, more respect for art, and an awareness to cultivate handcrafts as an American heritage, I wonder if there isn't a consequent need to protect more fully original works from blatant copyings.

A New York plastic firm has copied exactly certain numbers in our line, making plastic look like stained glass with leading. To imitate is certainly legal, but not to steal designs outright. They are not competitive, but you can well understand that it is neither fair nor good for these designs to be copied.

Now we have gone to a New Haven law firm for all future new designs. We know better, and as usual in life, we have had to learn by experience.

But do not today's copyright laws in this case protect dishonesty and harm ignorance of the law far more than is justified.

My thought on the subject would be that if direct copying can be proved within a certain time limit, even without a copyright, then there should be a penalty.

If an original work is put on the market and does not go over within, say three years, then there is no harm done if someone copies it after the time limit. And if it goes over, then protection should be an awareness.

It all seems so strange that there should be absolute copying in the first place when with a little change you can make it your own. But we have found out that there are some too lazy (to be kind) to even change the original design when they try to make it their own. In our case they not only took the basic idea, which we can have no objection to really, but also went much further.

Most artists at first struggle to produce something original and do not know if it will go over; do not have the money for protection, or are too immersed in creating to know the protective laws. Yet standing on the sidelines are modern companies using modern techniques who are waiting for a chance to gobble up new ideas for their machines. I am not against machines, just dishonesty.

Of course the artist or firm copied would have to be sure of the grounds before bringing suit if there was a clause against direct copying even without right of copyright.

My point then is not to put loopholes in copyright laws or to make it a sloppy law to protect those who do not care to take out copyrights. It is to stop absolute blatant copying when it can be proved for those objects which have not had copyrights put on them within a certain time limit.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »