Lapas attēli

Now I know in your great spirit of fair play for all Americans you are a very busy man, but perhaps someday this question can be aired for the benefit of those who are attempting to bring original thought forth, and also for the benefit of those who purchase such goods with the idea that it will stay that way. Very sincerely,



May 4, 1965.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and copyrights, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.O.
DEAR JOHN: The enclosed is copy of a letter I have received from Mr. William
E. Osgood, Librarian of Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont, advising me of
his observations on the Copyright bill pending before your Subcommittee.

I would appreciate your making his letter a part of the record on the bill.
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,

GEORGE D. AIKEN. Enclosure.


Plainfield, Vt., April 30, 1965.
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: I would like to record several observations on the Copy. right bills now being considered in the Congress (S. 1006 and H.R. 4347).

The single national system seems to be an improvement over the present dual system of common law and statutory law protection.

We librarians are particularly concerned with the doctrine of "fair use." The bills recognize "fair use," but do not make definitions. This seems to be a good principle because any attempt to define "fair use" very specifically would be extremely difficult and very, very confusing to the library readers and staff.

One element seems to be missing from the bills and this may be for a good reason. I do not see that the bills recognize the moral rights of the author in his work. Copyright Law Revision, Study no. 4 (86th Cong., 1st Sess., 1960) illustrates some of the provisions made in foreign copyright law for the pro tection of the author's moral rights. It would seem to me entirely proper for the U.S. law to recognize an author's moral rights in his work even if this was limited to a statement that the author must have his name published with his work and that no person can alter or deface his name. Sincerely,



May 10, 1965.
Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and copyrights, Judiciary Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O. DEAR JOHN: I am in receipt of the enclosed letter from Dr. Phillips who heads the Vermont Educational Television Network at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont.

He has suggested modifications to the copyright bill, S. 1006. I would appreciate your giving his suggestions careful consideration when the legislation is being reviewed and request that his letter be made a part of the record on the bill. Best regards. Sincerely yours,



Burlington, Vt., May 7, 1965. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: I have recently learned that the bill, S. 1006, dealing with the copyright act has recently been introduced into the Senate. As the bill is presently written it would seriously impede the effectiveness of the proposed Vermont Educational Television Network.

There are three specific points that I believe need modification, They are as follows:

1. Provision should be made for fair use of excerpts from copyrighted material on ETV broadcasts without clearance.

2. Material for broadcast of whole non-dramatic literary or musical works should be available without payment as long as their performers are paid.

3. There should be no restriction on the recording of the program for unlimited local use and reuse. I would appreciate your support of these changes if you agree with our position. Sincerely yours,

R. V. PHILLIPS, Director.


Washington, D.C., June 1, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and copyrights, Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C.: I am sending the enclosed letter from Mr. David C. Duniway, Oregon State Archivist so that the Committee might have the benefit of Mr. Duniway's thinking. I hope the letter and its attachment can be included in the Committee's hearing records on this legislation.



Salem, May 21, 1965.
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER : As an observer and a student of history I am deeply concerned about the proposed Copyright Law (S. 1006 and H.R. 4347), the first major revision in its many years of history. Hearings have already begun in the House Judiciary Committee on this subject. I find that the Society of American Archivists to which I belong is likewise concerned, and I enclose a copy of resolutions adopted by the Council of that Society, April 22nd and 23rd.

The importance of the first resolution is obvious, for the original manuscripts, letters, etc. in which copyright will now be vested for the life of the author and beyond are unique. They need to be protected by duplication so that if the original is ever lost the copy will still be available for purposes of research. Libraries, archives in those states where they are concerned with private papers, historical societies, and probably other repositories of knowledge need to be able to protect their treasures in this manner.

The second resolution relates to the great body of private papers that exist and that historians need to use. If they are closed too long because of the copyright law, we will have difficulty writing near current history except as it is available through news media and the public records of the nation or is released by authors. At issue are your own files containing letters from your constituents, which under the proposed law are going to be still their property subject to copyright, What is needed perhaps is a provision by which a person can register the product of his pen throughout his life with the Copyright office if he intends to use it for commercial purposes. This you could do, if you ever plan to write up your experiences in leadership. What is also needed is a provision that literary rights can be assigned by individuals during their life or by will to individual institutions or heirs, so the ownership of the copyright is always clear.

It seems to me that you as well as the Oregon Historical Society, the University of Oregon, and all institutions that have private papers are concerned with this law. Yours sincerely,

DAVID C. DUNIWAY, Oregon State Archivist, State Archives Division,

The proposed revision of the Copyright Law contains several provisions of special interest to archivists, manuscript custodians, librarians as well as to historians and scholars generally. The revision eliminates common law literary property rights and brings unpublished works-letters, diaries, journals, etc.within the purview of U.S. statutory copyright, establishing the same definite period of protection as for published works. It provides that unpublished works will be protected for the life of the author and fifty years after his death or one hundred years after the origin of the writing if the author's death date is unknown. There some evidence also that the proposed legislation will limit the micro-copying of manuscript collections.

Because of the importance of the new Copyright Law, the Council of the Society of American Archivists discussed the matter at its meetings in Kansas City, April 22, 23, 1965. It adopted the following resolution:

1. That the new Copyright Law include a provision that will permit libraries, archives and other repositories to microfilm or otherwise make facsimiles of manuscripts for the purpose of depositing copies in other institutions.

This would not adversely affect copyright interests in the manuscripts in any way. It would, in effect, merely extend the repository's ability to show its manuscripts to scholars and others, and, at the same time, would make it possible to house security copies at a distance from the

originals. 2. That the new law include a provision which will automatically limit the duration of literary property rights to the author's lifetime plus twentyfive years, or to fifty years from the date of origin of the writing, in cases where the death date of the author is unknown, unless those rights are protected by registering them with the Copyright Office, in which case the longer period of protection shall apply.

This would make more readily available to scholars and others a vast amount of material that has little or no monetary value but which may be of vital concern for research in such fields as literature and history.


Villanova, Pa., December 20, 1965.
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and copyrights, Com-

mittee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BRENNAN : This day I received from the Imprimerie H. Vaillant-Carmanne, S. A., of Liège, Belgium, a firm quotation for the printing of the second volume of Durmart le Galois. I am now able, therefore, to submit the written statement on this publishing experience of mine which you suggested in your letter of October 12, 1965, that I provide for the official record of the hearings on the proposed revision of the copyright law.

I assume that I need not repeat from my letter of October 9, 1965, the particular point that I wish to be sure the Committee takes cognizance of.

It may suffice to note, then, that cost estimates obtained by the Villanova Press for production of this French work in the United States were fixed at nine thousand dollars ($9,000). The Belgium printer's charges amount to 218,875 francs or approximately four thousand three hundred dollars ($4,300). Total shipping costs, judging from those for the first volume, will not exceed three hundred dollars ($300). By statute, the work is not subject to customs charges.

In effecting this saving I forfeited United States copyright protection, a loss that does not seem consonant with the purpose of the copyright law as I understand it. Respectfully submitted.


OCTOBER 12, 1965. Rev. JOSEPH J. GILDEA, O.S.A., Saint Mary's Hall, Augustinian Collegiate Seminary, Villanova, Pa.

DEAR FATHER GILDEA : Your letter of October 9th concerning the proposed revision of the copyright law has been referred to me for reply.

This Subcommittee does plan to resume early in 1966 the hearings on the copyright bill. The issue raised by your letter relating to the copyrighting of books by American citizens, which are manufactured abroad will be considered. These restrictions are strongly opposed by American book publishers, who will testify at next year's hearings.

While the Subcommittee would be quite willing to hear your testimony, I suggest that you submit a written statement describing your experiences. This statement would then be made a part of the official record of the hearings. With kind personal regards, I am, Sincerely,


Chief Counsel.


Villanova, Pa., October 9, 1965.

Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR: If I am correctly informed, the Senate may before long resume hearings on the proposed revision of the copyright law.

The enclosed copy of a communication from the Copyright Office will pinpoint the phase of the law that is of immediate interest to me as author (editor) of DURMART LE GALOIS and to Villanova Press as the publisher. Volume II of this work is now in preparation.

Has the subcommittee considered the impact of the present law on the production of scholarly works in a language other than English? In the present instance there was a differential of one hundred percent between printing costs here and abroad.

If this point has not been covered specifically in previous testimony, I should like to be heard on the matter either in person or as you may stipulate. I am a member of the Modern Language Association, a constituent of the American Council of Learned Societies. Respectfully yours,



Washington, D.C., August 6, 1965.
St. Mary's Hall, Villanova, Pa.

DEAR REVEREND GILDEA : We have received your application Form A-B Foreign, catalog card, and two copies for registration of a claim to copyright in the book entitled, DURMART LE GALOIS, published May 24, 1965. Unfortunately, registration is not authorized for the following reasons.

Under the present coypright law, in order that a work, authorized by an American citizen and/or domiciliary, in a language other than English, be eligible for the United States Copyright protection, such a work must be manufactured within the territorial limits of the United States. Since the book was printed in Belgium the United States copyright protection has been forfeited. Registration, therefore, is not warranted, and your application is being filed without action. Sincerely yours,

MARK A. LILLIS, Head, Book Section, Examining Division.


Washington, D.C., June 2, 1965. Hon. JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN EASTLAND: This letter is for the Record of the Hearings on HR 4347-S. 1006, the proposed revision of the Copyright Law. It is based on conclusions drawn from extensive staff participation in discussions with many of the individuals from 33 educational groups who constitute the informal Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision. It also reflects a careful review of the several positions of opposing interests on this legislation and makes an effort to be fair to all.

Chairman Harold E. Wigren of the Ad Hoc Committee has testified on the concensus of the individuals comprising the Ad Hoc Committee rather than for the organizations and institutions that appointed them. This was my understanding in the meeting of July 11, 1963, and it is the understanding of Assistant Executive Secretary Blanche E. Crippen who has attended meetings of the Committee since then. The complexity of this field, with its uncertain facts, vague law, contradictory claims and problems of semantics have made it impracticable to poll the members of this Council. Our expressions here have not been adopted formally by the Council, but they are in complete accord with its policy statements on instruction, library services and new media in education. Our principal concern is how legislation will affect the future of American education, and in general we agree with the conclusions of the Ad Hoc Committee.

We are also concerned, however, with the rights of authors and publishers. They have contributed much to education. They should enjoy appropriate financial and other incentives to create and to publish. They should be protected appropriately against abuses by any who violate these rights. What these rights are should vary between use for profit and nonprofit educational use in protecting authors and publishers through legal restrictions of copyright.

In any event, whatever preserves or extends copyright restrictions must be considered in connection with the great need of education to take full advantage of technology that can be used to improve teaching. For instance, teachers should not be required to seek permission to reproduce materials for their own classes on modern copying machines. Unless it is clear that "fair use" extends to such practices, many teachers will take no chances of violating either the law or their own ethical standards. The doctrine of "fair use" needs expansion and clarification in view of the tremendous social responsibility to facilitate education.

Equally important is the area of visual aids in education. Films and closed circuit television for classrooms present fewer problems than open circuit educational television. We believe that the public interest requires that noncommercial educational broadcasting should have most or all the protections of "fair use" that are accorded to schools in their privacy. In some ways copyright can restrict the education of adults who cannot or will not attend schools to a much greater extent than it can restrict education in schools. The schools usually have more money and more other means for performing their educational functions than ETV stations. For these reasons the new law should provide liberal safeguards for ETV.

We have confidence that you and your colleagues will work out terms for HR 4347-S. 1006 that support these educational values and provide substantial justice for the other interests involved. Should the educational interests of the many ever conflict with the commercial interests of the few under circumstances where this conflict is the major factor involved, we hope you will decide to facilitate education. Sincerely,

EDGAR FULLER, Executive Secretary.


Washington, D.C., June 8, 1965. Hon. JOHN MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Subcommittee of the Senate Com

mittee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN : At the first meeting of the National Council on the Arts, the following resolution was passed, and I have been directed to forward it to you for entrance into the hearing record at the proper time.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »