Lapas attēli

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.


June 22, 1965.


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,


Monmouth, Oreg., June 9, 1965.

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.


June 23, 1965.


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,



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.

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.C.

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,



Plainfield, Vt., April 30, 1965.

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: I would like to record several observations on the Copyright 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 protection 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,




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

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.

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.

U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., June 1, 1965.


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,


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 is 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.



Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Committee 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.


« iepriekšējāTurpināt »