« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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 The revision eliminates common law literary property rights and brings unpublished works-letters, diaries, journals, etc.within the purview of U.S. statutory copyright, establishing the same definite period of protection as for published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 It provides that unpublished works will be protected for the life of the author and fifty years after his death or one hundred years after the origin of the writing if the author's death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.
SAINT MARY'S HALL,
Villanova, Pa., December 20, 1965.
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.
Rev. JOSEPH J. GILDEA, O.S.A.
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,
THOMAS C. BRENNAN,
SAINT MARY'S HALL,
Villanova, Pa., October 9, 1965.
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS,
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,
Rev. JOSEPH J. GILDEA, O.S.A.
Washington, D.C., August 6, 1965.
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.
COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS,
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.
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS,
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.
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That:
(1) The National Council on the Arts expresses its views that modernizing and strengthening the copyright protection afforded to authors is of the utmost importance to the creative activity on which the strength and endurance of our cultural progress largely depends.
(2) The Council recommends the most favorable consideration by the Congress of these principles with the ultimate purpose of enactment at the earliest possible date of a new copyright law based upon these principles.
(3) The Chairman of the Council is hereby instructed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees under whose jurisdiction this legislation lies. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours,
CHAPLES C. MARK, Consultant.
PIERMONT, N.Y., September 9, 1965. Senator John L. MCCLELLAN, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MOCLELLAN: According to the New York Times of August 21, you said, “I don't think the author is entitled to a royalty for use of his material for education or nonprofit entertainment."
Your words were in support of the proposed change to the new Copyright Revision Bill. They may sound like noble words at first, but your logic is a shocking oversimplification.
Along with the powerful NEA and the rest of the Education Lobby, you advo.cate that any published material by a U.S. author or writer be exempted from the copyright provisions so that it may be copied, or borrowed, or stolen, or used by anyone in the name of education or nonprofit use.
Such a change in the new bill makes about as much sense as a bill that would stop salaries from being paid to U.S. Senators, such as yourself, and to all lawyers, such as the NEA's Mr. Rosenfeld, because your work in the Senate is a non-profit occupation, and because Rosenfeld labors for education.
But why stop with authors and writers? Why not also include in your proposed change in the new bill that carpenters, plumbers, builders and others who construct our schools, donate their services and labor free when involved in such educational activities? By the same reasoning teachers who now get paid also should work free when their efforts are expended for nonprofit or educational purposes.
And why should my local school district pay the RCA and Zenith Companies for their TV sets that we use for nonprofit use in our schools? You should follow through there, too. No royalty or profit should be allowed on all such products that are used for nonprofit or educational use. You do not advocate that?
But you single out authors and writers and propose that only they not be paid for the use of their material when it is copied over and over again ("stolen” would be a better word) for nonprofit or educational use.
You could also advocate that musical records be expropriated, in effect, when used in schools or for nonprofit entertainment. And no fees, royalties or salaries be paid to the musicians, singers, and record manufacturers when their records are used in the manner that the education lobby wants to use authors' work free. If, Mr. Rosenfeld, the NEA or you, however, ever proposed such an addition to the present copyright bill, the ASCAP union and the record industry would be down on you like a ton of bricks.
But for some curious reason you feel that the work of authors and writers is different—it can be swiped and used at will in schools without copyright protection. That raises another highly important question: Who will differentiate between material that is "copied” for honest educational and nonprofit use, and material that is copied by the truckload by chiselers for their huge personal and private profit? This lack by itself is a major flaw in your proposed revision to the new copyright law. By itself this flaw should be sufficient reason to have the proposed change in the bill killed outright.
If the NEA, Mr. Rosenfeld and you succeed in getting the change in the copyright bill passed, eventually many writers and authors simply would stop writing material that would be stolen scot-free by schools and others. You would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You also would be helping to kill off a profession that even now is not very profitable or economically rewarding to the overwhelming majority of its members.
In other words, stop paying someone for his labor and he stops laboring, just as if the NEA stopped paying Mr. Rosenfeld for his legal services, because they are a nonprofit educational group, I'd bet he sure would cease working for the NEA. You would never again see him up on Capital Hill on behalf of any educational group. Similarly, if such payment is arbitrarily cut off to authors and writers for the fruits of our daily labor, why would we continue to work at our profession?
I am a professional, self-employed writer and author, a member of the society of Magazine Writers and of the Author's League of America. I also have a wife and three children to support. And their support depends entirely on what people pay me for what I write every day. If your proposed revision to the new copyright bill is passed, it could seriously threaten the future well being of my wife and three young children, and similarly the future of literally thousands of others in this country whose livelihood is the writing field.
I strongly support the Copyright Revision Bill (which I believe is labeled SS 302 through 305).
However, I strongly oppose the proposed revision to the bill, advocated by the education lobby and you, among others, which would permit the material of authors and writers to be copied and legally stolen by schools and anyone else who purports to be acting in the name of education or nonprofit entertainment (as you reportedly put it).
I would like this letter to be made part of the official record of the testimony about the proposed copyright bill. It should be made part of the written testimony as a rebuttal to Mr. Rosenfeld's testimony of August 20th and your comments of the same day. Sincerely yours,
A. M. WATKINS.
Rochester, N.Y., September 24, 1965.
Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BRENNAN: I thought you might be interested to see a copy of a letter which I have directed to Mr. Fuchs, Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which is studying the Copyright Bill. We would like you to know how important this whole matter is to us, and this letter makes our position quite clear. You may wish to include this in your testimony. Sincerely,
J. C. WILSON,
Rochester, N.Y., September 24, 1965.
DEAR MR. FUCHS: We endorse the present efforts to bring the copyright law up to date, and we view with a sense of urgency the need to provide legislation that is meaningful and effective.
On behalf of Xerox Corporation, I want to express our firm conviction that the protection of legitimate rights of authors in their works is vital to the dissemination and exchange of information. Without adequate protection of these rights, many sources of valuable information would be unable to survive; their contributions to human knowledge would be lost. Moreover, failure to assure proper protection of copyrights would significantly reduce the incentive to creativity. To us, it appears self-evident, therefore, that sound copyright legislation is indispensable to the enrichment of our society.
Accordingly, we vigorously support H.R. 4347 now under consideration. In our judgment this Bill would provide a significant and necessary improvement over existing legislation, particularly in regard to the definition of the subject matter and scope of copyright, the notice provisions, and the extended duration