Lapas attēli

6. The Economic Aspects of the Compulsory License. Third print:

7. Notice of Copyright.
8. Commercial Use of Copyright Notice.
9. Use of the Copyright Notice by Libraries.

10. False Use of Copyright Notice. Fourth print:

11. Divisibility of Copyrights.
12. Joint Ownership of Copyrights.

13. Works Made for Hire and on Commission. Fifth print:

14. Fair Use of Copyrighted Works.
15. Photoduplication of Copyrighted Material by Libraries.

16. Limitations on Performing Rights. Sixth print:

17. The Registration of Copyright. 18. Authority of the Register of Copyrights to Reject Applications for

Registration. 19. The Recordation of Copyright Assignments and Licenses. Seventh print:

20. Deposit of Copyrighted Works.

21. The Catalog of Copyrighted Entries. Eighth print:

22. The Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law. 23. The Operation of the Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law: An

Exploratory Study. 24. Remedies Other Than Damages for Copyright Infringement.

25. Liability of Innocent Infringers of Copyright. Ninth print:

26. The Unauthorized Duplication of Sound Recordings. 27. Copyright in Architectural Works.

28. Copyright in Choreographic Works. Tenth print:

29. Protection of Unpublished Works. 30. Duration of Copyright.

31. Renewal of Copyright. Eleventh print:.

32. Protection of Works of Foreign Origin. 33. Copyright in Government Publications.

34. Copyright in Territories and Possessions of the United States. 87th Congress, House committee print, “Copyright Law Revision,” Report of the

Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law,

July 1961. 89th Congress, House committee print, “Copyright Law Revision, Part 6," Supple

mentary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, May 1965. Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Brennan, please call the first witness.

Mr. BRENNAN. The first witness is Mr. L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Mr. Mumford, come around, please, sir.


Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Mumford, do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. MUMFORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Senator McCLELLAN. Would you like to read it?

Mr. MUMFORD. It is brief, and if I may, I would be glad to present it by reading it.

Senator McCLELLAN. We shall be glad to have you proceed in that way.

Mr. MUMFORD. My name is L. Quincy Mumford, and I am the Librarian of Congress. I consider it a great honor to appear before your subcommittee as one of the opening witnesses in support of the bill for general revision of the copyright law.

As you know, the copyright system of this country finds its origin in the constitutional provision empowering Congress to secure to authors for limited times the exclusive right to their writings. Congress exercised its authority to enact copyright legislation in its very first session in 1790, and since then the law has been completely revised only three times: in 1831, 1870, and 1909. It has been nearly a century since the second revision, when the Library of Congress was entrusted with administration of the American copyright system, and it is now more than 56 years since the last general revision of the statute.

The Library of Congress in a great measure owes the strength and variety of its collections to the copyright registration system. The copyright law, through its requirement for the deposit of copies, has enriched the national heritage in a most practical and immediate way. But far more important to the Library and to the public is the role of the copyright law in the creation of our country's literature, music, and art. There would be no Library of Congress as it now exists but for the creative endeavor of hundreds of thousands of individual authors, and in a great many cases there would have been no such creative endeavor but for the incentive of copyright.

In my 10 years as Librarian of Congress I have seen remarkable changes in the methods of disseminating, storing, and communicating information, and it seems clear that we are on the threshold of even more revolutionary developments. Our archaic copyright law must not only be revised to take account of the changing methods by which authors' works reach the public; it must also be revised in such a way that, in furtherance of the constitutional mandate, authorship is encouraged and fairly compensated. The task of copyright law revision in this country is therefore overdue, and the longer it is delayed the more serious will be the loss for future generations.

I can assure you from personal observation that this bill was drafted with painstaking thoroughness and an openminded effort to reconcile differences and seek solutions to the many complex problems in this field. The bill is a tribute to the many years of dedicated endeavor of Arthur Fisher, the late Register of Copyrights, who planned the revision program, and Abraham L. Kaminstein, the present Register, who has carried on this work and who will be your next witness. As these hearings proceed, you will no doubt hear some differences of opinion on particular issues, but I hope that they do not obscure the notable accomplishment that this bisl represents. Mr. Kaminstein has said that in his experience there are no irreconcilable issues in copyright, and this bill reflects not only his belief in this principle but also the truth of it.

As you are well aware, copyright law is a highly technical subject, a subject in which I cannot claim to be an expert. But like many technically complex matters, the basic principles underlying it are not so obscure. For copyright, one of these principles is that an effective copyright law is a prerequisite to the promotion of cultural creativity, and that future generations will draw on the creativity of today as we have drawn on that of yesterday. Therefore, the bill before you today has far-reaching implications, and may well be one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before this Congress.


Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge your favorable consideration of S. 1006. Thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before you.

Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Mumford, you have studied this bill carefully?

Mr. MUMFORD. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am not an expert, but I have spent considerable time in discussing various points, issues in volved in the bill with the Register. I think I have some general understanding of the implications of its major parts.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do I understand, then, your testimony is, in effect, a general endorsement of the bill, of its objectives, and you are not undertaking to say that the mechanics of it are adequate or inadequate to accomplish those objectives, or that they are the best approach to those objectives?

Mr. MUMFORD. I would say that my feeling is one of endorsing the bill as a whole, including the basic principles as well as the details and mechanics of implementation.

Now, there may need to be modifications in the light of differences of opinion, as will be brought out here in these hearings, but it represents the best thought of a great many people, people on our copyright staff who have conducted studies and spent many hours—well, I should not say hours, because these studies have gone on for years, as you know.

Senator MCCLELLAN. The point I am making is, the bill was introduced some 6 months

ago. Mr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

Senator McCLELLAN. As of that time, possibly you and others who conferred about the bill and who have actually developed it may have thought that you had covered everything adequately, or that the bill as drafted was most acceptable and desirable, but subsequently I wonder whether you have heard of some opposition to the bill or to any provisions therein which may have caused you to reconsider any part of it and to have any suggestions now for revision.

Mr. MUMFORD. I have heard of some expressions of difference of opinion on certain points, and I think some of them will be expressed here this morning. There are none that I have heard which I would concur in; I do not agree with them.

Senator McCLELLAN. That is the point I wanted to make. So far, in the discussions that have emanated subsequently to the introduction of the bill, there has been nothing come to your attention that would cause you to suggest any modification of the bill ?

Mr. MUMFORD. No, sir, not at the present time.

Senator McCLELLAN. In other words, you are still of the opinion that this bill as drafted and as originally introduced is substantially in accord with your best opinion as to what should be done?

Mr. MUMFORD. I think so, Mr. Chairman. .
Senator McCLELLAN. Very well, Mr. Mumford.
Does counsel have any questions?
Mr. BRENNAN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCLELLAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. MUMFORD. Thank you.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I would suggest to you that during the course of the hearing or at any time, if you come to any conclusion different from what you have expressed here, as to any provision of the bill that you think ought to be modified, eliminated, or changed in any way, we certainly would appreciate your giving us your suggestion by letter or by advising us otherwise.

Mr. MUMFORD. Thank you very much.
Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Brennan, call the next witness.
Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Kaminstein and Miss Ringer.



Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Kaminstein. Will you identify yourself first, please, sir, for the record ?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Abraham L. Kaminstein, and I am the Register of Copyrights.

Senator McCLELLAN. How long have you held that position ?
Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Since December of 1960.

To my right is Barbara Ringer, Assistant Register of Copyrights for Examining.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Miss Ringer.

I see you have a prepared statement. Is that a joint statement of the two of you, or do you have separate statements?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. There is no separate statement. Miss Ringer is here to counsel with me, but not to make a separate statement.

Senator McCLELLAN. Very well. You have a prepared statement, which you may proceed to read as you desire.

I understood you were the witness that could go into the mechanics of this bill and tell us the reasons for it.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. I hope so, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCLELLAN. Very well.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, it was 10 years ago this month that the President signed the bill initiating the program for general revision of the copyright law. As one of those who have been closely associated with the program from its beginning I am proud to be able to introduce the bill, the product of a full decade of study and effort.

Senator McCLELLAN. Would you at this point elaborate a little bit, for the record here, upon those who have participated in this study and those who are in a sense the contributing counselors to this bill that we have before us.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman

Senator McCLELLAN. I think it is well to let the record show a number of them. This bill is a product of years of study and consultation.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. I have referred to that a little later in my prepared statement, but let me cover it right now.

Senator McCLELLAN. Well, I am sorry, if you have it in your statement later on, that will be acceptable.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. I see no reason not to do it at this point, Mr. Chairman.

First and foremost, in addition to Miss Ringer, there have been Mr. Abe A. Goldman, the General Counsel of the Copyright Office, who is attending the hearings in the other House this morning, and Mr. George Cary, the Deputy Register of Copyrights. All four of us have been very closely associated in the work of preparing and drafting the bill for our Office. In addition, we have had the constant help and assistance of all those who are interested in copyright revision.

The revision program started with the preparation and publication of the studies to which you referred, Mr. Chairman, and which were printed by your committee. These were followed by the Register's report of 1961, which analyzed the issues and made detailed recommendations on them. This document, making our recommendations in 1961, is also referred to as “Copyright Law Revision, Part 1."

This was followed by a series of 12 panel meetings, numerous consultations

Senator McCLELLAN. What is that? Panel meetings?
Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that.

The Librarian appointed a panel of consultants, originally some 30 or 35 prominent members of the bar representing most of the various interests interested in copyright revision. After a few years, other people became very interested in attending the panel meetings, and by the end of those panel sessions we had a panel that consisted of more than a hundred persons, representing almost everyone who had any real interest in this subject.

Those discussions and the comments are contained in what are referred to as “Copyright Law Revision, parts 2, 3, and 4,” which have been printed by the House Judiciary Committee. They contain the extensive prelegislative history of this bill.

During that time, a draft bill gradually emerged. We submitted specific recommendations and draft sections of a bill to the panel. They were discussed, and those discussions, as I have said, are contained in these pamphlets [indicating].

In 1964, you introduced a revision bill at our request in the 88th Congress for the specific purpose of comment and discussion and, following further revisions, the present bill was introduced in February 1965.

Senator McCLELLAN. Very well. That will probably give us a springboard—the introduction and background that we need at this point. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. I might add that part 6, the supplementary report, shows the changes we have made in our original recommendations in the preliminary draft bill, and in the 1964 bill, to produce the 1965 bill. Ît sets out our revised recommendations, constituting a great many changes in our original program and in the 1964 bill.

Senator McCLELLAN. Very well. Mr. KAMINSTEIN. At this point I should also like to thank the committee for its prompt action on Senate Joint Resolution 82, the interim extension bill which, as I understand it, is now on the President's desk, and which would extend the present term of copyrights for an additional 2 years to the end of 1967.

Copyright is a complicated subject and this is a complicated bill. It has to be, and I feel no need to apologize for it on that score. Some of its provisions will require explanation and we will be available throughout the hearings to try to answer any questions of language or

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »