Iowa. I am also president of the Creative Printers of America, a group of companies that specialize in creative printing. Our company in Davenport has 80 employees, and in Cedar Rapids there are 30 employees. Outside of newspaper and publication printers, we are probably the largest printing organization in all of Iowa. Much of our business is in the area of creative printing. The preparation of sketches, dummies, and other means of conveying original creative ideas is a part of our daily work. I have here an illustration of a comprehensive layout, called dummy in our industry, of a college brochure. I have also with it the finished piece that evolved out of this. We were called in by the college, in this case, to create a printed piece to attract students to attend Buena Vista College. In this instance our creative people made the layout. We presented the comprehensive layout to the college for approval. At this point it is customary for the customer to keep the dummy, study it, and discuss it with associates in the college or company. At this stage an unprincipled customer could show this to another printer, and no doubt obtain a quotation at a lower price than we could produce it, because he has had no development expense. Here is another dummy and finished piece produced for Iowa Wesleyan College. You can get some idea of the investment we make in creative planning before we actually get the order for the printed job. Much of this work is speculative, and it does not always result in an order for printing. Now, to register a copy of such comprehensive layouts with the Copyright Office simply would not be practical. If the present draft becomes law, it would be common knowledge that printers would not register such items, and the unprincipled people would be encouraged to pirate. We recommend that the exception be added to section 301 (a) as identified in Mr. Bresnahan's testimony. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Mr. St. Onge? Mr. ST. ONGE. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDWARDS. No questions. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Tenzer? Mr. TENZER. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. May the Chair say he appreciates the testimony you both have offered in behalf of the Printing Industries of America. This concludes the testimony for today. Therefore, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 17, 1965.) COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier, presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, St. Onge, Edwards, Tenzer, Poff, and Hutchinson. Also present: Herbert Fuchs, counsel, and Allan Cors, associate counsel. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The subcommittee will come to order. The chairman will announce that we do have permission to sit during the course of debate on the floor. Nevertheless, with the astronauts being received by the Congress, we will attempt to conclude in a single session todaysometime, perhaps, during the noon hour or as late as we can go, to accommodate all the witnesses. This will be the objective of the committee. This morning we are very pleased to have as our first witness a gentleman, friend, and colleague whom Mr. St. Onge will introduce. Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you very much, it is very kind of you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to introduce to the committee a man we all know and esteem very highly, the Hon. John S. Monagan of the Fifth District of Connecticut, which is my own State. I have known Congressman Monagan for many years. I know him as an extremely able and capable and hard working Congressman, but in addition he is also an eminent attorney, well recognized by the bar in the State of Connecticut. Probably not as well known is the fact that Congressman Monagan in his own right is a scholar and author. So I shall be very happy and pleased to listen to his remarks this morning. Mr. KASTENMEIER. We thank our colleague. We welcome our colleague, John Monagan, to the committee. Will you proceed? STATEMENT OF JOHN S. MONAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am overwhelmed at this introduction. I do want to assure the committee that there is no conflict of interest so far as my position as an author is concerned, because the earnings certainly don't reach the point where there is any problem for me of copyright. 1103 I am grateful for the kind words of my friend, Congressman St. Onge. I might say that we are very proud of him as a resident of Connecticut and of the fine work he has been doing here in the Congress and particularly his contributions to this extremely important subcommittee. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you in support of H.R. 6835. It does seem to me that the objectives of this legislation are worthy ones. To begin with, the governing law is obsolete. The passage of time has made necessary a review of the whole subject of copyright and experience has shown the need for revision. The basic act goes back to 1909 and a reexamination is highly desirable. Although I support the provisions of the general copyright bill which has been filed on behalf of the administration, I am particularly interested in the sections which relate to the rights of authors. I feel strongly that enactment of the basic proposals made on behalf of the authors is long overdue. These include a more adequate copyright term, better copyright protection and limit on perpetual copyright assignments. There is today a pervasive desire in this country to encourage the creative arts and while buildings and commissions play an important part in this encouragement, I can think of no more practical way to stimulate artists and authors than to protect the fundamental rights of those who produce novels, plays, and poems. Surely authorship is one of the most hazardous occupations from a financial point of view and adequate copyright furnishes the sole incentive and reward to those who embark upon this chancy career. Under H.R. 6835 the term of a copyright would be extended from the present 56 years to one that would cover the life of the author and 50 years after his death. The present term is inadequate in part because some authors outlive it and lose income at a time when it is most needed. In addition, the extended term would permit an author to make provision for his family after his death with continuing income from the product of his labors. This is a right which is permitted to businessmen who turn their energies into real estate investment or the creation of an estate from the purchase of securities. It would seem that authors should be permitted the same privilege. The section of this bill which concerns the right to use an author's work without his consent or compensation presents a very difficult and complex problem. The bill as written seeks to solve this problem by providing for "fair use" of copyrighted material. Much can be said for the position that these words are words of art and carry with them the various applications of meaning which have been attributed to them over the years through decisions. In this connection, it must be admitted that it is impossible to make legislation so detailed that every conceivable and forbidden use can be written into law. I am not opposed to alteration in my bill-or in the administration's proposal-in this particular, in order to adjust the conflicting claims of the authors and those who seek to use their material in legitimate ways. Certain educational uses should clearly be permitted and others should clearly be forbidden. Once again we are faced with the difficult legis lative problem of drawing the line and I would support any reasonable provision which adequately protected the rights of both sides to the controversy. The educators have a legitimate claim for reasonable use of materials, but the authors also have a clear right to protection of their creative product from unwarranted and harmful reproduction. In order to appreciate the delicacy of the author's position we must realize that we can now only dimly perceive the changes which will soon take place in the field of education generally and in particular in the area of reproduction of educational materials. In the future, the number of those to be educated will grow tremendously in volume and the character of the education itself will increase in complexity, while, at the same time, the variety of materials to be used will multiply substantially. Meanwhile, the physical capacity to duplicate materials and to disseminate them will increase very markedly through inventions and improved technology. The point I wish to emphasize is that none of this change should be permitted in and of itself to diminish the rights of the producers. Simply because duplication is made easier is no reason why it should be made any more permissible than it is at the present time and certainly this situation underlines the need for precision in setting forth the rights of the parties. We want to stimulate education and we want to provide educators with the most adequate materials. At the same time, we do not wish to take away any rights of creators in the process and surely if any costs to maintain these rights are to be imposed, they should be borne by the public as a necessary expense of education. Public funds are used to buy microscopes, laboratory aids, films, projectors, insurance, and similar requisites for the maintenance of an educational system. There is no reason why the use of literary products should be treated otherwise. There is one aspect of this bill which requires careful scrutiny. This is section 601 which seeks to change the present provisions of the law which require, in essence, that English-language books and periodicals must be manufactured in the United States in order to be entitled to full term copyright protection. The main effect of this provision is felt by American authors whose works sometimes are pushed into the public domain for failure to comply with the law's strict requirements. Section 601 of the bill is a step in the right direction, since it would eliminate the complete loss of protection provided by the present law and would also raise the importation ceiling. At the same time, it does retain the manufacturing requirement and I should like to raise the point as to whether or not this provision really belongs in a copyright law. I propose first the query whether or not such a restrictive provision is required for the protection of the giant U.S. book manufacturing business at all. But even if this economic necessity does exist, I question whether this restriction on imports properly belongs in this type of legislation. It seems to me that this is a matter for consideration by the Ways and Means Committee and its proper legislative vessel would be the regular tariff bill. In any event, it is impossible to justify a manufacturing requirement that deprives a copyright owner of performing, dramatization, and motion picture rights that are unrelated to the reproduction and distribution of copies as a punitive dividend affixed to a violation. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights recommended outright repeal of the manufacturing clause and I believe that this proposal merits very serious consideration. This is indeed a historic bill and one which can eliminate inequities and provide a firm basis for future growth of artistic pursuits with fairness to the author, the publisher, and, most important of all, the general public. I hope that you will recommend its passage. Mr. KASTENMEIER. We thank our colleague for his contribution. I think you are the first Member of Congress to appear before the committee as a proponent of the bill. Mr. MONAGAN. Well Horatius at the bridge became quite a famous character in history. Maybe I will be in the same position. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I was wondering about the duration of the proposed term of life plus 50. There is some testimony that many things which are copyrighted are really only meant for contemporaneous protection and really do not require long-term protection. A split in the term allows many things to fall into the public domain years earlier, while other things requiring protection for the benefit of the copyright holder can be continued for a longer and more appropriate term. Do you think that we ought to revert to the single-term concept of a copyright? Mr. MONAGAN. I do not know what examples you have in mind that would form a basis for this distinction. I am thinking primarily of books and products of that sort, literary creations which seem to me to be perfectly legitimate to have this term. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. There is some point made that a number of works would be held under copyright protection and out of the public domain for too long a period of time. Mr. MONAGAN. It might be possible to define a situation where this right would be so far removed from the individual that it was almost a public right and that therefore it would be advisable to have a shorter termination. I think that the average case that I can think of would be appropriate for the long term. Mr. KASTENMEIER. You know, at the present time, there is a split term, 28 years plus 28 years. Mr. MONAGAN. Yes. Mr. KASTENMEIER. You do not think this has worked out too well? Mr. MONAGAN. I do not think so. I think it would be preferable to have this proposal. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you. Mr. St. Onge, do you have questions? Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think our colleague has fully justified my introduction of him. His statement certainly points up very clearly some of the problems that this committee is going to face when the hearings terminate. I have just one brief question, Congressman. I take it from your statement that your position on fair use is not an immutable position? Mr. MONAGAN. You are correct. It is certainly a complicated situ |