Lapas attēli

illustrations, maps, or charts within any book or pamphlet, or in sheet form. Said requirements shall not apply to work in raised characters for the use of the blind."

The Senate therefore unanimously agreed with the position taken by the allied printing trades and printing trades employers.

It has also heretofore been considered by all affected that enabling (domestic) legislation is necessary before this country adheres to the convention. (P. 223, hearings, March 10, 1936, House Patents Committee.)

This proposed International Copyright Convention has been before the Senate many times before and, as often as it came up, the International Allied Printing Trades Association has opposed its ratification unless present manufacturing requirement is included. Describing the international aspects of the situation before a similar hearing in April 1937, Mr. Edwin P. Kilroe, chairman of the copyright committee of the Motion Picture Producers & Distributors of America, presented an exhaustive analysis of the existing situation, saying:

"There are really in existence now four Berne Conventions. When the first convention was created in 1886, certain of the countries went in with reservations. When it was revised in Paris in 1896 there were certain other reservations. When it was revised in Berlin in 1908 there were other reservations, and in 1928 these reservations could be carried into the Rome Convention. Some of the countries to the Berne Convention are bound by the terms of the convention of 1886, other countries are bound by the Convention of Paris in 1896, other countries by the Convention at Berlin in 1908 and others by the Convention of Rome of 1928. It is quite likely that, unless there shall be a new revision of the Brussels Conven. tion, there may be a fifth convention which will give us five sets of conventions. This would only add to the chaos and confusion which already exists."

Mr. Kilroe presented a list of 15 countries which had made such reservations.

It seems strange that our State Department has never been anxious to protect the printing trades workers of this Nation by proposing any reservations which would preserve for us the manufacturing provisions of the present copyright law.


Paragraph (2), article 27, of the convention provides:

(2) The countries in whose name the present convention is signed may still retain the benefit of the reservations which they have previously formulated on condition that they make such a declaration at the time of the deposit of the ratifications."

Thus, 15 countries have protected their particular interests by "reservations," while we are expected to swallow it whole and are excluded from making any reservations of our own. It is a ridiculous situation.

Concerning "reservations,” Mr. Kilroe, of the moving-picture industry, testified: “Government officials and representative citizens of England, the Irish Free State, France, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and the small countries adjoining her have unreservedly stated that any reasonable change or reservation requested by the United States would be made in the convention to induce our adherence. On the other hand, it was unhesitatingly stated that the United States should secure these reservations and changes before adherence, and it would be sound policy on the part of the United States to delay its adherence until after the Brussels Conference has been held and the reservations which we request are incorporated into the convention."

We concur in this judgment and emphatically request reservations that will preserve the manufacturing clause of our present copyright law.

The 1909 copyright law contains the manufacturing clause in the following language:

"SEC. 15. That of the printed book or periodical specified in section 5, subsections (a) and (b) of this act, except the original text of a book of foreign origin in a language accorded protection under this title, except as below provided, shall be printed from type set within the limits of the United States, either by hand or by the aid of any kind of typesetting machine, or from plates made within the limits of the United States from type set therein, or, if the text be produced by lithographic process, or photoengraving process, then by a process wholly performed within the limits of the United States, and the printing of the text and binding of the said book shall be performed within the limits of the United States; which requirements shall extend also to the illustrations within a book consisting of printed text and illustrations produced by lithographic process, or photoen

[blocks in formation]

graving process, and also to separate lithographs or photoengravings, except where in either case the subjects represented are located in a foreign country and illustrate a scientific work or reproduce a work of art; but they shall not apply to works in raised characters for the use of the blind, or to books of foreign origin in a language or languages other than English, or to books published abroad in the English language seeking ad interim protection under this title.”

The attitude of the State Department in pressing this matter is fairly well disclosed by the statement of Thorvald Solberg, former Register of Copyrights, in his statement before the subcommittee on April 12–15, 1937, as follows:

“By adherence to this treaty we declare to all authors, artists, composers, and dramatists who are nationals of 40 other countries of the world that they shall have full legal protection for their works in the United States, and enjoy for such works every right and remedy extended to our own nationals, and this protection is automatic and unhampered by any need of compliance with conditions or formalities.

“It must be frankly admitted that this declaration is desirable because of the fact that now, and for a long series of years back, the works of foreign authors are and have been inadequately protected under the restrictions of the copyright laws of the United States. This is expecially true of English authors, whose works up to 1891 were accorded no protection whatever in our country, and since that year have been so discriminated against and hampered by certain provisions of our copyright laws, especially the obligatory manufacture of their works in the United States as a condition for obtaining copyright, that a very large number estimated as fully three-quarters of the books published from year to year in Great Britain and her Colonies have failed to secure to their authors legal protection in our country for their literary property.

“This unhappy situation would be remedied upon our accession to the International Copyright Union by acceptance of the Copyright Treaty of Rome of 1928.

“Adherence to that convention is therefore desirable as a diplomatic measure tending to allay the increasing irritation of foreign authors, especially English authors, against the United States by reason of our failure to protect their literary property in an adequate manner.”

The Interna ional Allied Printing Trades Association desires to make it clear that we do i ot oppose protection to foreign authors for their literary property, but we do most emphatically oppose any such p otection that is to be granted to them at the expense of the printing trades workers of tis Nation by eliminating the bligatory manufacture of their works in the United States as a condition fo obtaining copyright. It will be noted that this obligatory manufacturing cl use is emphasized by Mr. Solberg as a discriminating and hampering provision of our copyright laws.

The International Allied Printing Trades Association cannot conceive of any proper motive for trying to favor foreign authors at the expense of American wcrkmen. We insist that it is quite proper that American workmen be privileged to manufacture works in the English language that are bought by American citizens and protected by American copyright laws.

Instead of using the great power of the United States of America to protect its citizens and its workers in rights long enjoyed, our State Department asks us to sacrifice what little protection we have in the manufacture of copyrighted material.

Why should they ask us to make such a sacrifice? Why should we do so? Why should we scrap our own laws and substitute the laws of foreign nations, drafted by foreign representatives, written so as to open up our great American market for such competition as totalitarian countries may offer?

The ease with which foreign competition may, even under the present law, undersell American-produced books and printed matter is illustrated by the following letter from an American firm, the World Syndicate Publishing Co., to Senator Bulkley, under date of December 31, 1937, as follows:

“We know you will be interested in the following letter from a Los Angeles importer to an eastern publisher under date of November 27, 1937:

1. Our President has recently returned from Japan with some excellent samples of books printed in English in Japan at about half our American costs.

“'We thought you might be interested. Books by American authors cannot be copyrighted when printed outside the United States, as you know, but other books, such as old fairy tales, on which the copyright has expired, can be profitably printed in Japan and imported.

"'We can deliver such books to you, duty paid, as good or better than samples you submit, furnishing galley and page proof, if you wish, at half the American cost of similar printing. For instance, we can supply first class halftone cuts of 160 screen for about 10 cents a square inch. Other costs are in proportion.'

“The competition of Japanese-made books at half our production cost is a serious threat to American industry and the American standard of living as well. The letter quoted above is by far more eloquent in demand for legislative relief from this danger to ourselves and our 500 employees than any argument that we may put forth.

“We sincerely hope that the regular session of Congress which convenes January 3 will adopt the necessary measures which such ruthless and unfair competition demands."

The International Allied Printing Trades Association joins with the employers of its members in a most vigorous protest against opening the field now covered by the 1909 (present) copyright law to such foreign cut throat competition, including competition with our authors in certain fields where foreign authorship may easily be substituted for American.

Why should the printing trades workers of this Nation be deprived of the protection under existing law for the negligible and nebulous advantages of exports offered as an excuse for ratification of the copyright convention when such lowering of bars will place us in direct competition with low wage workers in foreign countries? The printed brief of the Book Manufacturers Institute submitted to the committee in 1938 exhaustively describes the export field and clearly shows the conclusions of the State Department to be erroneous,

The various classes of work which could be produced in foreign countries under their employment conditions in competition with workers of the United States fall roughly within the folllwing:

1. Works of fiction.

2. Textbooks used by educational institutions, the author of which is or may be a national of a foreign nation.

3. All publications the distribution of which makes copyright essential to protection but of which the author's name is of no sale value.



We oppose the entry of the United States into the International Copyright Union, through ratification on the part of the United States Senate of the treaty now under consideration, for the following reasons:

1. Such action is wholly un-American in that it would supersede our American laws and substitute for our American laws legislation enacted exclusively by representatives of foreign nations to the benefit of such nations and to the detriment of American printing trades workers.

2. Such actions, without proper reservations retaining the protection of the manufacturing clause, would jeopardize the job opportunities of 35,000 printing trades workers. As stated to this committee in February 1938, a survey conducted by the International Allied Printing Trades Association discloses the fact that more than 35,000 printing trades workers will be seriously affected as regards their opportunity for employment if the treaty is ratified. The above figure of 35,000 would be greatly magnified if the method used by the Labor Department was applied to the total number of books copyrighted each year. The number of books copyrighted annually under present laws in this country averaged 52,382 during the past 3 years. If, as the Labor Department states, 301 books required the labor of 410 workers, 52,382 books would require 71,340 workers. This clearly indicates the absolute need for further consideration of the facts upon which the ratification of the copyright convention is recommended. In the United States, during 1935, there were 22,606 establishments engaged in printing, publishing, and allied industries, affording employment to 475,123 persons.

The information supplied by the Labor Department through the State Department was erronous and misleading as to the effect on the printing trades workers, should we join the Copyright Union. The Labor Department simply ascertained the number jof foreign books reprinted in the English language in the United States during the 12 months ending June 30, 1937, and thereupon estimated the number of men required to print those 301 foreign books on a 40-hour, 50-week basis.

It should be remembered that these books were reprinted under the law as it is-not as the Copyright Union would require it to be.

If, as Dr. Solberg testifies, “fully three-quarters of the books published from year to year in Great Britain and her colonies have failed to secure to their authors legal protection in our country for their literary property,” it is easy to see what a damaging effect it would have to eliminate the manufacturing clause of the copyright law. It should be remembered also that the above quoted statement by Dr. Solberg referred only to Great Britain and her colonies.

The natural consequence of Dr. Solberg's statement is to conclude that "fully three-quarters of the books published from year to year in Great Britain and her colonies,” which failed to be copyrighted, would be copyrighted if we joined the Copyright Union, and therefore would be sold in the United States without being printed here. Then the number of English books by foreign authors sold here would be multiplied by four. Thus, the Labor Department's estimate of 410 workers would become 1,640 workers displaced every year by not manufacturing in the United States books from the British Empire alone.

The more books in the English language by foreign authors sold to Americans (at cheap prices), the less opportunity for sale of American-written and Americanproduced books.


Certainly the entire printing industry of employers and employees alike should be given credit for knowing as much about it as two or three assistants in the Department of State.

Is it more important“to allay the increasing irritation” of a few foreign authors than to prevent breaking down proper safeguards to the printing industry?

If foreign authors get access to our market without producing their books in this country, the next step naturally will be the complaint of American authors that they are suffering from unfair competition and want the manufacturing requirement removed from their books. Such action would be disastrous to the American printing industry.

For over 100 years the American printing trades workers have set an example of constructive trades-unionism. We have built up standards that need more protection rather than the destruction of the small amount of protection we have at this time in the copyright law.

It is noted throughout the published record of previous hearings that both Dr. Solberg and Dr. McClure, of the State Department, insist that the principal obstacle to our entry into the International Copyright Union has been the stipulation that before an American copyright can be issued the applicant must show that the copyrighted book was produced in the United States.


Thus the issue is clear. Shall we adhere to the copyright convention becauses as Dr. Solberg says, it is “desirable as a diplomatic measure tending to allay the increasing irritation of foreign authors, especially English authors,” or shall we refuse to adhere to the copyright convention until such time as our manufacturing clause is acceptable to other countries, thereby protecting the interests of 175,000 American printing trades workers, and also thereby “tending to allay the increasing irritation” of that large number of American citizens who are compelled year after year to oppose the State Department in this particular “diplomatic measure?

It would seem that it was incumbent upon the State Department to make some intelligent effort to find out what the conditions would be if adherence to the copyright union was accomplished. This the State Department failed to do. On the contrary, the gesture of producing figures through the Department of Labor created the impression that they had made proper investigation while, as a matter of fact, the figures were based on a false premise and were wholly misleading.

The proponents of adherence to the copyright convention (State Department) state frankly,

“Unfortunately, reliable statistics directly answering this inquiry appear to be unobtainable

Nevertheless, there are pertinent facts from which to elicit discussion."

Notwithstanding such a definite statement, they then offer statistics, from which much is assumed but nothing proven. No break-down of exports and imports as to class of books or countries is made. Truly, the supporters of the copyright convention have no reliable figures or facts upon which to base their predictions or wishful thoughts.

[ocr errors]


DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT OF JOINING COPYRIGHT UNION The effect of adhering to the copyright convention was described by the Honorable Clarence C. Dill, United States Senator from the State of Washington, at a committee hearing in May 1934, as follows: "The thing I want to discuss most about this bill, about this whole proposition, is the part of the bill which, in the beginning, provides that all alien authors not domiciled in the United States by virtue of the adherence of the United States to the convention, and so forth, will have their works protected, and then section 2 provides that–from and after the date upon which adherence to said convention of 1908 becomes effective, copyright protection shall be accorded without compliance with any conditions or formalities whatever for works by such alien authors who are nationals of any country which is a member of the International Copyright Union.

“Now, what does this mean? That simply means that they propose by this bill to wipe out 140 years of consistent legislation on the part of the United States in regard to copyright. They must do that, because the Berne Convention forbids any formality as to copyrights."

In the printed record of that committee hearing will be found statements and information submitted by Dr. McClure, of the State Department, containing an opinion by Attorney General C. Cushing, clearly indicating that the above quoted statement from Senator Dill is quite true.

Senator Dill also said, “We have the greatest market for copyrights in the world. I think it is equal, probably, to that of all of the rest of the world. We have a market, not only for copyrights, but we have for patents. We found that the rest of the world was so anxious to have the right of foreigners in their patents protected that they modeled their statutes to meet ours, rather than for us to · repeal ours to meet theirs."

It may well be that after the conclusion of the present world war the American market will be the only one which can afford the luxury of many books protected by copyright laws. It seems decidedly unreasonable to turn that market over to foreign authors who not only know more about what is happening now but who could have the added advantage of printing their works at a fraction of the cost of manufacture in this country and thus not only work a hardship on the American printing trades workers but upon the authors as well.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

Executive Report No. 4 of April 1935, quotes the text of the convention, as of June 2, 1928, article 4, sections (1) and (2) are as follows:

(1) Authors within the jurisdiction of one of the countries of the union shall enjoy for their works, whether unpublished or published for the first time in one of the countries of the union, such rights, in the countries other than the country of origin of the work, as the respective laws now accord or shall hereafter accord to nationals, as well as the rights specially accorded by the present convention.

(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of such rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise are independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the stipulations of the present convention, the extent of the protection, as well as the means of redress guaranteed to the author to safeguard his rights, shall be regulated exclusively according to the legislation of the country where the protection is claimed."

If it is possible to wipe out all of our copyright laws by adhering to this convention, would it not be possible also to describe as a “formality” the imposition of tariff duties on imported books? It would seem exceedingly dangerous to take on vague obligations, the interpretation of which may be determined by other than American courts.


If the cost of printing in foreign countries were such as to exceed the cost of production in the United States, there would be no objection on the part of the foreign nations to the manufacturing clause of our present copyright laws. The fact that the reverse is true indicates quite clearly the reason for wanting to destroy our manufacturing clause. Competitive conditions do have a great bearing on the question of our joining the copyright union.

The condition as regards competition from foreign countries varies only in degree but not in effect. European workers in all except dictatorship countries work 48 hours per week or longer; in Asiatic countries approximately 66 hours,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »