Lapas attēli

age is $395.27 less than in 1930, not considering that those regularly employed have voluntarily contributed 1 day each week for the direct benefit of the unemployed members.

The experience of the International Typographical Union is no doubt similar to the experiences of the other printing trades unions, therefore the foregoing statistical data will give you an actual, unbiased, and entirely competent description of the printing industry, its employment problems, and the fundamental basis upon which we honestly and sincerely oppose the International Copyright Convention as now proposed.

Respectfully submitted.

JOHN B. HAGGERTY, President.

WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, Secretary-Treasurer.

Legislative Representative.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate saying a few words, additionl, concerning a pamphlet numbered 99, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session; entitled "The Printing Industry and the Proposed Copyright Convention," and, further designated to be "Memoranda Regarding Probable Effects on the Printing Industry of Adoption of the Copyright Convention." The pamphlet was presented by Senator Hayden, July 20, legislative day, July 19, 1939, and ordered to be printed. We desire to point out that this is an anonymous document. It seems very unusual that such a document would be dignified by being printed at public expense. It is most unusual that anyone would give any consideration whatever to an anonymous document purporting to contain "expert" information. value of "expert" testimony is dependent upon the qualifications of the expert testifying.


Should the committee give serious consideration to this anonymous document, because Senator Hayden presented it, we offer first, an emphatic objection to that portion of the anonymous document found on pages 8 and 9 under the subheading "2, Attitude of Labor," and, second; to refute further statements contained therein when the authorship of the document is disclosed. We feel no further reply needed at this time.

There was a suggestion made during these hearings that the bilateral treaty with Great Britain be amended to eliminate the manufacturing clause. This suggestion should be examined in the light of the selfish self-interest of the organization whose representative suggested it. If, in order to discourage ratification of the copyright treaty we are shunted off on another avenue winding up at the same dead end of elimination of the present manufacturing provisions, we will refuse to take the ride willingly.

American labor has made many sacrifices to support the democracy of England. We do not believe that the English Government or anyone authorized to speak for it would, at this time, jeopardize the continued support of the American labor movement by seeking, through an amended treaty, to transfer the jobs of thousands of American printing trades workers to England or other foreign countries. Organized labor is an effective bulwark against totalitarianism. The first act of a dictator is to abolish free trade unions. Democracy is furthered and protected by labor unions. Therefore, our democratic processes should protect labor standards raised to the highest level of any country on earth.

We suggest that the committee have in mind that the figures which we have quoted as being the potential job opportunities which may, through the elimination of the present protective provisions of the manufacturing section of the Copyright Act, be transferred to workers in foreign countries were presented to your committee more than 2 years ago and have never been challenged by any responsible governmental or other source.

We thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy and patience during these hearings.

Added statement of Woodruff Randolph, secretary-treasurer, International Allied Printing Trades Association, authoritatively speaking for the International Typographical Union, the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, the International Electrotypers Union, the International Photo-Engravers Union, and the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders.


In view of the questions that Mr. Randolph raised in regard to the manufac turing clause being assumed to be a formality of copyright protection, the Committee on the Study of Copyright wishes to make the following statement:

That whereas, in the present copyright law of the United States, the manufacturing clause is clearly a formality required of all works in the English language, because ultimately copyright is dependent upon its observance, in the draft of the copyright bill (S. 3043) which was introduced into Congress on January & 1940, by Senator Elbert D. Thomas, the manufacturing clause is no longer a formality for authors not citizens or residents of the United States, because their copyright is not there made dependent upon manufacture by American labor. Instead of being made a condition of copyright, the manufacturing provision in S. 3043 is merely a provision limiting and regulating the distribution in the United States of copies manufactured abroad.

In Le Droit d'Auteur, July 1940, following the first article of that issue which explains the provisions of S. 3043, there is a letter from Dr. Mentha, Secretary of the Berne Union, in which he accepts the above interpretation of the manufacturing clause of the said bill.

It is the belief of the Committee for the Study of Copyright that the modified manufacturing clause affords, on the whole and in the long run, fuller protection to American labor than the provision of the existing law.

WALDO G. LELAND. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is there any other statement that anyone else wishes to make at this time?

Mr. W. G. LELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I file a supplemental statement on behalf of Mr. Ladas? It is not a controversial matter. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Very well.

(The following additional statement was submitted on behalf of Dr. Stephen P. Ladas:)


Mr. CHAIRMAN: I ask permission to offer for the record a letter addressed to you by Mr. Stephen P. Ladas, who testified before the committee on Monday, April 14. I should like to point out that the statements in this letter seem to clarify the question in dispute between Mr. Ladas and the representative of the motion-picture industry with respect to formalities required under Italian law. It appears, as Mr. Ladas points out, that the formalities now required under Italian law for the copyright of American works are required because the copyright relations between the two countries are under the regime of Presidential proclamation and not under the regime of the Convention of Bern. As Mr. Ladas states in his letter, if the relations were governed by the Convention of Bern, the formalities referred to would not be required.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: 1. In connection with the hearing before your sub-committee on the International Copyright Convention, I fully realize that the subcommittee and the Senate are now fully informed on the subject and they will presumably consider the matter on the basis of broad considerations and not with regard to discussion on specific matters that have been indulged in at the hearings. However, in view of my inability to be at Washington tomorrow, I beg your permission to make two points in connection with the discussion of yesterday.

2. I do not think it has been made clear that the position of American copyright owners at the present time under the regime of Presidential proclamations presents the following important aspect. At the present time, American copyright owners are entitled in proclaimed countries to the protection granted to nationals of these countries under their law. This means, particularly, two things:

(1) American nationals must comply with any formalities imposed by domestic law in proclaimed countries as their own nationals.

Haiti, Spain, and Siam require compliance with local formalities as a condition to acquisition of copyright (deposit and registration).

Bulgaria and Greece require notice in respect of some works.

France requires deposit as a condition to instituting infringement proceedings. Italy requires recordal of assignments.

All these formalities are done away with under the convention and persons claiming the benefit of the convention are not required to comply with any of these formalities.

(2) American nationals are limited to the protection of the national law in the proclaimed countries and cannot claim the broader protection of the convention. To mention only one example.

3. The right of translation is not fully protected under the law of several countries. In Bulgaria, this right is protected for 10 years subject to two conditions: That the right of translation be explicitly reserved on the first page or in the preface of the work and that an authorized translation in the Bulgarian language appears within 5 years from publication of the original work. In Greece and Jugoslavia also the right of translation is protected for 10 years only. In the Netherlands, Siam, and Japan the right of translation is protected for the full term of copyright provided a translation in the Dutch, Siamese, or Japanese language is published within 10 years from publication of the original work. If no such authorized translation appears, the right of translation lapses.

4. While the above concerns limitations of the translation rights under the domestic law, similar limitations under such law exist on other rights included in the copyright, such as performing rights, rights of mechanical reproduction, rights in articles of newspapers and periodicals, etc.

5. In other words, the law of various countries has not kept pace with the progress made by the stipulations of the International Convention.

6. It follows that by acceding to the convention, we would not only be placing in the hands of our State Department an instrument for the protection of rights of American copyright owners but we would also obtain for our nationals a far broader protection in many respects than that afforded at the present time by the law of the countries which have undertaken to give us reciprocal national protection under the Presidential proclamations.

7. I thought that your subcommittee might wish to have these points before them.




Senator THOMAS of Utah. Dr. McClure, we have already put in the record that you will complete your statement and hand it in to the reporter, since you were not able to go on this morning. Dr. MCCLURE. I thank you very much, sir.


The necessity for a universal, or as nearly as possible universal, international copyright law to function as a safeguard and regulator of international cultural relations has been set forth by various speakers who preceded me at the present hearing. They have laid before the committee arguments which prove their case. The development of cultural relations, affirmative policies in regard to which form important parts of the general policy of the United States for dealing with external relations in this time of unprecedented crisis, cannot safely be allowed to lack any instrument that will assist and stimulate.

We need the pending copyright convention now, because, in addition to all the other reasons in its favor, we need now the fullest possible attainments in mutual understanding through the exchange of thought between peoples. We need the basis that this convention can provide for us in order that we may most wisely and effectually build up not only international cultural relations in general but particularly inter-American cultural relations. The governments of geographically something like half of the land area of the Western Hemisphere are already parties to this pending instrument. Beginning in the extreme north, Greenland is presumably a party by virtue of the participation of Denmark. Canada and Newfoundland are parties in their own names and in their own right. Going to the extreme south, the Falkland Islands are a party. In the center of the hemisphere, Brazil and the three Guianas enjoy its privileges and are obligated by its provisions. In the Caribbean region Haiti and the numerous British, French, and Netherland possessions are and long have been members. No one can possibly maintain that it is a convention to which our hemisphere is in any sense a stranger. When we ourselves adhere to it we will be following rather than leading our American neighbors. But the adherence of the United States would make it preponderantly the international copyright law of the American countries and could hardly fail to give great impetus to the movement to make it universal in the Americas, while retaining the immense advantage of being the principal convention for governing copyright relations of and with the rest of the world. This is point one in favor of adherence now.

An interesting illustration of what is being done to cultivate inter-American cultural relations was noted in the press a few days ago, in the statement that the President had asked Mr. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., who is about to start upon a comprehensive tour of American republics, to ascertain the views and suggestions of their governments and peoples with respect to "improving the role of the theatrical arts as a possible vehicle for bringing about improved inter-American understanding." It was added that Mr. Fairbanks would attempt to find out how the United States Government and the motion-picture industry of this country could cooperate in making motion pictures "a more effective instrument for conveying comprehensive views of life, not only in the United States, but in the republics of South and Central America."

It is unquestionably the particular desire of the peoples of the Americas to become better acquainted with one another through a better acquaintance with one another's literature, music, and art. It is, as stated, the particular aim of the United States at this time, in carrying out its inter-American policy, to encourage by all the measures at its disposal, the improvement of this approach to mutual understanding. We shall be impeded in our efforts if the works of the authors, composers, and artists of the several countries is not correctly presented and interpreted. It can best be presented and interpreted if its distribution is subject to the control of its creators. Such control is, moreover, as the Constitution of the United States clearly indicates, well calculated "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." To secure to such creators "the exclusive right to their respective writings" is, accordingly, one of the powers expressly conferred upon the Congress by the fundamental law of the United States. The purpose, emphatically, is the public purpose of stimulating culture for the public benefit. In order better to carry out the purpose of our fundamental law of copyright with respect to relations with other countries, the pending convention was laid before you. If we are to develop international cultural relations with protection against misrepresentation on the one hand and deprivation of the author of his rights on the other, we must have adequate international cultural protection. We know that without it perversions occur. We have never had adequate procedure governing the distribution of literary, musical, and artistic works across national boundary lines. The convention now before you furnishes the best basis for such protection that has so far been devised. For the protection of the integrity of our cultural relations, therefore, and as the best foundation upon which we can build and develop our cultural relations policy, the Department of State asks the consent of the Senate to adherence on the part of the United States to this convention now.

The reason is one pertaining to the present emergency, which makes urgent the orderly development of cultural relations with other nations, particularly those of the Western Hemisphere, while recognizing the universal character of culture.



Secondly, I would recapitulate the need for immediate acceptance of the copyright convention because the present emergency demands the strengthening of This convention is an excellent example of how order can succeed disorder in a particular field. To replace chaos with law, even in a limited field, is a good thing to do at any time. It is a vital thing to do in time of war, because it points the way of reciprocal agreement as opposed to armed force. It foreshadows and prepares the way for reconstruction.

When this war has burned itself out and we prepare for a regime of rebuilding, we shall be glad if this particular item in the new structure of law has been accomplished in advance.

We in the United States are not cynics. We do not tolerate such an advocacy as that of "getting" judges as a substitute for adequacy of law. We know that such practice blasts out the basic foundation of democracy. We seek to improve law because we believe in democracy; in a government of law and not of men.


The reason for the immediate adherence by the United States to the pending copyright convention is one of public policy in the interest of all of the people. It is of importance also, and in different ways to various special interests. However inferior these special interests are as compared with the interest of the general public, it must never be forgotten that special interests are the interests of people, portions of the general public, and as such are worthy of the most careful consideration. Some of these special interests, in connection with the treaty, may now be mentioned.

(1) First, it is appropriate to refer to education. Leading educators have from time to time recognized the importance of the copyright convention and have advocated adherence to it. They realize its importance for the promotion of "the progress of science and useful arts."

[ocr errors]

(2) Similarly, the librarians' national organization has consistently and persistently advocated it.

(3) The creators of literary and artistic works, through their several national organizations, have generally supported and urged that the United States become a party. Individual authors, artists, and composers have, in large numbers, supported it, as have associations and companies owning or controlling copyrights. Their advocacy is that of enlightened self-interest.

(4) The convention is manifestly in the larger interest of motion-picture producers, because they have copyrights to protect all over the world. They, beyond any other special interest, perhaps, need the most far-reaching instrument because of the far-flung character of their business.

(5) Possibly even more far-flung, and certainly much more readily copied without consent are the copyright scenarios and other material of the broadcasters. It may well be that in the near future they, beyond any other special interest in the United States, will need the protection of the convention or of more comprehensive and stringent international law, if they are to control the use of the copyrighted works which they possess.

(6) The publishers, whether of books or periodicals, have also a large stake in the adoption and energetic operation of the convention. Their products more and more circulate in numerous other countries. Piracy of them is on the increase. Protection by means of the pending convention becomes more urgent with each passing year.

(7) The publishers' interest is not far removed from the interest of the printing trade unions. An excellent example of all too little noted dangers to American labor arising out of the lack of copyright protection for foreigners occurred last year when a large Chicago publishing house brought out, without consent of the British copyright holder, what was essentially a photographic reproduction of a British produced English dictionary. It was not regarded by its London publishers as a book that would circulate in the United States and, since to maintain copyright here would, by virtue of the manufacturing clause of the national copyright law, entail resetting and reprinting here, it was not copyrighted in this country. Such a dictionary, because of numerous differences between British and American uage, is not suited for American schools and colleges or otherwise; yet it was brought out with little comparative expense and many thousands of American students were induced to buy this almost useless product. The standard

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »