Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Graphic Artists Guild and its representative Don Martin, to testify before your subcommittee on the "works made for hire" issue last September 20. We were honored to participate in this important forum. The members of the Guild were encouraged by the close attention paid by you and Sen. Hatch to the statements of the creator's panel. We urge you to consider Sen. Hatch's suggestion to schedule additional hearings on work-for-hire abuses, and we look forward to offering testimony for the record at that time. Enclosed is an additional statement to supplement our testimony at the September 20 hearing. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Barish Paul Basista Executive Director Statement Regarding S. 1253, A Bill To Amend The Copyright Law Before the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks Submitted by Paul Basista, Executive Director, Graphic Artists Guild, Inc. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Graphic Artists Guild strongly supports S. 1253, a bill to amend the copyright law regarding work made for hire. Chronic and consistent abuses of the "work made for hire" provisions of copyright law have seriously disturbed the equilibrium between creators and distributors of copyrightable works which Congress intended to achieve in the Copyright Act of 1976. The Graphic Artists Guild, which has supported efforts to correct work-for-hire imbalances through the last three sessions of Congress, is a national advocacy organization representing professional illustrators, graphic designers, computer artists and other creators. Their work is regularly reproduced in books, magazines, advertisements, newspapers, brochures, letterheads, record covers, cereal boxes, linens, table cloths and almost anything else that visually communicates ideas. Indeed, without their creative efforts, virtually every visual aspect of our man made environment would be blank. The breadth and value of their contributions, especially to the information, media, and entertainment industries are incalculable. The copyright laws are designed to stimulate the production of creative works by recognizing from the outset that freelance creators are the authors of a work. When properly operative, the interests of creators, distributors and the public are served. The only exception to 1 U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Section 8, Subsection 8 states: To promote the progress of science and useful arts by - 3 the concept that creators are the true authors of their work is "work made for hire," which transfers authorship and all copyright rights to the commissioning party2. A stumbling block (imposed by Congress) to the free flow of ideas, work for hire is a disincentive for independent creators to create. The right to continuing payment for continuing use is a fundamental right recognized throughout the information industries. Actors, directors, screenwriters, composers, radio performers, jingle writers, recording artists and others enjoy the fruits of their labors on a continuing basis, they are all rewarded for their work the more often it is used. Yet freelance creators forced to accept work for hire are deprived of this basic right. Our opponents on this issue would have you believe that their very survival as purveyors of copyrightable material depends upon securing work-for-hire agreements. This is patently untrue. The truth is they desire work for hire merely because it simplifies their business administration; they wish to avoid paying creators for the additional uses of their work. This is meager justification for allowing the continuation of extortive abuses that dominate the market. Current practices with respect to work for hire are so skewed against creators that immediate Congressional action is needed to achieve the balance intended by the 1976 Copyright Act. Among these abuses are work-for-hire agreements presented after substantial time, effort 2 17 U.S.C. Section 101 (definition of work made for hire), referred to here as work for hire. 4 and expense have been invested in a job; work-for-hire language presented on the back of checks for work completed; blanket work-forhire agreements which affect all future (and as yet unspecified) works; and when independent creators are arbitrarily and capriciously considered employees only for copyright purposes in the absence of any written agreement. Sen. Thad Cochran's introduction of S. 1253 (The Artist's Bill of Rights), is an important first step towards that end, although much more needs to be done. S. 1253 WILL CLARIFY THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF CONGRESS Sen. Cochran's "Artists Bill of Rights" does not propose to rewrite the law, it will merely clarify specific provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 (known as "The Creator's Act), and restore it to what Congress originally intended. S. 1253 Will Clarify the Meaning of Employee In the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress intended to confine work for hire to two situations. First, to formal, salaried employees who, in exchange for a steady income and the basic protections afforded even the most unskilled workers, produce works for their employers. And second, to independent freelancers commissioned to execute a work only |