of authors and the continuation of the tradition, which we will continue to protect, of intellectual property rights.

Mr. HUGHES. But, Doctor, in all candor, I hope that you are the Librarian for the next 200 years, but you won't be, and we are talking about policy, what is good policy. Now it may very well be that you can reconcile those issues without too very much difficulty in the public interest, but how about the next Librarian of Congress when these issues come down the pike? We are going to have, with increasing frequency, the problems photographers are having, the problems that the software people have alluded to.

Your major interest, rightfully so, is to make sure that we have and continue to have the best library in the world. Now in most instances, your interests for that and the interests of developing good copyright policy are identical perhaps, but that is not always the case. We see some problems already. We saw it back in 1988 when we modified the law in the Berne Implementation Act. I would assume that gave you much heartburn. In fact, as I understand the history of the issue, it was held up for a number of months while we argued and debated just how to resolve it, and the way we resolved it was to set up a two-tiered system.

So we already have some conflicts that have developed. It has nothing to do with Dr. James Billington and his leadership of the Library of Congress, it has to do with policy, good policy, good copyright policy.

Let me ask you some questions, Ralph. On pages 5 and 6 of your statement you indicated that in moving supervisory authority over the Copyright Office and by eliminating the incentives supporting registration we diminish the responsiveness of depositors to the Library's needs. Can't we cure the regulatory problem by giving the Librarian the authority to promulgate regulations under section 407?

Mr. OMAN. They are promulgated under the authority of the Librarian today, and I suspect that that would continue under the regime you are proposing.

The larger question, I think, is whether or not the Register of Copyrights will be sensitive to the needs of the Library in a balanced way, in a way that promotes the long-term policies that undergird the copyright laws, and I would think that a change in the lines of authority and the giving of an independent authority to make demands under 407 to the Librarian would not necessarily be the most efficient way of handling the issue.

Mr. HUGHES. What I am interested in-and the point is, your suggestion that making the Register a Presidential appointee might somehow lead to a different approach than we currently have. If that is true, doesn't that demonstrate that there is somewhat of a conflict between copyright policy and Library acquisition policy?

Mr. OMAN. Of course, under the current regime a copyright registration deposit satisfies the mandatory deposit, so there is a great deal of overlap there in joint recordkeeping, and we do work together in both areas.

Mr. HUGHES. But doesn't it indicate some conflict? That is my point.

Mr. OMAN. The conflict I see is conflict that is healthy in promoting the underlying purpose of the copyright law. I don't think you would want in the efficient administration of justice a Register of Copyrights who was, as Cindy Daub said yesterday, in the pocket of the copyright industries. The courts would not defer to our certificates, we would not have the independent judgment, we would not be promoting the public interest.

I think having a foot in the Library camp, the user camp, and a foot in the creative community camp is very helpful in promoting the congressional purposes enunciated in the Copyright Act.

Mr. HUGHES. I see the conflict, and let me give you a good example of the kind of conflict that I am concerned about.

Have you read the written statement of the Newsletter Publishers Association, in particular the appendix, which reproduces a letter of yours to Mr. Warren dated January 4 of this year?

Mr. OMAN. I don't recall that specifically, but we have had many conversations with the Newsletter Publishers, and I am familiar with the issues involved.

Mr. HUGHES. I will give you the letter, if counsel can provide that. In the letter to Mr. Warren, you deny his request to use the Copyright Office's group registration procedure for daily newspapers. Mr. Warren publishes daily newsletters and will testify later. Your regulation permits daily newspapers to register all the issues of a newspaper in one month on one application for one fee of $40 when accompanied by a microfilm deposit. That is a very good idea, and I support that. I think that is forward looking and good policy.

But Mr. Warren comes along with his daily newsletters, and you say to him no, and the reason you gave him is the following-and I quote "The Library's interest in acquiring daily newsletters can be fully satisfied by a few purchases and mandatory deposit." The group registration is for voluntary copyright registration under section 408, isn't it?

What you are saying very clearly in the letter, it seems to me, is that because the Library can get what it wants for its purposes, you are going to deny a request to use a copyright registration procedure designed to relieve unnecessary burdens and expenses on the part of copyright owners who are forced to register their works in order to preserve their legal rights. What copyright purpose is served by such a refusal?

Let's be clear about the consequence of that decision. What you are telling Mr. Warren is that if he wants to make sure he can receive statutory damages and attorney's fees for infringement, he has to register every single day each of his 13 newsletters. That is close to $9,000 in registration fees alone. Have I missed something in that?

Mr. OMAN. No. I think you have laid out the issues exactly as they are, Mr. Chairman. We have had long conversations with the Newsletter Publishers. We are, in his case, making available the normal procedures of the law that were established by Congress, the single fee, the single registration. The privilege of group registration is an exception to the general rule that we have allowed in certain instances when it serves the long-term interests of the Library.

We undertake to make the changes even though it costs us more money, and it is more difficult to examine them. There are administrative burdens that result, but we are willing to bear those burdens if there is something in exchange. There was something in exchange for the daily newspapers, because we got them on microfiche copies, they went directly into the collections of the Library of Congress; it was a good deal from the public's point of view.

The newsletters-the Library is not interested. Why make special arrangements for them if we can't make special arrangements across the board? That would be your decision to make if you want us to reorder our procedures. We would be happy to do that. But in this case we decided that there was no good public interest served in making that exception to the normal procedures.

Mr. HUGHES. My only point is that, it is an area where conflict exists, where policy decisions that are of interest to the Library of Congress are influencing a decision for a copyright owner who wants to protect his works against infringement. That is the only point I am making.

Mr. OMAN. I think I should point out that the strongest opposition to changing the procedures in terms of daily newsletters came not from the Library but from the Examining Division of the Copyright Office. They are not serving the interests necessarily of the Library, they are looking at their own work statistics, and their own work flow.

Mr. HUGHES. I understand.

Mr. OMAN. But this is an issue that we can reexamine obviously, and we will be happy to talk to Mr. Warren and others in this regard.

Mr. HUGHES. I have gone well beyond my time.

Does the gentleman from Florida have any more questions?

Mr. MCCOLLUM. No.

Mr. HUGHES. OK. I have a number of questions, but we will submit them to you in writing.

Let me assure you, we look forward to working with you to see if we can't get all the facts out so that as policymakers we can make the very best decisions for all concerned-for the Library of Congress, for copyright owners, users, and for the American public. We want to effect good policy, and we are going to take our time to make sure we understand all the problems, all the nuances, and it will be very helpful if, instead of making statements about the sky is about to fall in, let's get some facts out here and see if we can't examine them. We are willing to look at the facts and see if we can't work with you in developing good policy, OK? Thank you very much.

Mr. OMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILLINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. HUGHES. Our second panel this morning consists of Art Rogers, an artist, and Richard Weisgrau, executive director of the American Society of Media Photographers. Mr. Rogers hails from Point Reyes, CA, and is responsible indirectly for the creation of the sculpture sitting on the table there and directly responsible for the sculpture being here.

I want to thank you, Mr. Weisgrau and also Chuck Ossola, for your efforts, which is, I think, one of the finest "show and tell" programs we have had in some time.

Mr. Weisgrau is intimately involved in copyright issues on behalf of photographers and the day-to-day problems they face in enforcing their rights.

We welcome both of you. You may take your seats at the witness table. We have your testimony, which we have read and, without objection, will be made a part of the record, and we would like you to summarize, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Weisgrau, so we can get right to questions. We have put your statements in the record in full. We have read them, so it would be very helpful if you could summarize.

Why don't we begin with you, Mr. Weisgrau. Welcome. STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEISGRAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MEDIA PHOTOGRAPHERS, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES D. OSSOLA, ESQ., HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. WEISGRAU. Mr. Chairman and committee members, counselors, guests of the committee, my name is Richard Weisgrau. I am the executive director of the American Society of Media Photographers. In some of the printed materials in evidence and before you, you will see the name "Magazine Photographers." We are the same organization, having recently changed our name to keep current with the technology. Generally, our association is known as the ASMP in the trade.

On behalf of our panel-Mr. Ossola, our general counsel; Mr. Art Rogers, an ASMP member; and his counselor, Mr. Donald Prutzman; and Mr. Vincent Striano, the president of ASMP, who came all the way from Washington State to sit in on these hearings and who singlehandedly directed our organization to look into this copyright registration issue 18 months ago I want to thank you. Mr. HUGHES. We thank him for coming, and welcome.

Mr. WEISGRAU. ASMP has 5,000 members. It has 36 chapters across the country; it has members on station in 26 countries; they do editorial, news, advertising, and corporate media photography; you can find them in the farm fields of Kansas today and in the fields of fire of Sarajevo tomorrow. We have placed a copy of our book in front of each position there, "10,000 Eyes," and you may have that with our compliments. It shows the diversity and quality of publication photographers' works.

Copyright is vital to their interest. This bill is critical to their interest. Without copyright, these people are no more than day workers who are highly educated, who spend years training and developing skills. With copyright, they are men and women with an estate, contributing to an information age that benefits the public interest.

I spent 22 years as a working professional and member of the society, 8 years on its board of directors, and now 5 as executive director. I have been in the trenches, and now I have the privilege to coach the people in the trenches. I am going to speak to you about what is going on out there. I am not going to talk to you about what I think happens, I am going to talk to you about what I know happens.

The vast majority of photographers simply do not receive the benefits of the copyright law when they are infringed. It is a good law when everything is working, but when there is an infringement it breaks down for photographers. Dorothy Schrader has said the ordinary person doesn't understand. I agree with her. All the people out there are ordinary people. The vast majority of people don't understand, and there is a lot of infringement on account of it.

I deal with infringement of ASMP members' work on a regular basis. I get the phone calls. After determining that they are bona fide infringements, I ask the question: "Did you register prior to this infringement?" Ninety-nine percent of the time, the answer to that question is no. When I explain the principle of actual damages and profits, I quickly find that a photographer is not in a position to cover the attorney's fees and costs to pursue a litigation to enforce his or her rights. The fact is that they withdraw from the matter usually feeling quite taken and very exposed in the future.

Photographers can't afford to pursue cases on principle alone; they can't get attorneys to take these type of cases on contingency; they simply can't function with the present registration requirement in enforcing their rights.

Sometimes I contact infringers on their behalf and attempt to arrange a payment. I have actually been told: "Sue me; you will never recover enough money to make it worth your while." I have been told that by infringers. Photographers almost never pursue infringements. The infringers go unpunished; the copyright owner loses, and the infringer wins. The registration requirement is becoming a shield for infringers.

We have filed supporting histories, and will continue to do that while the record is open, which document our position. When a photographer does pursue, as in the case of Mr. Rogers, he is in for big trouble, and Mr. Rogers will explain that. He took that photograph which gave birth to that statue. The birth of that statue then led to what I consider to be a miscarriage of justice.

The new technologies-if you read the wonderful book that the OTA made in 1985 about the effects of new technologies on the copyright system, you quickly come to understand that the rate of infringement in this country will increase. These new technologies have caused great stress already on photographers.

In the packets of information we have placed before you, we have placed an ad that we cut from a mail order catalog for "The RipOff Artist." "Rip-Off Artist Learns to Read." "Lift a photo, logo, or drawing, and transfer it to a report, manual, or article." It's like an invitation to steal. You are right, the public doesn't understand, but this is how they are advertised to.

This is a photograph of Niblett, the dog, with his pile of hotdogs, also in your packet, taken by our member, Preston Lyon. This is a photocopy of a newspaper ad where they scanned his photograph identically except for his credit line they did leave his name out of it and ran this. When this was discovered, Mr. Lyon came to us and asked what he should do. He had no registration prior to infringement. The actual damages might be the market value of a license to reproduce that image. That might be as much as $2,000. Mr. Lyon cannot hire an attorney and pursue an infringer with a