obvious reason that if incentive is removed or materially lessened a stagnation of creative effort is the inevitable consequence. The end result is that the public is deprived of a continuing flow of those works that contribute to its culture, art, education, and entertainment. There are times-and I say this as a personal reaction-when one feels that too much is hoped for, and too much attempted, in the framing of a statute which can be sensibly applicable, and fair in its operation and effect, to all those segments of our society and of our complex commercial life, who, on the one hand, create a variety of classes of works, and who, on the other hand, desire in one degree or another to make use of the works thus created, either with or without the payment of compensation therefor. Yet, after some 10 years of prodigious effort and I think we all will subscribe to the fact that it has been that Mr. Kaminstein, Mr. Cary, Mr. Goldman, Miss Ringer, and their associates, have brought forth a bill which, to an amazing degree, accomplishes these hoped-for objectives.

It is significant in this connection that a large majority of the written statements express general approval of the bill as drafted, and that criticism and suggestion have been directed to specifics rather than to the broad approach taken. This is attributable in large measure, I believe, to the spirit of compromise, between and among conflicting interests and I might say between the Copyright Office and the various conflicting interests that has prevailed throughout the revision effort. In several areas longstanding and deep-seated convictions have given way to compromise, out of a common desire and a recognized need for a workable new law.

There is every reason to believe that the same spirit will manifest itself in the drafting of such further revisions and amendments as these hearings will have convinced your committee are necessary or desir able.

I express my appreciation and that of my company for the privilege of presenting this statement.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Olin, for your statement. We appreciate your giving us the background of the company you represent, also. I personally am grateful for your statement when you say that you will refrain from imposing on the time of the committee by retracing well-covered ground.

I am also grateful to you for picking up, I think, what is becoming a theme here, and that is, appreciation for the work that has been done by the Register and his people, and the general expressions of satisfaction with the bill, with objections to specifics. I think the spirit of compromise that has been evidenced in the writing of the bill is continuing at the present time.

Mr. Poff, have you any questions?

Mr. PoFF. I underscore, Mr. Chairman, what you have just said, and pay tribute to the witness for the broadminded tone that his statement projects.

Mr. OLIN. Thank you.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Tenzer?

Mr. TENZER. I join in the sentiments expressed, but I would like to ask the witness whether Walt Disney Productions is a public corpora

tion.

Mr. OLIN. Yes, it is.

Mr. TENZER. How many employees do you have?

Mr. OLIN. At the studio we have averaging in the area of 1,700 to 1,800, depending upon the activity in film production. At the Disneyland Park we have around 2,500 in the summertime and 750 in the winter months. We have employees in New York City, quite a number, 40, 50, or 60, in distribution, artwork, merchandising. We have employees over the world, associates over the world.

Mr. TENZER. Since it is a public corporation, would you place in the record the annual dollar volume or your gross income?

Mr. OLIN. By recollection, last year it was in the area of $86 million, and this year it will approach $100 million.

Mr. TENZER. What percentage of that might be attributed to works produced by Walt Disney as distinguished from the works of other artists and creators of material whose works you may acquire permismission to use?

Mr. OLIN. Without wanting to be facetious, in one respect everything produced is produced by Walt Disney, by his inspiration, his drive, and his capacity to get other people to do the things he conceives. As a percentage, I couldn't answer that question, but in the nature of things, a corporation obviously has to be the producer of the things that are actually the work of individuals. I hope I have not departed from your question.

Mr. TENZER. Not at all, except I am referring to your statement on page 5. I was not referring to production by employees within the organization. I am referring to the statement on page 5 where you say that you are both a creator and a user of creative works. I was trying to find out the extent to which you engage in compensating others for the privilege of using their literary, musical, and artistic

works.

Mr. OLIN. We are constantly buying rights in literary properties. We sometimes synchronize or get licenses to synchronize music in films. We sometimes buy music. But most of it is created by persons working on a salary basis who receive the salary and in time participate in the revenues from the performances and uses of that music.

The artwork is done by individuals, and it would be difficult to say in the case of any one picture or any one comic strip who or how many persons worked on it.

Mr. TENZER. I was trying to find out if there is some relationship to the total volume of your contracted work, so that we may be able to properly evaluate your position against the free use of copyrighted material. I wanted to get an idea of how extensive your use of copyrighted material by others actually was.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLIN. I feel I haven't answered your question.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have just one question of the witness.

Do you care to comment upon the duration of copyright as provided

in this bill?

Mr. OLIN. We are in favor of it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You are in favor of the extension?

Mr. OLIN. Yes, sir; for these two reasons: we like it ourselves, and we also like to know that when the time comes that we want to acquire rights, the protection exists. Other witnesses have stated in their statements that the desire, particularly of the motion picture producer,

is to have exclusive rights. It is no satisfaction to make a picture based on something that anybody else can make. The longer it is protected, the more satisfied we are.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you.

Mr. ST. ONGE. One last question, Mr. Olin.

Has Walt Disney Corp. started any lawsuits against commercial CATV?

Mr. OLIN. No.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. OLIN. Thank you.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Our next witness will be Mr. Burkhardt, accompanied by Mr. Richman.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK BURKHARDT, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, ACCOMPANIED BY MARTIN F. RICHMAN

Mr. BURKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of saving the committee's time, I have prepared a brief summary of my main statement, but with your consent I would like to have the whole statement inserted in the record.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Without objection, the statement may be inserted in the record.

Mr. BURKHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Frederick Burkhardt, and I am president of the American Council of Learned Societies. Mr. Richman has been counsel to the ACLS in connection with our statement regarding the copyright legislation.

I might begin by saying a few words about the American Council of Learned Societies. It is a federation of 31 national professional scholarly organizations, mainly in the humanities, some of them in the social sciences. Most of the members are both scholars and teachers, and naturally have a very deep interest in the copyright legislation now being proposed.

I might say to start with that the ACLS feels that the legislation now being proposed is on the whole excellent, and I join with the other witnesses today in commending the Register of Copyright and his staff for doing a remarkably good, clear, fair job in a tremendously complicated situation.

We will have a number of suggestions for revisions to make, but on the whole we feel the present draft is an excellent piece of work. The ACLS board of directors appointed a committee, whose names you will find listed on page 2 of the longer statement. The committee chairman was Walter Muir Whitehill, director of the Boston Athenaeum, and, as you see, is composed of a number of distinguished scholars and librarians, producers of books, and users of books.

This committee, with the help of Mr. Richman, of Root, Barrett, Cohen, Knapp & Smith, have produced this statement about the scholarly aspects of this legislation. We have not commented on every section of the bill, but only on those that we feel affect scholars and their work.

On pages 2 to 7 you will find a discussion of the problem of the duration of copyright. On this matter, the committee felt rather reluctant about the extension of the time, because scholars have such

a great interest in access and in the free flow of ideas, and the products of the mind, that anything that tends to restrict the free use goes somewhat against the grain.

Nevertheless, on consideration of all the factors involved we have decided to support the basic change to a system of copyright based on the life of the author plus 50 years. We think this should be supported because it is accompanied by the elimination of the theoretically perpetual duration of common law copyright in unpublished writings. It is a system that scholars can work with; that is, a system based on the life of the author is a practical one for scholars to use.

Perhaps just as important as any of the other reasons is the fact that it will help to promote international uniformity of copyright protection for published works. The British system has, I believe, exactly this same length of time.

On unpublished writings, which we discuss on pages 7 to 12: this is the most important single gain for scholarship in the revision bill. The provision setting a terminal date upon the copyright in unpublished writings will eliminate the great practical difficulties involved in attempting, long after the death of a writer, to ascertain the persons from whom permission to publish should be sought.

I believe you heard the testimony of Mr. Boyd, on the problems of historians, and the problems he had in connection with the work on Thomas Jefferson. This is duplicated time and again by scholars using letters and materials that they find in archives. To attempt to establish and get the permission of the descendants, even to find out sometimes who they are, is just completely impractical for a scholar. And a conscientious scholar always tries, of course, to have his permissions and his rights well established. So this change will be an enormously beneficial one for scholars.

We would, however, like to change the bill to limit the period of copyright protection in unpublished writings to 25 years after death of the writer unless they are published within that period, in which case the normal period of 50 years after death would apply.

This change is proposed primarily because of the growing interest in scholarship on reasonably current historical and literary topics, and because where longer protection of privacy is desired, it can be achieved by agreement upon depositing manuscripts in a library.

The recent report of the papers of Mr. Adlai Stevenson being given to Princeton is an instance of the owners of the rights deciding what length of time papers may be kept from the public in the interest of privacy. Any reasonable regard for privacy, I think, can be maintained under a 25-year restriction.

Similarly, the ACLS recommends shortening the minimum period for protection of existing unpublished writings from the 23 years proposed in the bill to 10 years. The ACLS committee believes the shorter period would be adequate to protect existing interests in manuscript materials.

On the doctrine of fair use, which we discuss on pages 12 to 15, the new statutory recognition of the doctrine of fair use is approved, but ACLS would give it more practical implementation (a) by setting forth general criteria of fair use to help scholars understand and apply. the limits of the doctrine in their work; and (b) by allowing the courts discretion to withhold mandatory statutory damages in cases involving a bona fide fair use defense.

On the first point, I might say that we agree with Mr. Dubin that trying to set forth every kind and condition of the examples of the fair use is, we believe, hopeless, but we do think that a conscientious scholar trying to establish what fair use is would be helped if some general criteria were set up. In fact, we find that the criteria that were mentioned in an earlier version of the bill could very well be used and would be helpful to a man in deciding whether, indeed, he was within the law or not.

To state examples or to state minimum and maximum lengths of quotation we believe is impossible, but setting general criteria and then leaving it to the courts for statutory interpretation is, we think, the best solution.

On pages 15 to 19 we discuss photocopying by libraries. Since scholars are dependent on the collections of libraries for access to almost all their source materials, and ought to have available modern tools to facilitate research work, the ACLS considers the omission from the bill of any provision on photocopying by libraries to be a disservice to scholars.

The ACLS committee concludes that a principled compromise between the needs of scholarship in using copyrighted works on the one hand, and the legitimate interests of authors and publishers in protecting the market for them on the other, may be found by distinguishing two aspects of photocopying.

Thus, ACLS would not have the copyright law authorize photocopying of an entire copyrighted book without the consent of the copyright owner, but recommends that the statute authorize photocopying of extracts at the request of library patrons. The statement sets forth a proposed statutory provision containing appropriate safeguards on pages 18 and 19.

We didn't discuss the implications of electronic and computer information retrieval and storage systems on this problem, but I might say that it seemed to us that a system of controls, royalty charges, and so forth could easily be set up on such a centralized electronic computer system.

But in our statement we were talking largely, and almost exclusively, about the use of books and copyright materials in a library collection.

Our fourth major point is on the notice of copyright, and there we support the bill's retention of a requirement for notice of copyright on published copies, because of the important uses which the copyright notice serves in the research process of scholars and the selection and cataloging processes of libraries by giving an indication of the timeliness of the contents of a work.

5. On the manufacturing clause, pages 20 to 24: The scholarly community favors the removal of all unnecessary restrictions on the free flow of ideas; thus, to the extent that complete or partial manufacture abroad would enable more books to be published and made available at reasonable prices, the removal or easing of inhibitions in the copyright law on such manufacture is desirable.

ACLS would, therefore, favor total elimination of the manufacturing clause from the copyright law. If this goal cannot be achieved, ACLS supports the various changes easing the strictures of the manufacturing clause that are proposed in the revision bill.