ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS, Hon. RON DE LUGO, Longworth House Office Building, DEAR RON: Enclosed is a very distressing letter from my former publishers. I am now with Photo Editors who have just published my book about Pablo Casals, which is already a tremendous success and will make its debut in Washington most officially in February. I hate to bother you with this long epistle but in order to understand our dilemma, you have to have the whole story. Also you are the only one whose fights I respect and who has been immensely successful for our islands. I am alone, but nevertheless I join the crowd of creative photographers in the states. Please give this dangerous situation your thought. Imagine for instance, my most recent work "Pablo Casals" would be unprotected by copyright! Enclosed also some proof of my latest efforts. I have also been on NBC for a half hour with the Virgin Islands photographs as a fitting background to the interview. This was in New Orleans. Then Channel 2 in San Juan repeated a similar effort always with my accent on the Virgin Islands. My latest effort will be quite visible soon in many magazines showing the Governor at Caneel Bay. This is a consigned ad of photography and an extensive caption. My activities are many and include the beautiful creative painting which my daughter is doing. About this I will write to you at a later date. I would greatly appreciate your interest regarding the letter from Viking Press to me and would you send me a copy of your letter expressing your opinion of the matter that photographers have to be protected as far as the ownership of their work is concerned. I am certain that you are fully aware to whom this letter has to be sent. Thank you for all you can do in this important matter. I shall be most grateful to you if you can be instrumental in bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion. With all good wishes, Cordially yours, FRITZ HENLE, Member of the ASMP. THE VIKING PRESS INC PUBLISHERS, DEAR FRIEND: As your publishers, we at Viking feel you should be informed about a situation with respect to copyright that seriously affects each of us, and we are asking for your assistance in what promises to be a difficult legislative struggle. Although the Congress has considered revision of the Copyright Law for the past ten years without taking final action, everything now seems to point to a resolution in either this session of Congress or the next, the results of which will be with us for a long time. (The present Copyright Law dates to 1909.) A sound Copyright Law as the foundation of independent writing and pubishing; it is essential to your livelihood and to ours. The entire library community and much of the educational community are, through their various professional associations, seeking sweeping exemptions from copyright. Libraries want no effective curbs on systematic photocopying, and educators seek a total exemption for copying done for "non-profit educational purposes." We had hoped that these institutions would adopt a more moderate stance but found otherwise when a House Judiciary subcommittee began hearings last month. One of the Congressmen on that committee reported that he had received almost 400 letters from libraries and educators supporting their position, even as the hearings were just getting under way, and that his colleagues could report similar experience. The members are receiving little or no mail from authors or anyone else on the other side of the issue. We are not against the use of copying equipment to broaden access to knowledge. We do believe that systematic copying and distribution by institutions is against the best interests of writers, publishers, and, in the long run, readers. The elimination of all curbs on institutional copying will seriously affect your rights as authors. The Association of American Publishers, the Authors League, and other organizations are doing everything they can. But it is vital that Congress hear from you. Enclosed is a list of members of the House Judiciary subcommittee conducting the hearings, as well as a list of members of the full Judiciary Committee, to whom they will report. I urge you to write the members of the subcommittee immediately, and send a copy of the letter to your own Congressman and your Senators, and a copy, if possible, to me. I'm sure you realize the importance of your action. Sincerely yours, THOMAS H. GUINZBURG, President. LAW OFFICES OF Hon. HERBERT FUCHS, WEISMAN, CELLER, SPETT, MODLIN & WERTHEIMER, Counsel, House Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR HERB: Enclosed for your consideration is the proposed amendment to H.R. 2223 to place jukebox royalty rates under review and adjustment authority of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal. For the purpose of the amendment, a brief explanation is appended. You will note that the explanation assumes that the full Senate Judiciary Committee will approve action earlier taken by the Senate Copyright Subcommittee which reinstated this jurisdiction in the Tribunal. If there is further information you may require, please call upon me. Sincerely, Enclosure. BENJAMIN L. ZELENKO. AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2223 (COPYRIGHT REVISION) TO PLACE JUKEBOX ROYALTY RATES UNDER REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT BY THE COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL Amend H.R. 2223 as follows: On page 58 line 33 and on page 59, line 14, delete the phrase "and 115” and insert in lieu thereof, ", 115 and 116”. Explanation: The purpose of the amendment is to confer authority on the Copyright Royalty Tribunal to review and adjust jukebox royalty rates periodically. The bill as drafted authorizes the Tribunal to undertake such review and adjustment of rates with respect to cable television systems (sec. 111) and mechanical royalties for phono-records (sec. 115). The amendment reflects the action taken by the Senate Copyright Subcommittee and by the Senate Judiciary Committee. LAW OFFICES OF WEISMAN, CELLER, SPETT, MODLIN & WERTHEIMER, Hon. HERBERT FUCHS, DEAR HERB: Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter dated November 3 to the Register of Copyrights from Bernard Korman of ASCAP. The letter concerns a question put to the Register by Chairman Kastenmeier asking whether there was ever a "double payment" as a result of ASCAP licensing. Sincerely, Enclosure. BENJAMIN L. ZELENKO. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, Hon. BARBARA A. RINGER, as to whether there is ever a double payment as a result of ASCAP licensing both the owner of a ballroom or similar establishment and the musicians who perform at such a place. There is never a double payment because ASCAP does not license musicians who perform at ballrooms, restaurants, night clubs or similar establishments. As I mentioned to you I have written to Chairman Kastenmeier twice concerning the ballroom amendment and prefer not to burden the committee with another letter. Instead, I would appreciate it if you could supplement your testimony by reference to this letter. So that you may have the full background, I am enclosing copies of my letters to Chairman Kastenmeier dated August 6, and October 30, 1975. Sincerely, BERNARD KORMAN. ADVERTISING TYPOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., Hon. ROBERT KASTEN MEIER, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I did not have an opportunity at the July 17th hearing on the above bill to respond to your question as to whether all of the "opponent" witnesses on copyright for type face designs were satisfied with the bill as written. Our position is as follows: (1) We are satisfied with the provisions of Title I as written because of our belief that these provisions continue existing law which does not protect type face designs. (2) We do not favor any expansion of the coverage of Title II because of our belief that such coverage presently extends only to relatively few truly unusual designs for type face and that such coverage is all that should be afforded. (3) We do however, see two amendments to Title II. (a) A compulsory universal licensing provision with reasonable ratesthe need for which has been conceded by the proponents of protection, and (b) Amendment of Section 220 (a) of Title II to eliminate the possibility of a suit for infringement in the absence of actual certificate of registration. I trust that the foregoing answers your questions but I would be happy to elaborate or answer any further questions which the Subcommittee may have. Sincerely, WALTER A. DEW, Jr. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, THE AUTHORS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., DEAR CHAIRMAN KASTENMEIER: Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals decided an important issue of copyright law in Bartok v. Boosey & Hawkes, Inc. et al. We will send you a copy of the opinion within the next few days. But because the opinion and decision are relevant to the pending Revision Bill, we thought it would be advisable to discuss them briefly. At issue was the meaning of the term "posthumous work" as used in Sec. 24 of the present Copyright Act, which is repeated verbatim in Sec. 304 of the Revision Bill. These sections prescribe the persons entitled to secure renewal copyright. Ordinarily, if an author dies before the renewal year, the surviving spouse and children are granted the right to renew. In the case of a "posthumous work”, renewal copyright is secured by the proprietor of the original copyright. The clear-cut purpose of the renewal clause to give the author's widow, widower and children the benefit of his or her work during the renewal term. Bela Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra was completed during his lifetime and he assigned the copyright to the publishing firm of Boosey & Hawkes. He did not survive until the renewal years. Had Boosey & Hawkes distributed printed copies to the public before Bartok's death, there could be no question that his widow and children were entitled to renew. But although the Concerto was performed during Bartok's lifetime in Carnegie Hall and Boston's Symphony Hall and broadcast, printed copies were not disseminated by the publisher until a few months after Bartok's death. Although a "posthumous work" is not defined in the Act, the District Court Judge ruled that the test was “publication" after the author's death-conceding that this defeated the purpose of the renewal clause. He therefore concluded that the publisher, rather than Bartok's widow and children was entitled to the renewal copyright. The Authors League filed a brief amicus curiae on appeal. In its brief, the League argued that within the context of the renewal clause, a work could only be deemed "posthumous" if the rights to copyright or exploit it were not granted by the author during his lifetime. And this was also one of the points argued by the Appellant. The majority of the Court of Appeals so decided, "The only definition of 'posthumous' which fulfills the legislative purpose of protecting authors and their families is that in the narrow situation-not present here where a contract for copyright was never executed by the author during his life." The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision, and ruled that the widow and children were entitled to secure the renewal. The Court also ruled that where publishers had secured renewal copyrights in such circumstances, they were held in trust for the widow, widower and children. Needless to say, The Authors League believes that the majority opinion is correct, and we respectfully urge that the Subcommittee, in its report on the Revision Bill, indicate that the Court of Appeals construction is accepted by Congress and applies to Sec. 304 of the Revision Bill. Sincerely yours, Hon. GEORGE DANIELSON, IRWIN KARP, Counsel. RECORD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, DEAR MR. DANIELSON: During the recent Subcommittee testimony on mechanical royalties, you questioned Leonard Feist of the Music Publishers' Association as to whether mechanical royalties above 2¢ are ever paid. Mr. Feist stated that royalties in excess of 2¢ are paid only by agreement between publishers and recording companies on long classical works at the rate of 14¢ per minute. Mr. Feist's statement to you was not complete and was not a full reflection of prevailing practice. In addition to classical works, popular recordings, by general agreement among publishers and recording companies, also enjoy an "overtime" rate whereby mechanical royalties and recordings in excess of 5 minutes are paid at the rate of 2¢ per minute. Therefore, a recording that is just over 5 minutes long would pay 21⁄2¢, a recording that is just over 6 minutes long would pay 34, etc. In our own industry's research on the mechanical question, I personally supervised the examination of the Top 150 best selling albums in a given week. Out of 1664 total tunes represented within those 150 albums, I found that 207 tunes (12.4%) were in excess of 5 minutes in length, and thus were qualified for a mechanical royalty in excess of 2¢. A recent Cambridge Research Institute study showed that mechanical royalty rates over 2¢ are paid on 5.4% of regular-priced records because of overtime rate practices. I hope this clarifies the inaccuracies in Mr. Feist's response to your question. Respectfully, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, STANLEY M. GORTIKOV. MATHEMATICAL REVIEWS, Ann Arbor, Mich., October 23, 1975. Head-Committee on Copyright Laws, Rayburn House Office Building, DEAR SIR: A recent article in the U.S. News & World Report (October 6. 1975) called to my attention the reevaluation in Congress of the structure of our copyright laws, and I understand your committee is about to take some action. I hope it is not too late for you to consider, or if you already have then to add to your consideration, my concern for the exploitation of a form of creation which apparently is completely unprotected. This is the creation of the chess player in the form of the chess games he plays and annotates. This concern has been as old as chess itself, over 100 years in the form I am speaking of, but the exploitation is particularly visible and blatant today-with the rise of our own champion, Bobby Fischer, to the world chess throne, held by the Russians since 1948. His magnetic play and the romantic aspects of an individual genius (Nobel Prize Laureate Eccles, for his brain research, exclaims: "... you have a Mozart or Mendelsohn or a Keats with their marvelous youthful creativity; and in our own days Bobby Fischer at 6 discovered that he had been born with the brain of a chess genius!") successfully challenging the whole school of Russian chess, elevated the scale or renumeration in chess activities from thousands to millions of dollars. But its greatest champion has also been its greatest victim-in many ways. With respect to the subject I am writing about, we find numerous books with Fischer's name on the cover and his games between covers, little or nothing else, for which he gets nothing. Yet obviously only his name is what sells them, and his activities. There are books with literally nothing but the scores of his games in them. Others have light comments and analysis from newspapers or chess magazines, where there is likewise no protection from the exploitation of the professional chess player. And it is only one step from newspapers and chess magazines to books. The relevance of this to the work of your committee should be obvious, although what to do about the exploitation may not be. Because chess, at the level I am speaking of, is not widely understood I have appended a long postscript describing what goes into the production of a chess game and how it enters into the public domain and is used there. Also I have tried to draw the parallel between chess and the arts, sciences, and sports— three areas in which such exploitation has been fought with some success. The parallel may suggest ways to fight it in chess. I imagine it is premature to go into detail here about the form in which copyright protection may be extended to chess, so I will only add that I have given the matter considerable thought and find no serious problems that do not have parallels in the arts and sciences, where they have been tackled with considerable success. I would be glad to testify in front of your committee to elaborate on this. I expect to carry my case to the chess public through the offices of the United States Chess Federation. The editor of its main publication, Chess Life and Review, one of the leading chess magazines with a world wide subscription of 70.000, is sympathetic to the cause and supports my going to the policy board ruling over him, and petitioning that the magazine extend on its own volition at least token payment for any use of a chess game. It would set a precedent, and add dignity to the profession by allowing the artist to feel he owns his own creation. I also expect to use my academic offices to further the cause, and have prepared several articles dealing with chess in general, and the world championship in particular (I too once was a professional chess player, and am still one of the top ranked players in America). They will appear in various professional journals. In particular two very long articles will appear in the November and December issues of Chess Life and Review. Not everything I write will deal with the copyright laws per se, but much of it will concern the plight of the professional chess player in America—with lack of copyright protection being a contributing factor. I hope that you can give this a serious consideration. Respectfully yours, Enclosure. CHARLES I. KALME, Associate Editor. PRODUCTION OF THE CHESS GAME At top level play, a chess game is a product of many years of study and practice to attain general proficiency, plus specific preparation for the event in which the game is played. The general preparation usually begins in the early teens, and the top players usually become quite proficient by the early twenties. By the early thirties they are close to their peak (Bobby Fischer is 32!), but they continue their develop |