(e) The Tribunal shall render a final decision in each proceeding within one year from the certification of the panel. Upon a showing of good cause, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary may waive this requirement in a particular proceeding.

§ 805. Compensation of members of the Tribunal; expenses of the Tribunal

(a) In proceedings for the distribution of royalty fees, the compensation of members of the Tribunal and other expenses of the Tribunal shall be deducted prior to the distribution of the funds.

(b) In proceedings for the [adjustment] determination of royalty rates, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary.

(c) The Library of Congress is authorized to furnish facilities and incidental service to the Tribunal.

(d) The Tribunal is authorized to procure temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.

§ 806. Reports to the Congress

The Tribunal immediately upon making a final determination in any proceeding [for adjustment for a statutory royalty] with respect to royalty rates, shall transmit its decision, together with the reasons therefor, to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives for reference to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. § 807. Effective date of royalty adjustment

(a) Prior to the expiration of the first period of ninety calendar days of continuous session of the Congress, following the transmittal of the report specified in section 806, either House of the Congress may adopt a resolution stating in substance that the House does not favor the recommended royalty [adjustment] determination, and such [adjustment,] determination, therefore, shall not become effective.

(b) For the purposes of subsection (a) of this section

(1) Continuity of session shall be considered as broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die, and

(2) In the computation of the ninety-day period there shall be excluded the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain.

(c) In the absence of the passage of such a resolution by either House during said ninety-day period, the final determination by the Tribunal of [a petition for adjustment] of royalty rates by the Tribunal shall take effect on the first day following ninety calendar days after the expiration of the period specified by subsection (a).

(d) The Register of Copyrights shall give notice of such effective date by publication in the Federal Register not less than sixty days before said date. § 808. Effective date of royalty distribution

A final determination of the Tribunal concerning the distribution of royalty fees deposited with the Register of Copyrights pursuant to sections 111 and 116 shall become effective thirty days following such determination unless prior to that time an application has been filed pursuant to section 809 to vacate, modify or correct the determination, and notice of such application has been served upon the Register of Copyrights. The Register upon the expiration of thirty days shall distribute such royalty fees not subject to any application filed pursuant to section 809.

§ 809. Judicial review

In any of the following cases the United States District Court for the District of Columbia may make an order vacating, modifying or correcting a final determination of the Tribunal concerning the distribution of royalty fees

(a) Where the determination was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue

means.

(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in any member of the panel.

(c) Where any member of the panel was guilty of any misconduct by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE MATHIAS AMENDMENT; COMPULSORY LICENSE FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Question 1. Won't the Mathias amendment permit noncommercial broadcasters to dramatize, without permission, a book or short story and therefore prevent the author from selling adaptive rights to the movies or commercial television?

Answer. No. The most common misunderstanding of the Mathias Amendment reflected in many letters to senators has been that the Amendment would permit an author's work to be dramatized without specific permission. The Mathias Amendment does not cover dramatic works, the dramatization of nondramatic works or the use of unpublished works. These uses would continue to be subject to individual negotiation; the author would in no way be hindered from making a sale of movie or commercial television rights. Subsection (b) of the Amendment attached makes this explicit. The Amendments would, however, cover the simple reading or recital of poems, short stories or portions of a book. Simple reading or recital will not hinder the ability of an author to sell a work for film or television dramatization.

Question 2. Even though the amendment does not apply to unpublished or dramatic works, won't the reading of nondramatic works hurt the author? Shouldn't the author have the right to refuse permission or charge a price different than the price established pursuant to the amendment?

Answer. In the case of noncommercial television, the reading of such works has been occurring since 1952 without any claims of damage to authors, except to the extent that authors were not paid by virtue of the not-for-profit exemption. Under the Mathias Amendment, authors will be paid. Moreover, to say that the mere reading of a story or poem-where it is paid for- will hurt the sales of such story or poem or other work is not convincing. Indeed, the opposite result will more probably occur. Furthermore, except for readings of entire works over radio to the blind, readings which exhaust an entire story are uncommon on radio or television. More common are readings of excerpts or shorter works of the classics which are done primarily for educational purposes and will promote the works of that author.

Question 3. Isn't it true that public broadcasting was not exempt from obtaining copyright clearances under the 1909 law? Doesn't the revision bill simply clarify and make explicit this non-exemption?

Answer. While there does exist certain doubts about the status of mechanical or recording rights under the 1909 law, there is no doubt about performing rights exemption for public broadcasting. With the exception of a brief period in the sixties, public broadcasting as a general practice has not cleared copyrighted material. No court decision has ever been rendered holding that noncommercial educational broadcasting was subject to copyright liability for the broadcast or nondramatic works. As a practical matter, public broadcasting entities do not now clear and pay for copyrighted materials. This would change radically under the Revision Bill.

Question 4. Doesn't the Mathias amendment result in copyright holders unfairly subsidizing public broadcasting?

Answer. Categorically not. As stated by Senator Mathias when the Amendment was introduced: "The aim of the public broadcasting compulsory license proposal is to establish a viable mechanism for simplified copyright clearances and for appropriate royalties payments with a minimum of operational delays and administrative expense. It is not intended in any way to avoid fair payment of copyright royalties to authors and publishers for use of their works."

Royalty rates would ultimately be established by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal which would listen to the arguments of both sides and determine a fair rate. This mechanism would be used only if the parties themselves failed to agree on a fair rate. There is no evidence that such rates would be lower than those which would be privately negotiated.

Question 5. Doesn't the Mathias amendment deprive the author or composer of his or her most basic rights under copyright-the right to refuse permission to someone to use his or her work?

Answer. The 1909 copyright law has for many years allowed nonprofit users to use materials on non-commercial educational broadcasting without securing permission, and the interest of copyright holders has overwhelmingly been in payment for use rather than prohibition of use. There has always been in the Copyright Act a balancing between the public interest in available use against

the private interest in monopoly control. This balancing of interests is central to the copyright law and was best described by the Supreme Court in Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken: “The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest. Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music and the arts." Question 6. Why does public broadcasting not request the establishment of a statutory rate as in the other compulsory licenses in the bill?

Answer. Public broadcasting is willing to leave rate setting to a panel of professionals rather than ask Congress to get into this difficult area. Moreover, it recognizes that rate establishment in this complicated and difficult area must, of necessity, take a great deal of additional research and consideration involving detailed presentations on both sides and for which copyright revision should not be postponed. Public broadcasting is therefore willing to abide by the decision of a panel of unbiased professionals, rather than argue about levels of royalties before Congress.

Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

SILVER SPRINGS, MD., July 7, 1975.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN KASTEN MEIER: On the advice of your staff member, Mr. Herbert Fuchs, I am reiterating my letter of Sept. 2, 1974, with which I asked you to consider including some provisions into the new copyright law to protect armorial bearings. Since you failed to call me for one of your hearings, despite your letter RWK:hfg of Sept. 6, 1974, I am respectfully_requesting that the enclosed presentation be included into the hearing records. In fact, I would very much appreciate it, if I would receive a copy of this part of the record once it is published.

Present procedures to copyright coats-of-arms are inadequate. Yet, these symbols of nobility of spirit, integrity and family coherence desperately need protection. They are a form of our cultural inheritage worthy of your concern, because they are a part of our civilization that reaches as far back into the past as to be a link with the totems painted on the walls of caves by early man. You would become the hero of thousands of people, if new special provisions would allow them to forego begging foreign heraldic authorities to register their assumed arms. You would also prevent many more thousands from getting cheated by those unscrupulous opportunists running the "heraldic mills."

I take the liberty of including some background material with my presentation and hope that it will find your interest. If you should have any questions, I would be glad to try to provide you with the correct answers.

With best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours,

Enclosure.

WALTER ANGST.

Suggestions re. S. 1361 by Walter Angst, Heraldic Artist To prevent-as it is possible today-that someone can usurp armorial bearings (see glossary), copyright them, and then defend them in a court of law against the rightful owner, the following provisions ought to be incorporated into the new law:

An applicant to register a claim to copyright a coat-of-arms must furnish incontestable proof that he is entitled-either by inheritance through the direct male line, or by assumption via a genuine new creation only-to the blazon (see glossary) he submits for protection, testifying in both instances under oath as to the accuracy of his claim and the validity of the sources quoted. If he is found lacking adequate proof that he is entitled to the blazon submitted, the application for copyright shall be refused. If he is found, by due process of law, guilty of perjury, he shall be punishable under law. If he is found, by due process of law, guilty of usurpation of someone else's blazon, or emblazonment (see glossary), he shall be punishable under law.

Any new creation of arms (see glossary) submitted for copyright protection shall be:

1. Heraldically correct, i.e. obeying all major rules of good heraldry, but especially;

2. Without infringement on anyone else's arms;

5. Heraldically stylized in its emblazonment;

6. As simple as possible;

7. Recognizable at a glance, at a reasonable distance; 8. Symbolically meaningful;

9. Artistically satisfying;

10. A unit in style, and also reflecting national origin;

11. Adapted to the medium used to depict them; and

12. Described by a "blazon", i.e. the universally recognized ancient technical language of heraldry, which is as precise as a chemical formula and which has not basically changed since the 16th century.

Protection by copyright of new arms shall not be construed as an intent to encroach upon the rights of an armiger whose existing arms are unwittingly duplicated: If two identical claims are contested in a court of law, the lossing party shall be compelled to suitably "difference" (see glossary) its arms before they can be copyrighted anew.

Copyrights for armorial devices must cover both the blazon and the individual emblazonment, due to the peculiar nature of heraldry. Thus, proper protection requires a new category, a separate form, to register a claim to copyright an armorial achievement (see glossary) in all its many possible manifestations, such as an assumed, newly created coat-of-arms, flag, armorial banner, seal, letterhead, Ex Libris, badge, etc. This category must allow protection of varying depicitions in differing media of the same blazon, but each needing individual designing according to the medium used: the same basic design, adapted to the rectangle of a flag, the rounded of a seal, the triangle of a shield, the confines of an Ex Libris, etc. must be covered by the same claim.

Such copyright should be coterminous with the life of the registrant. Due to the nature of arms (they are really synonymous with a surname), the limitations on the duration of copyright protection as applied for works of art are not appropriate. The protection should be infinitely renewable by heirs upon proof of inheritance-for each heir's lifetime in each case.

Armorial devices or heraldic insignia shall be considered to be those that are traditionally included within the gamut of the Law of Arms (as part of Common Law jurisprudence), not provided for under the Act pertaining to trade-marks and use-marks. The Law of Arms shall be interpreted by the Court having jurisdiction (U.S. District Court), which may give such regard to the Law of Arms of England, Scotland, Ireland, or any other relevant jurisdiction, as practiced at the present day, in the same fashion and according to the same customs as the practice in other Common Law jurisdictions is regarded in causes tried at common law by courts of the United States. Therefore, the products—usually fraudulent in their correctness of research, as well as their heraldic and artistic qualities of those well known mail-order houses (heraldic mills), that peddle their many copies of usurped coats-of-arms to everybody with the appropriate same surname and thus fleece the uninformed American public of enormous sums annually, cannot be considered admissible for copyright protection. (Most of their listings are in the public domain anyway, even when they are rendered incorrectly.)

In cases where the heraldic character of a device is uncertain, and for advice as to the practices observed in the heraldic tradition, the Court shall have recourse to a lay assessor learned and knowledgeable in these matters, to be appointed by the Court. One permanent assessor should be an official of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, functioning as the "Herald of the United States."

This official should have the power to make rules and regulations and final determinations as to what is admissible into the heraldic copyright register, as well as specific authority to maintain a register of approved or certified heraldic artists and researchers. In the event of conflict between entries in the normal registers of trade- and use-marks maintained by the Patent Office, and entries in the Copyright Office's Heraldic Register, the judgment of this official should prevail. (Fictitious example: Thus, should the State of Maryland seek to register as a trademark the entire achievement of Lord Calvert, as a descendent (and heir to the peerage) seek to register by copyright the arms and peerage appurtenances the State now uses in contention, some authority should exist to give the blood heir precedence over the usurping government agency.)

GLOSSARY

armiger: one who possesses armorial bearings

armorial achievement: the total armorial display including the exterior decorations

armorial bearings: a coat-of-arms of any person, or body corporate who is armigerous, i.e. who has the right to bear such a heraldic device

arms: a coat-of-arms

blazon: a concise and complete verbal description of a coat-of-arms according to a set of rules, which allows a competent heraldic artist to accurately depict it without ever having seen it. The blazon is the deciding factor in establishing, rendering and preserving any coat-of-arms in all its variations.

difference: additions to a coat-of-arms to distinguish between the various persons, or branches of houses who are entitled to wear them. There are marks of difference for cadency, distinction, bastardy (marshalling) augmentation, adoption and mourning.

emblazonment: graphical depiction in colors of a coat-of-arms. The same arms emblazoned by different artists will look slightly different, although each artist faithfully abides by the blazon, because the same blazon can be rendered either timidly, or boldly, either conventionalized, or stylized to the point of fracturing the forms, either ugly, or beautiful in its proportions, either copied, or innovative, etc. Moreover, arms can be emblazoned in painted, printed, photographed, engraved, carved, embroidered, sculpted, etc. form, and each time the emblazonment will vary in its character.

law of arms: the corpus lex heraldica governing the use of arms, containing the rules, regulations and customs observed by both heralds and armigers; (for instance: armorial bearings are heritable property; their inheritance is patrilinear and by primogeniture).

new creations of arms: any American, as a free, ultimately selfgoverning citizen of a sovereign republic, has the undisputed prescriptive right to assume arms, as long as they conform with the 12 points stated on pg. 1 & 2.

CREDENTIALS

In a professional field that is unregulated by law, that has no universally acknowledged standards, that requires neither licensing, nor registration of its practitioners, and for which there is no formal education, nor degree, it is very difficult to present credentials of qualification. All I can document is the following, and since there is no one else to speak for me, I must do it myself. Thus, I beg your indulgence for my immodesty.

I am a practicing heraldic artist with a reputation for delivering outstanding quality-work, for professional integrity, personal honesty and unusual creativity. For 40 years now, I am a scholar of heraldry, vexillogy, onomastics, sigillography, symbolism, genealogy and iconography. I work in a dozen languages, involving state-, communal-, guild-, family-, and ecclesiastic heraldry.

Besides writing the only regular question-and-answer column for heraldry in America (Breviarium Heraldicum) for the last seven years, I had a number of articles published concerning principal issues and pioneer efforts, which have found international acclaim as well as controversy. I have instructed various classes in heraldry and vexillology, notably the first one ever to be given for the Smithsonian Institution. In fact, I am functioning as this institution's unofficial consultant in these fields, and I continue to lecture on these artful sciences (or scientific arts). I have exhibited my work and have appeared on radio and TV.

My clients include not only ordinary citizens, but also a President of the U.S., a Supreme Court Judge, a U.S. Senator, a Congressman, the U.S. Navy, and various other organizations. My specialty is the creation of new designs for armorial bearings by expressing modern ideas with ancient, as well as newly invented symbols. My work, which is strictly individual, encompasses not only paintings-on a special parchment-paper, wood, cloth, glass, or leather-but also wood-, and leather-carvings, marquetry, stained glass, embroderies, lithopanes, furniture decorations, and engravings. I am currently working on an illustrated book about the unique Heraldry of Switzerland.

Publications: "An Armorial Banner for President Kennedy" in: The Augustan, vol. X, no. 6, August 1967.