Imágenes de páginas

as to whether there is ever a double payment as a result of ASCAP licensing Iwth the owner of a ballroom or similar establishment and the musicians who Ierfor at such a place.

There is never a double payment because ASCIP 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, 1973). Sincerely,



New York City, N.Y., July 22, 1975. Hon. ROBERT KASTEN VEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courte. Ciril Liberties and Administration of Justice

of the House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatires, Washington,

D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAX: I did not hare 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 de igns,

(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 compulsors universal licensing provision with rensonable 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 bave. Sincerely,



Neue York, 1.1., September 30, 1975. Ilon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Ilouse of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN KASTENMEIER: Last Friday, the l.8, ('ourt of Appeals decided an important issue of copyright law in Bartok v. B00sey & Hancke*, 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 ined in Sec. 21 of the present Copyright Act, which is repeated verbatim in Sec. 304 of the Rerision Bill. These sections prescribe the persons entitled to secure renewal copsright. 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 Bonsey & Hawkes. He did not survive until the renewal years. Had Boosey & Ilawkes 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 Cup performed during Bartok's lifetime in Carnegie Hall and Boston . Hall and broadcast, printed copies were not disseminated by the pu: 1. Ded few months after Bartok's death.

Although a 'posthumous work" is not defined in the Act, the D: 1.1 Judge ruled that the test was "publication" after the author's deal Porno that this defeated the purpose of the renewal clause. He therefore wide the publisher, rather than Bartok's widow and children was !!. : * renewal copyright. The Authors League filed a brief amicus curiae of a

In its brief, the League argued that within the context of the TV a work could only be deemed "posthumous" if the rights tu ostalih it were not granted by the author during his lifetime. And this w a points argued by the Appellant. The majority of the ('ourt of Anywa y . *The only definition of 'posthumous' which fulfills the legislative pun ! tecting authors and their families is that in the narrow situatino-01. here--where a contract for copyright was never executed by the alib?..** his life.”

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision, and run 13'S widow and children were entitled to secure the renewal.

The Court also ruled that where publishers had secured penetra' A*" in such circumstances, they were held in trust for the widow, & children.

Needless to say, The Authors League belieres that the majority was rect, and we respectfully urge that the Subcommittee, in itir ". sion Bill, indicate that the Court of Appeals construction is alreeds! ** and applies to Sec. 304 of the Revision Bill. Sincerely yours,

Iawis KALP, f 180

! !! Det ton late for you to consider, or if you al

*** ration, any concern for the exploitation of a
'is cocpietely unprotected. This is the creat

be che se games be plays and annotates.
... mer has been as old as chess itself, over 100
0 , but tbe exploitation is particularly visible a
m ! *Ta hampion, Bobby Fischer, to the woi

1.4.4 since 1948. His magnetic play and the
... FINDS 1.Kobel Prize laureate Eccles, for his b

are a Mozart or Mendelsohn or a Keats with t

Tad in our own days Bobby Fischer at 6 dise
yo , grain of a chess genius!") successfully cha
2.51 boek eit rated the scale or renumeration

m oes of dollars.
1.5 tlest champion has also been its greatest
To rt to the subject I am writing about, we fi
***** De G the cover and his games between cove
"Problem Brts nothing. let obviously only his name

are books with literally nothing but the score Pero t otal comments and analysis from newspa tot). js krakk ise do protection from the exploit

. And it is only one step from newspapers


Los Angeles, Calif., srptember 15, 1:**
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DANIELSON: During the recent Snbcommittee testimony and there." cal royalties, you questioned Leonard Feist of the Music Publisher

: as to whether mechanical royalties above 2e are ever paid. Mr. Frist sal royalties in excess of 2¢ are paid only by agreement between pnhlister and ing companies on long classi(al works at the rate of ie per minute.

Jir. Feist's statement to you was not complete and was not a full refr .: prevailing practice. In addition to claswiral works, popular na urdina agreement among publishers and recording companie, ale en avant rate whereby mechanical royalties and recordings in ex(9*** of 5 ml p 1 * at the rate of 1. pwr minute. Therefore, a runding that is just uirrr. long would pay 21,4, a recording that is just over 6 minutes later.d 3e, etc.

In our own industry's researh on the mechanical question, Iperur : *** vid the examination of the Top 10 bestelling albums ili a given W** *! 164 total tunes represented within those 150) albums, I found t.11.'" (12.4%) were in exces of 5 minutes in length, and thus were quia !! merchanical royaltr in excess of 28. A recent ('ambridge R r a 1110** showed that mechanical royalty rates over 2¢ are puid on .H of rralar. records use of overtime rate practices I hope this clarides the inaccuracies in Mr. Feist's response to four q*'. Respectfully,


Se of this to the work of your committ - 11.0 de abut the exploitation may not be.

ons at tbe lerel I am speaking of, is not 113 prestscript describing what goes into

BAL* it enters into the public domain and is
w draw the parallel between chess and the art
* *1 .wbiche suih exploitation has been fough
all I ways to fight it in chess.

Positis premature to go into detail here abou
*. etw. hay have extended to chess, so I will or

" & able throught and find no serious p
1 8 the arts and wiences, where they have be

I nuaid be giad to testify in front of you
** Ty my case to the chess public throug

in Ihberation. The editor of its main public
** Lending chess magazines with a wi
*** s polue to the cause and supports my
* DVB T and wtitioning that the magazine est
Pe r ident for any use of a chess game. It i
13 ) to the profession by allowing the artist

in T* to use my academic offices to further
Lun arul dealing with chess in general, ai
di t )* was a professional chess play
****r; ros in America). They will appear in

*. pery long articles will appear
*. A Life and Review.
****** I write will deal with the copyrigh

m ot might of the professional chess pla
po -** Arlit being contributing factor,

8: su un pire this a serious considerat

[ocr errors]



Ann Arbor, Voch, O ber? t*
lion. Robert W. KANTTYPETR.
Hrad --committee on ('opyright Laws, Rayburn House One Builde;,
Washington, D.('.

DAR NIR: A revent article in the US News & World Rent ! !
1975) called to my attention the reevaluation in Conrees of tbe struit
our copyright laws, and I understand your cantumitire is almut to take 5*

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

I hope it is not too late for you to consider, or if you already hare then to add tu ruir consideration, my concern for the exploitation of a form of creation which 8;nu rently in completely unprotete. This is the creation of the chess player il bur form of the chess game, he plays and annotates.

This concern has been as old as chess itself, orer 100 years in the form I am Naming of, but the exploitation is particularly visible and blatant today – with t'ia tine of our own champion, Bobby Fisher, to the world chess throne, held by the Russians since 1945. His magnetic piay and the romantic aspects of an 1: 2 duni genius (Nobel Prize Laureate Farles, for his brain research, erclaims: "... yon hare a Mozart or Mendelsohn or a konts with their martelous youthful creativity, and in our own day. Bobby Fischer at 6 discovered that he had been lurn with the brain of a chek srbius") NUOUfully challenging the whole school of Rasian ches, elevated the senle or renumeration in cher activities from t ald to millions of dollars

But its greatest champion has also been its greatest victim-- in many ware, With respert to the subject I am writing about. we find numerous books with

.mars nine on the ter and his games tien (overs, little or nothing else, for alleh he gets Duxling. Se obsloumly only his name is what sells them, and

Itere are books with liternlly nothing but the scores of his games in them. (") have light comments and annlysis from newspapers or che magazine * '

ope that is likell-e no proletion from the exploitation of the profesional to player. And it is only one step fruiu Desjarrs and chees magazines to

Ilie plevance of this to the work of your committee should be obvious, nl. the land what to do al out the exploitation may not be

Hep che, at the level I am speaking of, is not widely understand I have munded a lotik meript describing what go into the prurtion of a ches KIR. and awit enters into the public domain and is used there. Alw I have tried to draw the parallel betwet clues and the arts, Nieder, and Niroft three aras in which such exploitation has in fought with wine sun, The fara el tray ang Wanto fisht it in che

I 1.sal Kit* It is pretature to go into detail bere alt the foren in which cup. miglt fatisfmtien may be pitridato chrus, I will only add that I have 611-11 the parter ansiderable thought nad and no riotin problems that de no have jara!.ls in the arts and wine, where they have wwn turhled with forfapp Uc rel #tudun xlad tu tautafy la frutt of your statuniter to elatura


I ett to carry me mu to the che phile thru tgh the off of the l'ultes ale (lres Perdre. The editor of its na'n boe 1'111) (

b lue and I e «f the leading **** m.nziar with a wr. wire sulun tiparts of

in wythuthetic to the enn and nurtu dir . to the policy mrnt ruil & 01** hi'n and filling that the site *0nn vennit

[ocr errors]

dianity to the prurjon by allant tise artist to fra he owns tuin ont

Taiv et te nu mr Ademie ry to further the map and have for

re) wirral arteira demiing with rises in fineral 1.1 tiek bottel. la farlar itu ote was a great al ees jaiser, at at til et af 11.0 1.D Tafellien in America). 11.* will amar in varstis pornfestal fourhale in prt."! or twu irry le martirles W. apur in the ruler all ir.turk (hrs Life and Reise

of irring I write wil dral with the right lawr .lt nun et 11.'1 rmn tie plight of the patru.] c. part in Anr:14 wl!l la 1 enfren t parti na tm1.& Rufirit.1!.6 ft. I lose that you can tr til martiods ferrat be tfully yours,

(114 * | Kurir

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ment into the early forties and are still going strong by the early fiton La that teaching and writing replaces active play.

Preparation for each specific event can be extensive, mlih 6 !,!,!, * of specialized training not being unusual for a world cham p consists of opening analysis and choice of style directed at a or opponents, among other things.

In this sense the game of chess is more a science than a s t. 2". " visible execution of the game is also a mixture of an artistic and white formance--more artistic than athletic,

5% of Public Broadcasting and Copyright Lari
*** the Public Broadcasting Service and (

ca. As you will see the memorandum out
· 1140g is legally exempt from clearance
A t (opyright Law.
bow be very happy to answer any further qu
2017 er help we can in this regard.



[blocks in formation]

A chess player's work can enter the public domain in


h e ****** as viewed by spectators on TV or other medium, including imitate in and publication in newspapers, magazines, and books in publications (he ! distinguish between the player's own analysis of his games, and other collecting and analyzing them.

The use of the game by others also can thus be two-fold: s**an propose and playing as well as analyzing the published games Inter. In ove of 10 games later, one should distinguish hetween playing and anals in fist 3**** pleasure, and doing it to gain scientific knowledige to be aprind in t.. Everhaps against the creator of the game himself.

A point not fully appreciated, and most relerant when swaling *** protection, is that by far the greatest consumption of chees are ** publications, not from immediate performance. I follow the nume regti and have played over all the games of Bobly Fischer and the rest! and almost all from books. Even when I watch a tournament, I : **** magazines describing them, because the comes truire more thote: ciate than one can apply at the time of performance.

This makes it paramount that the creator own his oration, ach *** ** tion in newspapers, magazines and books goes, for given that this real consumption takes place this is also where the profits lie. To

o and appearance fees are a mere pittance. Fischer can command **

** of his uniqueness, but the state of professional chess is detalle pro The U.S. ogren championship offers 2010 for 2 weeks hard wok If ? ." If not you get next to nothing, and there are over a hundre piny!, **

Given that an active player is not apt to divulge his analysis * !* being used against him in tournaments, the exploitation is c lear print make far more from his efforts than he does, since they can g'lar at will with no merompense to him. Some form of copyright protection would go a long way fonant

! injustice and add dignity to the game of ches!

[ocr errors]

BASIC CONCEPTS a 'al to the publie broadcasting position ar me of American copyright law, and the 01

tykt Lar.-I'lder the American Copyright I

nts are those--and only thosegner o' ta on pyright liability can devolve from * work which is not expressly reserved to

* Art. As the United States Supreme #5. Tenivth Century Music Corp. t. Ai

& AMP of non-dramatic music

Sotra. ***
Hrad ('ommittee on copyright Lauren
Rayburn House (fice Building,
Washington, D.C.

DFIR ('orgrrgSVAY KASTE TVEIER: I agree nith the thrust op VP K
ter. I feel quite strongly and have so far many years that printre
hare copyright protection for their chim es I to sery'd be ***
Washington, DC, to give mr testimony on t?! who suf finppen:****

nimiit of congressmen and, or wenators who are drawing the 1.1

pricht den 19... gives to a copyrig **

tre rights" in his copyrighted
. a pipe righted work does not
* *

le, it is no infringement

on Copyright, Sec. 100 at p. I

n xhiut work is not an infrin ' * .

of this rights expressly Tapin Kinrymding a book or pris

*** O torming a mowical como E I.

x p work which to not p sit. In this sonce, the rig *ot +Xpress enumeration. son las in continue ir

* HT B :!l- with the city was a

subiect to the limitati V erang

* P right law, the copyright 4.9** * aderary works are

Y: or th: no pertormareer n e sal works. Sor are broadcast

iet bronast recording ti !!

Vin dramatic literary, the tor pris taht to "pris The particularized right to • ry Work in Section * ***

to moulin


PTou can

art me on this mulet thnung! Vir

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

minii theo gintue of Publle Broadcasting and copyright Las" dated Octoler 15, 1975,

perfume for the Public Broadcasting Service and other public broadeasting
urcat.zations As you will nee, the memorandum outlines in some detail how
pute broden sing is legally prempt from clearance and payment obligations
Urt the presht (opyright law.

We will be very happy to answer any further questions you may have or
ponudbe any further brip we can in this regard.


Vice President,


(opeT LAW Irurtant questions hare been raised in recent Congresional hearing about the rights and liabilities of pubille broadcasting under the current I'nin State (Dyrint law ile the copyright statute efted in 1:), ay ainelise to this da'p lil's A. Sec. I et sq.). 19.1. menanlım 1. Intended to prent

n e nary of the pllle 11'.ix lexul fw10ti on the Worlofi, Dotton in the format (print ia * it dem Dot purpurt to be a compreheve brief but rale a liort state floo nt of the copyrigtit bonis upon which publie bromication bas di selidis (Tupra tk 1.d formulated its riskun projele.

[ocr errors]


dafentul to the puble broadcasting position are two well (stablish props

one of Amerikan copyright inw, and the other of American communi.

[ocr errors]

figytighi 1411.47 the Ameriran (peright law, the princive rights of

rikt owners are theme and only thor r ifically krunted in the law * f 'lun, no o rixht liability can devolve from any use or application of a

turplated work wlala fe not firmly rvel to the right priptor in the Coinht At the India Rupnine (r-urt att in itu rurit deix.on in Trentieth Century Mume (opp. r. Alken (June 1975), in rutin 06.1*t an SOAP (lain of non dramatic that de pertortla r igi.t infringe

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »