as to whether there is ever a double payment as a result of ASCAP licensing both the owner of a tallroom or simiar establishment and the musicians who jerform 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. , that you may have the full background, I am enclosing copies of my letters to Clairman Kastenmeler dated August 6, and October 30, 1975. Suverely, BERNARD KORMAN, ADVERTISING TYPOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION OF America, Ine, New York City, N.Y., July 22, 1975. Ham Ronest KASTEN MEIER, Cheirman, sube immittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice of the House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC DEAR MR. CHATMAN: I did not have an opportunity at the July 17th hearing or t ́e apove bid to respo.d to your question as to whether all of the "of ponent " ʼn theses on copyright for type face designs were satisfied with the bill as སྙི*རི། 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 beef 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 63). We do however, see two amendments to Title H. (8) A compulsory universal licensing provision with reasonable rates tae need for which has been conceded by the proponents of protection, and thy Amendment of Section 220cm) 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 € Vorite or answer any further questions which the Subcommittee may have. Sincerely, DLAR CHAIRMAN KARENMETER. Last Friday, the USA *rt of Ap» als decided an important issue of copyright law in Bartok ▼ Bờ nên đi Hawkes, Inc et al. We Will set, 1 yong a copy of the opinion within the next few days. Bat-bes arise tie oputo on and decision are relevant to the pending Revision Bui, We furikut at Wond be advisa“ je tu dineros tiem briefly At issue was the mean ng of the term 'post'am ..f w-ཚེར Teརྡོ་ཟུང་od ༑! a[ ་r s * \༄Or .,zས་སྔོན * 1,|】arཡ། rntacotus [ite-f,ན་ toie་རྟེན;ཪ་དོངམ་རྟེར་ * Ordinary if an au bor d ́es before the renewal ve ariel d'en are granted the kill to renew rt ? his widow and children were entitled to renew. But although the Cops wi performed during Bartok's lifetime in Carnegie Hall and Boston, s 812Hall and broadcast, printed copies were not disseminated by the publister was i few months after Bartok's death. Although a "posthumous work" is not defined in the Act, the District ( Judge ruled that the test was “publication" after the author's death ev that this defeated the purpose of the renewal clause. He therefore o: 59% a the publisher, rather than Bartok's widow and children was entited: renewal copyright. The Authors League filed a brief amicus curiae on a¡¡wä In its brief, the League argued that within the context of the renewal on» a work could only be deemed “posthumous" if the rights to copyright or ei, it were not granted by the author during his lifetime. And this was also et points argued by the Appellant. The majority of the Court of Appeals so den deu "The only definition of posthumous' which fulfills the legislative purp tecting authors and their families is that in the narrow situation--not pe= here where a contract for copyright was never executed by the author di ́s his life." The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision, and ruled that de widow and children were entitled to secure the renewal. The Court also ruled that where publishers had secured renewa! cotta in such circumstances, they were held in trust for the widow, W.i wer an. children. Needless to say. The Authors League believes that the majority opir, r.** rect, and we respectfully urge that the Subcommittee, in its report of the le sion Bill, indicate that the Court of Appeals construction is accepted by t and applies to Sec. 304 of the Revision Bill. Sincerely yours, Hon. GEORGE DANIELSON, RECORD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA DEAR MR. DANIELSON: During the recent Subcommittee testimony on mer cal royalties, you questioned Leonard Feist of the Music Publishers' Assa :" as to whether mechanical royalties above 2e are ever paid. Mr. Feist stated "a" royalties in excess of 2¢ are paid only by agreement between publishers and revv nje ing companies on long classical works at the rate of 1⁄4 per minute. Mr. Feist's statement to you was not complete and was not a full refecte prevailing practice. In addition to classical works, popular recordings, by ger agreement among publishers and recording companies, also enjoy an "oteme rate whereby mechanical royalties and recordings in excess of 5 m.r. He are t at the rate of 11⁄2¢ per minute. Therefore, a recording that is just over 5 : long would pay 211⁄2e, a recording that is just over 6 minutes long w-1 34, etc. In our own industry's research on the mechanical question, I persenï's vised the examination of the Top 150 best selling albums in a given werk O* 1664 total tunes represented within those 150 albums, I found that 27 (12.4%) were in excess of 5 minutes in length, and thus were qua'ifed fra mechanical royalty in excess of 2e. A recent Cambridge Research Institute st showed that mechanical royalty rates over 2e are paid on 5.4% of regular-se, ed records because of overtime rate practices. I hope this clarifies the inaccuracies in Mr. Feist's response to your qu«', a Respectfully, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, STANILY M GIIK* MATHEMATICAL REVIEWS Ann Arbor, Mich., Ortuber 21, 19** Head-Committee on Copyright Laws, Rayburn House Ofice Building, DEAR SIR: A recent article in the US. News & World Report (tker der f 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. A 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 #;arently is completely unprotected. This is the creation of the chess player in the form of the chess games be plays and annotater, 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 magnetle 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 Rissian 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 Fischers 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 Lis 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 €TMs player. And it is only one step from newspapers and chess magazines to The relevance of this to the work of your committee should be obvious, althengh 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 para el 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 paralels in the arts and sciences, where they have been tackled with consideranie nic ws, I would be glad to testify in front of your committee to elaborate I expect to carry my case to the chem publie through the offices of the United States Chess Federation. The editor of its main publication Chess Life and Re one of the leading chess magazines with a world wide subscription of 70000 is sympathetic to the cause and supports my going to the poney board ruling over him, and petitioning that the magazine extend on its own volition at leist token payment for any use of a chess ga ne. It wou'd set a precedent, and mid dignity to the profession by allowing the artist to feel he owns his own Creation. I also expect to use my academie offices to further the cause and have prepared several articles dealing with chess in general, and the world championship in particular el too otice was a professional chess player, and am still one of the top ranked players in America ). They will appear in various professional journeis in particular two very long articles will appear in the November and Dete. her in jos of Chess Lafe and Review Not everything I wri ́e wil 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 cots right protection being a contributing factor I hope that you can give this a serious consideration. CHARIFA I KAIME An mute 1 lator, PRODUCTION OF THE CHESS GAME At top level play, a chess game is a product of many years of study and praes fle to attain general proficiency, plùs specile preparation for the event in Which the gstue is p'aved Ine general preparation umally begins in the early teens and the top players fifa la bevetée quite prof sent by the early twenties. By the early thirties they Are close to their peak (Bobby Fischer is 32'), but they continue their devel ge ment into the early forties and are still going strong by the early fiften. Ve that teaching and writing replaces active play. Preparation for each specific event can be extensive, with 6 months to of specialized training not being unusual for a world championsap z. consists of opening analysis and choice of style directed at a specific or w or opponents, among other things. In this sense the game of chess is more a science than a sport, alth ng “** visible execution of the game is also a mixture of an artistic and alie“, „ formance-more artistic than athletic. CHESS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN A chess player's work can enter the public domain in two ways: his own for as viewed by spectators on TV or other medium, including immediate ;res and publication in newspapers, magazines, and books. In publication, one så distinguish between the player's own analysis of his games, and other pene collecting and analyzing them. சக The use of the game by others also can thus be two fold: spectator eng and playing as well as analyzing the published games later. In use of pré games later, one should distinguish between playing and analyzing for sestier pleasure, and doing it to gain scientific knowledge to be applied in tour nets perhaps against the creator of the game himself. A point not fully appreciated, and most relevant when speaking of expat par protection, is that by far the greatest consumption of chess games comes fig publications, not from immediate performance. I follow the game very and have played over all the games of Bobby Fischer and the great chan and almost all from books. Even when I watch a tournament, I will brtv !»wax * magazines describing them, because the games require more thenght to a; ciate than one can apply at the time of performance. This makes it paramount that the creator own his creation, as far 2815 tion in newspapers, magazines and books goes, for given that this is where the real consumption takes place this is also where the profits lie. Tonmanent pend and appearance fees are a mere pittance. Fischer can command big feester of his uniqueness, but the state of professional chess is deplorable for t The U.S. open championship offers $2000 for 2 weeks hard work if og m If not you get next to nothing, and there are over a hundred contestants! Given that an active player is not apt to divulge his analysis, for feira * being used against him in tournaments, the exploitation is complete (7 v make far more from his efforts than he does, since they can publisu li s gur * at will with no recompense to him. Some form of copyright protection would go a long way toward e rrect injustice and add dignity to the game of chess! Dear Congressman KastenMFIER: I agree with the thrust of Mr. Ka'” ter. I feel quite strongly and have so for many years, that ebesin'sters at have copyright protection for their chessgatres, I, too, world be glad to Washington, DC, to give my testimony on this subject before the apt committee of congressmen and, or senators who are drawing up the new right laws, Sincerely, PS. You can contact me on this subject through Mr. Ka'me PURIT BROADCASTING SERT Hon. RoFFRt W. KASTEN MEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Cul Identice and the feministat, vậ of Justice, House of Representatives, Washington, DC DEAR CONGRESSMAN, KASTENMELER: I am enclost: g for yo ir con detal nssi fibre in the Hồ% e Copyrie1· I visit, p**** 4 A Moto the Status of Publie Broadcasting and Copyright Law" dated October 15, 1975, prepared for the Public Broadcasting Service and other public broadcasting organizations. As you will see, the memorandum outlines in some detail how putor broadcasting is legally exempt from cicarance and payment obligations under the present Copyright Law. We will be very happy to answer any further questions you may have or provide any further help we can in this regard. Sincerely, CHALMERS H MARQUIS, MEMORANDUM ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC Broadcasting. UNDER CURLENT COPYRIGHT LAW Important questions have been raised in recent Congressional hearings about the rights and liabilities of publie broadcasting under the current United States Copyright Law (ie, the Copyright Statute enacted in 1909, as amended to this date, 17 USC A. Sec. 1 et seq.). This memorandum is intended to present a concise summary of the pulle brindeasting legal position on the pertinent provisions in the present copyrigat law. It does not purport to be a comprehensive brief but rather a short statetent of the copyright basis upon which publie broadcasting has developed atm Gearance practices and formulated its revision proposals, BASIC CONCEPTS Fundamental to the publie broadcasting position are two well established propositions one of American copyright law, and the other of American communientions law. Copyright Law - Under the American Copyright. I aw, the ex Insive rights of Copyright owners are those and only those-specifically granted in the law Poof. Thus, no copyright liability can devolve from any use or application of a copyrighted work which is not expressly reserved to the copyright proprietor in the Copyright Act As the United States Supreme Court at ited in its recent deixon in Tirentieth Century Mume Corp ↑ Asken (June 1975), in ruling agaliat an ASCAP claim of non dramatic music performance rig its infringe 1 e peright Act of 1909, ..., gives to a copyright holder a mon-poly limited to spex.fled 'exclusive rig) ts” in his copyrighted works... accord, gv, if an vtimeed 11ses of a expyrighted work does not conflict within an “exclaive" Patti con firm, ed 15 statute it is no inferrement of the h Her's rights” No also states Nimimer on Copurveht, See 100 of p 374 376 “A use of a copyrighted work is not an infringing net if such pse des not fall within the scope of those rig tí expressly grinted to the espiright pros Pas privately reading a bok or privately perform gade matiwork or even jablicly performing a ne te-derijumition but rat for;* ftali conམུ*£!ཟླzw [pw。『ཧྥུ";ན!; nighted w. A with do not infringe Peralto granted to The copr ght proprietar In this we fine the rig ts of a proprietor under the Copyrig afctatཅེས-a{ ༈ ཝཱཛྫཱ fesཝརྣ~ erntrofm ues !prwfit *ར,-}}u ༈ ལ སྒོ་། ཨོནམ་ སྔོ་བྱུང་ངu tzt |