« AnteriorContinuar »
a. #. hrtler there is over a double payment as a result of ASCIP licensing twem the outer falallroom or similar establishment and the musicians who 17 til at such a piace. Tiare is firser a double payment because ASCAP does not license musicians
perforin at ballrum, paurants, night clubs or similar establishments.
1. itot to you I have written to Chairman Kasteinmeier twice concernIt bro bailron amendment and prefer not to burden the cornmittee with anoilier int'i 11. trad. I would appreciate it if you could suppletnent your testimony by Prstene to this letter.
$it'in nas base the full background, I am onclising copies of tny letters to trtnan kasteburier dated August 6, and Otols 30), 1:75).
AMIRII IV TIPXRAPII IES A WIATION OF VERI, 18,
Dec ) ork (ity, ..., July 22, 1975. 11. Ron KATI YUVITR. liposa, po immille on courte, ritil Liberties and 4 1ministration of Justine
By the House judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, Dr. 1) VH (HAIRMAY: I did not have an opportunity at the July 17th hearin:* Pra ve lulll to 51***d tour que le as foller all of the " Intent" * !*** on (
Oright for ty* face de la Weten d with t!* bill
Our mition is follows:
lilleure made fles with the provisions of Title I a* sritten by a time of our boven neef that these prosentons ununue riinting law wholeh di tasit birulert ty
his widow and children were entitled to renew. But althangh the (en rege performed during Bartok's lifetime in Carnegie Hall and Bests Hall and broadcast, printed copies were not disseminated by the putla de 3 few months after Bartok's death.
Although a "posthumous work" is not defined in the Act, the Drift Judge ruled that the test was "publication" after the author's deaba that this defeated the purpose of the renewal clause. He therefore our de the publisher, rather than Bartok's widow and children was et.1 !-! * renewal copyright. The Authors League filed a brief amicus eunde iti:
In its brief, the League argued that within the context of the It ***** a work could only be deemed "posthumous" if the rights to copyrigti ir el. it were not granted by the author during his lifetime. And this W.13.8145 points argued by the Appellant. The majority of the ('ourt of Amals "The only definition of 'posthumous' which fulfills the legislative pure ; tecting authors and their families is that in the narrow situation-- ** here--where a contract for copyright was never executed by the alila * his life."
The Court of Appeals reversed the District (ourt decision, and rud IL widow and children were entitled to secure the renewal.
The Court also ruled that where publishers had secund renera! 1% * in such circumstances, they were held in trust for the midom, sim children.
Needless to say. The Authors League belieres that the majority o .. ** rect, and we respectfully urge that the Subcommittee, in its repar? !", les sion Bill, indicate that the Court of Appeals construction is arrepied Los * and applies to Sec. 304 of the Revision Bill. Sincerely yours,
IRWIF KAP. for
Dot too late for you to consider, or if you already
ration, my concern for the exploitation of a form HOST la mapletely unprotected. This is the creation of . ..becher games he plays and annotates.
morru has been as old as chess itself, over 100 years .. , bet the exploitation is particularly visible and bla
! :: own champion, Bobby Fischer, to the world che
.128 since 1948. His magnetic play and the romani . . ne Nobel Prize laureate Eccles, for his brain re
Mozart or Mendelsohn or a Keats with their m and in our own days Bobby Fischer at 6 discovered v.br brain of a chess genius!") successfully challengin 45 pous, eltrated the scale or renumeration in che
bons of dollars. is a test champion has also been its greatest victir 1.9 to the subject I am writing about, we find nur
De the cover and his games between covers, lit o s Brits nothing. Let obviously only his name is wh
bwwka with literally nothing but the scores of 19 gli comments and analysis from newspapers o . krwine bo protection from the exploitation
etAnd it is only one step from newspapers and
postim of this to the work of your committee sh
**!to do aluat the exploitation may not be.
Rambut at the lerel I am speaking of, is not widely Images *wcript describing what goes into the pr
sit enters into the public domain and is used mai mare draw the parallel between chess and the arts, sci ** 1984. whirt such exploitation has been fought with
I treat ways to fight it in chess.
!' premature to go into detail here about the f ** ***, C ay be extended to chess, so I will only ad
12" Cartable thought and find no serious problem # ter arts and sciences, where they have been ta ****** i nutid be glad to testify in front of your com
RECORD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMIRA
Los Angeles, Calif., september lü : Hon. GEORGE DANIELSOX, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. DANIELSON: During the recent Subcommittee teetimor y ante cal royalties, you questioned Leonard Feist of the Music Publisher : 1 as to wbether mechanical royalties above 2e are ever paid. Mr. Feist star royalties in excess of 24 are paid only by agreement between publishers and * ing companies on long classical works at the rate of 1per uinute
Mr. Frist's statement to you was not complete and was not a full rre prevailing practice. In addition to classical works, popular recordings agreement among publishers and recording companies, also enjoy an " rate whereby mechanical moralties and recordings in eX**of m:1,"rer ! at the rate of 1.a per minute. Therefore, a reunding that is juister!" long would pay 21,$, a recording that is just over 6 minutes lat . ! * 3e, etc. In our own industry's researrh on the mechanical question, I
' * view the examination of the Top 1:50) **t selling albums ir, a kiirt wr ! 1004 total tunes represented within theme 15) albums, I found toast *** (1246) were in elm of 5 minutes in length, and thus were quasi mechanical royalty in excess of me. A reint (ambridge Researrb institute showed that mechanical royalty rates over 2¢ are paid on 31 of r areru records because of overtime rate practices. I hope this clarities the inaccuracies in Mr. Feist's response to your quas', Respectfully,
STAVILT M. G :IX
marry my case to the chess public through the .- Plantation. The editor of its main publication. *
be ending chess magazines with a world v mutatic to the cause and supports my going
++ and stitioning that the magazine extendo mi. . abent for any use of a chess game. It would 1. may to the profession by allowing the artist to fe
*T*** In One my academic offices to further the
a rire dealing with chers in general, and the . .. I to one was a professional chess player, ar **
in America). They will appear in vario Se two very long articles will appear in th og he
til Lile and Review.
*** I write will deal with the copyright laws * ** plight of the professional chess player in *** ** AN190 being a contributing factor.
*** you can give this a serious consideration. ter fours,
l' IRATY O V!: 70449
Ann Arbor, vich, Oyber !1, 1:*: Non, ROBERT W. KASTFYMEITR, Nead --Committee on Copyright Larce, Rayburn House One Buildir, Waxhington, D.C.
DAR SIR: A recent article in the Is News & World Report and 1070) called to my attention the reevaluation in Congress of the stry our copyright laws, and I undertand your artituittee is almut to talr . action.
PEDECTION OF THE CHESS GAME d ay, a c*** game is a product of many yea para Beberal proficiency, plus specific preparat
*****vant on naually begins in the early teen i
profitent by the early twentjes B, mit veak (Bobby Fischer is 79
I hope it is not too late for you to consider, or if you already have then to add
Traonsideration, my concern for the trploitation of a form of creation which aga rently Is (apletely unprotected. This is the creation of the chess player the form of the chess game he plays and annotatre.
This concern has been as old as chers itsell, over 100 years in the form I am *waking of, but the exploitation is particularly visible and blatant today -- with t'e rise of our own champion, Bobby Fischer, to the world chess throne, held by the knulans since 1916 His magnetic play and the romantic Asperts of an 1. Jual genius (Votre Prize laureate Fri, for his brain rearrh, exclams : *... you have a Mozart or Mendelsohn or a kouts with their marrelous youthful creativity, and in our own daye Bobby Fischer at 6 discovered that he had been hrn with the brain of a che genius **) *U***fully challenging the whole school of Rinian chreidlated the sale or renumeration in chess activities from thumatd. to millions of dollars.
But its greatest champion has also been its greatest victim-in many wars With rest to the subject I am writing about, we find numerous weke with
wir nine on the outer and his games teen covers, little or nothing else, for which be gris nothing let ott lourly only his name is what sells them, and kisattivities
There are ok with literally nothing but the score of his games in them. (lir kase light cuflatents and analysis from neapers or else ma kuzibes, #arte theere is liapu - no protetion from the exploitation of the profesional CD player. And it is only one step from newspapers and chess magazines to
Ile relevance of this to the work of your committee should be obvious, al. tl. uzb what to do about the exploitation may met de
He ale che, at the level I am speaking of, is not widely understand I have MIDded a long w erpt derink what Kups into the promotion of a ch** Elic and how it enter into the public domain and is used there. Alw I have tried to draw the parallel twen chru and the arts, stends, and sport tree ara. in which sih emploitation has to fought with wine (7 The
rarit: 1) kunt was to fixut it in chru
Till dine it is premature to go into detail bere alwut the forth in which cop. nicht porverton many le extended to che, I will toly aid that I have given the 17ter Cutiderable toxlt and find nomres portes that de o die fatal.ein in the arts and men, where they have to tarded with runner #'s Nur I would be glad to testify in front of your fin maittee to plante
I n to earry my caer to the che push!le tl.rrugh the oth of the t'nited Mint (lees vertinta. Itse editor of its ttain presbian alltam, (bas litr and he 1 One af te leading the magazine with a Wutid we muturiptiot of UNS) f* imutheir to the rate and *111**»fts Mr NIP* to 11 T 14" marul fitoier binn, and grtiti.tuing that the bliskaite pitetta, 1* own valta-n nat leist torn tia ment for any use of a cheus enne It watu'd & N aut. and huid nity to the profesot by allow the artist to frl be onns his own
I am et4 to mir mendemir (fys to further the se, and have fur* fared wieral artilra dealing with eben in erderal, and tire world tonfritt.
ment into the early forties and are still going strong by the early Altur . 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 champion 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 surt, a!'), visible execution of the game is also a mixture of an artistic and al. formance more artistic than athletic.
..! Puric Broadcasting and Copyright Law” dated
a the Public Broadcasting Service and other pub
is legally exempt from clearance and pay
"!.* Lelp we can in this regard.
CHESS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
A chess player's work can enter the public domain in two wire: bie as viewed by spectators on TV or other medium, including immediate je and publication in newspapers, magazines, and bookIn publication. One ! 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: ee taros en **** and playing as well as analyzing the published games later. In oo of games later, one should distinguish between playing and analu fi 9:*** * pleasure, and doing it to gain scientific knowledge to be apunity in fr07.15 1 perhaps against the creator of the game himsell.
A point not fully appreciated, and most relevant when waking of m ** protection, is that br far the greatest consumption of chpes mer publications, not from immediate performanre. I follow the game serii and have played over all the games of Bobby Fischer and the great play and almost all from books. Even when I watrh a tournament. I ri!!*** magazines describing them, b*ause the games require more tha : Bra; cinte than one can apply at the time of performance.
This makes it paramount that the creator onn his ch-atlon, as Arr* tion in newspapers, magazines and books goes, for kirin tha! t.;.
. real qonsumption takes place this is also where the profite lle Typogr.** and appearance fees are a mere pittance. Fisher can command p**** of his uniqueness, but the state of professional chess is deplorable ! The U.S. open championship offers $200 for 2 weeks har mikl! If not you get next to nothing, and there are over a hundre! ******
Given that an active player is not apt to dirige his aralrin fur being used against him in tournaments, the exploitation is f *p*p make far more from his efforts than he doma, sirce these pabila at will with no recompense to him.
Some form of copyright protection sonld go a long way torum ": injustice and add dignity to the game of che !
!:o the poblic broadcasting position are two we maibe of American copyright law, and the other of A
goyeur ;a: Lor --Puder the American Copyright Law, the
*At As the United States Supreme Court &
SEAN IP claim of non-dramatic music performan
Pras (ONGRYSHMAN KASTTTMEIER: Ingree with the hrust Mr Kiwi ter. I feel quite strongly and have se for many years, that depolanom harap right profefion for their chi
I. tom. II Poem ) W !.11.**, DC to give mr trimony on this sub fort topp t! **: committee of outgr*** 1Den and or senators who are drink pt!
ri Act of 199... gives to a copyright bolder
e re rigtits" in his copyrighted works .. Som a misrighted work does not conflict wit * statute, it is no infringement of the hold toga marum Copyright, Sec. 100 at p. 374-376:
n gbeurd work is not an infringing act if *tem fe of the rights expressly granted to
de prigti'y reading a book or privately perf **** performing a musical composition but r • A
m work which do not infringe ti po ovome. In this sense, the rights of a p 11****Sprea enumeration ..."
* * kas been continued in the success
W*: !, sulject to the limitations and exe
pt ; no performance rights at all as
non-ramatic literary, musical and
the partozlarized right to make a "trar
10. Or "reyrding rights come w
PT.. " Von can (*.** me on this subject through Mr Kame
the Status of Public Broadcasting and Copyright Law" dated October 15, 1973, Prepared for the Public Broadcasting Service and other public broadcasting organizations. As you will see, the memorandum outlines in some detail how public broadcasting is legally exempt from clearance 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 II. MARQUIS,
MEMORANDUM ON THE STATUS OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING UNDER CURRENT
Important questions have been raised in recent Congressional hearings about the rights and liabilities of public broadcasting under the current United States Copyright Law (ie, the Copyright Statute enacted in 1909, as amended to this date, 17 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1 et seq.).
This memorandum is intended to present a concise summary of the public broadcasting legal position on the pertinent provisions in the present copyright law. It does not purport to be a comprehensive brief but rather a short statement of the copyright basis upon which public broadcasting has developed its clearance 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 communi. cations law.
Copyright Lav.--Under the American Copyright Law, the exclusive rights of copyright owners are those and only those-specifically granted in the law itself. 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 stated in its recent decision in Tuentieth Century Music Corp. t. Aiken (June 1976), in ruling against an ASCAP claim of non-dramatic music perforinance rights infringement:
"The Copyright Act of 1909 ... gives to a copyright holder a monopoly limited to specified "exclusive rights" in his copyrighted works ... accordingly, if an unlietnsed use of a copyrighted work does not conflict within an "excluxive" right confirmed by statute, it is no infringement of the holder's rights."
So also states Nimmer on Copyright, Sec, 100 at p. 374-370:
"A use of a copyrighted work is not an infringing art if such use does not fall within the scope of those rights expressly granted to the copyright proprietor. Thus privately reading a book or privately performing a dramatic work or even publicly performing a musical composition but not for profit all con#titute uses of a copyrighted work which do not infringe the rights granted to the copyright proprietor. In this sense, the rights of a proprietor under the Copyright Act are rights of express enumeration ..."
This statutory scheme has been continued in the successive versions of the current Copyright Revision Bill - with the copyright proprietors' protected rights detailed in Section 100, subject to the limitations and exemptions provided in succeeding sections.
Under existing copyright law, the copyright proprietor's broadcast rights in non-dramatic musical and literary works are limited to performance in public (or publicly) "for profit"; no performance rights at all are provided for nondramatic pictorial works. Nor are broadcast recordings anywhere specifically mentioned; whatever broadcast recording rights are claimed by copyright proprietory for published non-dramatic literary, musical and pictorial worky must be sought either in the generic right to "print, reprint, publish, copy and veod" in Section 1(a), the particularized right to make a "transcription or record" of non-dramatic literary works in Section 1(c), or the compulsory license for "mechanical parts" with respect to musical works in Section 1(e). Whether or not so-called "synchronization" or "recording" rights come within these statutory categories, and to what extent the "for profit" restriction applies there as well, are clearly matters for judicial interpretation under the present law.