Copyright term, film labeling, and film preservation legislation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 1734 ... June 1 and July 13, 1995 (1996)

109 cerned with this issue for many years and has visited Congress several times. And, finally, I am pleased to announce that the Screen Actors Guild East and West have officially voted to support the Film Disclosure Act. This is a tremendous vote of support for the bill. SAG is a huge union with almost 80,000 members all over the United States. And I would like to point out that this position of support underscores the traditional relationship of trust between actors and directors. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for listening to our petition. [The prepared statement of Ms. Coolidge follows:] Prepared Statement of Martha Coolidge, Member, Directors Guild of America, Inc. My name is Martha Coolidge, and I am privileged to appear before the subcommittee today in my capacity as a feature film director and as a member of the Directors Guild of America. I have been a member for some years of the DGA's President's Committee, which has steered our efforts in Washington to provide greater protection for films and film artists. Perhaps I am alone among the witnesses giving testimony this morning in being enthusiastic about all three pieces of legislation that the subcommittee is considering today, though my remarks in the main focus on H.R. 1248, the Film Disclosure Act of 1995. I would doubt that any other single Congressional hearing has ever focused on three bills together that relate so directly, though in disparate ways, to the motion picture industry. I take this as a recognition by Congress of the importance and complexity of our industry in economic and cultural terms. Before the main focus of my remarks, let me briefly touch on H.R. 989, the bill extending copyright term, and H.R. 1734, the bill reauthorizing the National Film Preservation Act. H.R. 989 Within the last year or so, the European Union has adopted a rule extending the term of copyright among its member nations, essentially seeking to harmonize differing copyright terms among the countries of the Union. And as is almost always the case when the Europeans lead the way, the emphasis is on providing greater protection to authors. Too often, our own country, the world's leading copyright exporter, follows along, rather than leads, in efforts to enhance protection. We must not delay, though, in adopting a longer term of copyright protection for reasons that essentially have to do with equity and economics. It simply is unfair that authors and copjnright holders in Europe should enjoy a greater incentive to the production of further work through enhanced protection denied their American counterparts. There is also what I would call the "Free lunch" issue, in which Europeans will be able to enjoy American cop5rrighted works without paying for them, though European authors will be compensated. The average theatrical motion picture these days costs many millions of dollars to make. To recoup this investment, the companies have to distribute product in many countries and over a long period of time. The copjrright term of a number of landmark films, such as "Gone With The Wind," will expire within a few years, even though there is obviously considerable commercial value left in the film. Cycling more money through the system through an extended copyright term will help insure future production. Having said this, it is worth noting that the directive from the European community that encourages a longer copyright term also explicitly states that "the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work shall be considered as its author or one of its authors. Member states shall be free to designate other co-authors." Again, as in the case of Berne implementation, we in the U.S. seem spurred on to higher levels of copyright protection by following a European model, but we do so selectively. So long as we studiously avoid a discussion of moral rights, of natural persons as authors, even in a collaborative setting, we will not close the gap of hypocrisy with which the Europeans regard our copyright policy.