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)

110 So, we support the extension of the term of copyright, but we would ask that the subcommittee hold hearings on H.R. 1244, the Theatrical Motion Picture Authorship Act, introduced by Congressman Bryant, to explicate the issues surrounding moral rights. Maybe we can find a way to close this hypocrisy gap completely. THE NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION ACT Of course, the DGA enthusiastically supports the reauthorization of the National Film Preservation Act, an act which grew out of our earlier lobbying efforts to enhance film protection. Without recounting the whole history of this act's passage, suffice it to say that in its initial bill form, it offered elements relating to labeling and preservation. The labeling elements have been dropped, and in fact, picked up in a more extensive way by the Film Disclosure Act. But the preservation act, as it is presently constituted, continues to do important work, particularly in trying to salvage and restore artistically and culturally important films on the edge of extinction. The National Endowment for the Arts used to provide some funding for film preservation efforts, but has been forced to abandon these efforts in the face of previous budget cutbacks. Given the Endowment's present peril, it seems extremely unlikely that any of these ftinds will ever be restored. So it seems particularly appropriate that the Library of Congress should continue to raise a small banner on behalf of preservation efforts. The bill before you adds another title to establish a mechanism for preservation fundraising in the private sector in support of the Act's purposes. Given the times, particularly the cutback in Endowment funding, we believe this title is a creative and necessary adaptation if we as a nation are to continue even mincing efforts to save our country's extraordinary film heritage. These funding efforts are essentially private and voluntary, and government appropriations are only available on a matching basis. H.R. 1248 Both of these measures concern us, but the bill that has the most import for us is the Film Disclosiire Act, H.R. 1248, sponsored in the House by Congressman Barney Frank and in the Senate by Senator Alan Simpson. This is the third Congress in which a measure similar to this one has been introduced; we intend to persevere as do our legislative friends. This subcommittee has previously taken testimony on a similar bill, but the times and circumstances have changed somewhat, and so we are particularly glad to have another opportunity to raise some issues regarding the bill with the subcommittee. The purpose of the bill is simple. When a theatrical motion picture has been changed, after its initial release, for viewing on, among other avenues, TV or on a cassette or on an airliner, tell people. Describe succinctly the changes that have been made and give the director, the screenwriter, and the cinematographer a chance to object to these changes if they choose to do so. It is the artistry of the film that suffers through alterations, and so it is only proper, in oiu* view, that the main creative authors ought to have a chance to comment on an altered version. We consider this bill in the vein of consumer protection. When a film is advertised for viewing on television, either the networks or syndicated television, the public is given the clear impression that what they will be seeing is the version they saw, or wish they had seen, in the movie theater. Our opponents have argued that the viewing public is aware that changes have been made to the film when it is shown on TV. We contend that the argument is preposterous — the viewing public has no idea of the extent to which feature films are routinely cannibalized for TV viewing. When the rectangular dimensions of a film's theatrical version are squeezed (panned and scanned) into the square format of a TV screen, as much as 45 percent of the visual image is lost. To fit a film into a specified time allotment, usually two hours, substantial chunks of the film are often edited out — not primarily for taking out objectionable scenes of violence or sex, but for fitting in more commercials. Ofi;en this gross editing turns a coherent narrative into gibberish. Then you have an insidious process called lexiconning which speeds up scenes (altering the pace of the performances), again in order to fit in more commercials. Finally, among the alterations most common is the one most well known, colorization, in which a computer's colors are added to a film originally shot in black and white. Obviously, not all of these alterations are made to all films, but a very, very large percentage are subjected to panning-and-scanning and gross editing. Obviously, as filmmakers who labor over each scene, we find all of these alterations objectionable.