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)

133 Curtain, a message that in a free society joy and trust are possible, unlike the despair and paranoia that haunt a country under totalitarian rule. It came from his heart, this film, and it was intended in a small way to weaken the hold of an oppressive regime over the minds of people thirsty for freedom. The original film had 22 songs. When it was shown on television, only 11 survived. The other 11 were cut. You might say that what the audience saw was half "Hair," a celebration of half freedom. And yet it was called "Hair," the screenplay was credited to me and the direction to Milos Forman. The most fundamental intention of the film was violated. The spirit it was made to celebrate, the energy embodied in its songs, virtually everything it stood for was violated on television. I am aware that an argument can be made that it is entirely within the rights of purchasers to do what they please with the work they buy. Just as it is arguably within the rights of millionaire X, who owns a Rembrandt that won't fit the wall where he wants it hung, to cut 6 inches from the top and a foot from the side. In fact, he can cut it in half and hang it in two separate rooms if he pleases. But does he now own two Rembrandts? No, what he owns is a Rembrandt, mutilated, altered, and destroyed. The law may support his right, as an owner, to do this, but should it support his right to advertise it subsequently as the work of artist Y or Z? I would argue no. Simple logic tells us that an artist should be allowed to protect himself from such abuse. If inches are lopped off his work, give him a chance to warn the public that what they are seeing is no longer his. Let viewers know, especially discerning viewers who might be in a position to employ him now or at some future date, that what they saw doesn't represent his abilities. It may even, in some cases, harm his reputation. As regards preservation of our firm heritage, a nation is esteemed and remembered mainly by the stories it tells about itself. America's undeniable contribution to storytelling is film, and films deteriorate. With them a cherished record of our heritage vanishes. The Government can help prevent this and for, relatively speaking, a pittance. We would not allow the Lincoln Memorial to crumble. We provide a budget to ensure that Lincoln's memory is honored in the form of maintenance. I encourage you to throw a few dollars to the maintenance of another great heritage of ours, film. Now to my main area of concern, copyright. You have heard testimony describing the hard arguments which are economic. We are basically hemorrhaging money for 20 years to Europe. I would like to talk about the testimony to the effect that the artist's work is his heritage, his legacy, the means by which he hopes to provide for his children and his children's children. Even in writing film, for which I hold no copyright, I count on the duration of the film owner's copyright, which ensures that I am compensated for future exploitation of my work on television, videocassettes and possible merchandising or publication, the use of film clips and so on. The duration of these rights is my main concern today.