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)

the author's work. The 1976 law needs to be revisited since neither of these objectives is being met. In October 1993, the European Union adopted a directive mandating copyright term protection equal to the life of the author plus 70 years for all works originating in the European Union, no later than the first of July of this year. The E.U. action has serious trade implications for the United States. United States and the E.U. nations are all signatories of the Berne Copyright Convention, which includes the so-called rule of the shorter term, which accords copyright protection for a term which is the shorter of life plus 70 years or the term of copyright in the country of origin. Once this directive is implemented, U.S. works will only be granted copyright protection for the shorter life plus 50-year term before falling into the public domain. The main reasons for this extension of term are fairness and economics. If the Congress does not extend to Americans the same copyright protection afforded their counterparts in Europe, American creators will have 20 years less protection than their European counterparts; 20 years during which Europeans will not be paying Americans for their copyrighted works. And whose works do Europeans buy more than any other country? Works of American artists. This would be harmful to the country and work a hardship on American creators. The second bill before us this morning is H.R. 1248, the Film Disclosure Act of 1995. This legislation seeks to protect the rights of filmmakers who fear that post production changes in films threatens the integrity of their creative works. The bill would require that films be labeled to indicate what alterations have been made and to indicate if the director, screenwriter, or cinematographer objects to these alterations. I recall when the former chairman of this subcommittee. Bob Kastenmeier, held a hearing on legislation similar to H.R. 1248 at UCLA back in January 1990. At that hearing. Bob indicated that it was his belief that there are certain criteria that Congress must use in considering any dispute of this nature. They are: First, we must ask the proponents of change to bear the burden of proving that the change is necessary, fair, and practical. Second, we must always recognize and balance the legitimate rights of creators, producers or copyright holders, and the public interest. Third, a private solution negotiated by interested parties is always preferable to congressional intervention. I think this set of criteria is just as valuable today for evaluating a proposal such as H.R. 1248. I would urge all of the parties involved to get together some time this year, or as early as possible, and try to see what arrangements can be made that is agreeable to all the parties. I would really urge you to do that. I think it would be very serious to have Congress make the determination. And I think that all of you work in the same industry, and you live off of the proceeds of these films. And, surely, I think everybody should try to work out something together that satisfies everyone's interests.