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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

169 2. Copyright Revision. Congress was finally willing to embrace the international standard of life plus 50 when it revisited the issue in deliberations leading to the 1976 Copyright Act. In the initial report prepared "to pinpoint the issues and stimulate public discussion, " •* the Copyright Office proposed a duration of 28 years from first public dissemination, coupled with a renewal term of 48 years. This would bring the maximum term from 56 to 76 years. " The Copyright Office Report noted two general approaches to measure the copyright term (1) from the dissemination of the work or (2) from the death of the author. It concluded that 'a term based on dissemination has the greater advantages for the public, and that the principal purposes of a term based on the death of the author can be achieved by a sufficiently long term based on dissemination." ^* The Office's proposal was widely criticized; the parties preferred a life plus 50 year standard. ^^ By 1964, the working draft proposed one copyright term, life plus 50 years for most works. ^' Debate continued, however, on how long this term should be and what should be done about corporate works and subsisting copyrights. '* Copyright Law Pan 1, at Preface, p. i. •' Id. at 50. '* Id. at 48-49 (emphasis added). One reason the Report recommended measuring the term from dissemination was thai approximately 40% of works were 'corporate' and many individual works were HittAminati'H anonymously. " SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW: 1965 REVISION BILL, HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICL\RY. 89TH CONG.. 1ST SESS.. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION PART 6 (Comm. Print 1965) [hereinafter Copyright Uw Revision Part 6]; REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE US. COPYRIGHT LAW: DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS, HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 88TH CONG.. 1ST SESS.. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION PART 2 (Comm. Prim 1963) [hereinafter Copyright Uw Revision Pan 2]. ■' PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVISED U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW: DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT, HOUSE COMM. ON THE KJDICL\RY, 88TH CONG.. 2D SESS.. COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION PART 3, 19-20 (Comm. Print 1964) [hereinafter Copyright Law Revision Pan 31. dirr\duniioii.loc July II. 1993 8