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.

182 have not been published. Extending the term will not benefit the copyright owners of such works; there are, however, broad public benefits to be gained when these works enter the public domain. Many institutions, including the Library of Congress, have photographs, letters and manuscripts that can and will be made available to the public. For example, the Library of Congress has a unified collection on the American composer Edward A. Mac Dowell (1861-1908). The rights in all of the material in that collection except his correspondence, can be cleared, and there is no way to locate the heirs of those leners sent to Mac Dowell. This collection is being prepared for distribution to the public in 2003; nothing would be gained by restricting such dissemination until the year 2013. m. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TERM EXTENSION Although there was no pending legislation, the Copyright Office published an announcement in the Federal Register on July 30, 1993. that it would be conducting a study on copyright duration and also announced a public hearing to be held on September 29, 1993. In addition to publication in the Federal Register, the Copyright Office contacted user groups about the hearing. Perhaps because legislation did not appear on the horizon, only representatives who strongly supported increasing the term of protection appeared. They represented lyricists and composers, music publishers, and the motion picture industry. " The Copyright Office extended its comment period to ensure that all views would be heard. Later other " The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) (Comments 1 and 99); Music Publishers Association (MPA) (Comment 2); Intemational Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMPXComment 4); Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) (Comment 6); David Nimmer (Comment 7); Wade Williams Productions (Comment 23); Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) (Comment 24) Joint Comments of the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners (CCCOXComments 3 and 98). But s^ Comment 15 filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The RIAA is primarily interested im removing the "distinction between author's rights and so called neighboring ngbts...' and asserted that diere were far more pressing issues than duration. Id. at 3-4 dirr\duranon.loc ?.• July 11, 199$ 21