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.
330
15
freedom and investment should be respected, as well as music publishers, who argued that the potential value of many compositions is not ascertainable until years after the work is published.*^ Authors groups "ardently" supported a termination (or as it was also called, a reversion) right.*'*
Authors offered a number of defenses. First, a single, unified term of protection (whether 75/100 years or life of the author plus 50 years) , would place authors in a worse condition than the existing law unless a termination right was provided,*^ since under the existing law contracts for both the original and renewal term were not supposed to be enforceable, and even though the Supreme Court had thwarted Congress's intent in this respect in the Fred Fisher opinion,*^ if the author died before the renewal term, his heirs nevertheless got the copyright back free and clear of all assignments. Second, the only reason authors sign away their copyrights for long periods of time is the unequal bargaining position they find themselves in in negotiating with publishers. And finally, "the basic terms of a book contract are the seune wherever you go," including a requirement that the author assign both the original and renewal term.*' This conclusion was supported by a reputed statement from a book publisher that, "I have never in my entire publishing experience accepted a grant of rights to publish a book for only one term. I hope I never have to. I know of no other publisher who has ever accepted a grant of only a single term. We all accept grants of only the original and renewal terms, "*^
It was argued that authors, not publishers, should benefit from any extension of term (beyond the then-granted 56 years) for subsisting copyrights because publishers had only bargained and
work may, as a practical matter, preclude the author from marketing the work to anyone else,
*2 Id. at 281-283, 290-292, 300, 341-343.
^^ id, at 283.
** Id, at 286-287, 293-295, 296-197.
^^ See Copyright Law Revision Part 5; 1964 Revision Bill with Discussions and Comments. 89th Cong., 1st Sess, 161 (House Comm. Print 1965) (remarks of Harriet Pilpel) .
*^ See page 11.
*'' Id. at 287.
^® Copyright Law Revision Part 5; 1964 Revision Bill with Discussions and Comments. 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 155-156 (House Comm. Print 1965) .