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.
333
18
termination could continue to be exploited according to the terms of the license after termination, but no new derivative works could be created.
Discussions on the bills held at the Copyright Office with private sector groups showed strong opposition to the reversion (termination of transfer) provisions by book and music publishers^' and by the motion picture and television industries, who described the provisions as "at best misguided paternalism." Authors' groups defended the provisions as essential to preserving the status quo authors were supposed to enjoy under the 1909 Act and as protecting authors from the unequal bargaining leverage of purchasers of copyright. ^° At the same time, authors' representatives objected to making the author wait 35 years before a "new act" transfer could be terminated, noting that in his 1960 report to Congress, the Register had indicated the period should be 20 years, and that the 1963 draft bill had set the date at 25 years . *^
The 1965 Bills and House hearings. Register of Copyrights' 1965 Report
The 1965 revision bills^^ retained the 1964 bills' provisions on duration, but made extensive changes in the termination provisions that greatly complicated them for authors, thus ensuring that their utility would be greatly diminished. The changes.
^' See Copvriaht Law Revision Part 5; 1964 Revision Bill with Discussions and Comments. 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 154-155, 156, 157, 222, 225-226 (House Comm. Print 1965).
The book publishers characterized the provisions as "intolerable" and stated their "unequivocal opposition to any form of reversion," claiming that out-of-print clauses vesting the copyright back in the author if the book remained out of print for five years adequately protected authors. The out-of-print argument was plainly ridiculous: publishers were willing to give the copyright back to the author only when they determined the work no longer had any commercial value.
^^ Id. at 160, 162, 299-300.
^' See page 11.
^° Id. at 155-156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 240-250, 257 (making suggestions for amendments) .
^^ Id. at 241.
" S. 3008, H.R. 11947, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).