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.

433 3. Rethinking Physical Preservation Film preservation is necessary because of film's unstable chemical properties. Most obviously unstable is cellulose nitrate, the support base used in virtually all theatrical films produced before 1950. Nitrate's dangerous flammability at relatively low temperatures, along with its greater age, long made it the almost exclusive focus for preservation attention. Decisions have become less simple, however, with the growing realization that the cellulose acetate "safety" film that replaced nitrate has no greater permanence and degrades at essentially the same speed, if with less fire hazard. Further complicating the problem is the rapid fading of new "dye-coupler" color emulsions that became standard after 1953. In casual language and traditional practice, "preservation" has been synonymous with duplication. "Has the film been preserved?," a question still often asked of archivists, is understood to mean, "Has the film been copied onto newer film stock?" Preservation copying (during which "preprint" material is made, ideally with little visual or aural degradation) remains key for two reasons: Deteriorating older works need immediate copying if they are not to join the vast numbers of American films already permanently lost, and films need copying if they are to be publicly accessible, especially through theatrical exhibition. Nevertheless, this narrow definition of preservation cannot be sustained if there is to be hope of saving more than a fraction of American film production. Costs for preserving a single color feature by copying can run to $40,000 or more, and the short lifespans once thought to be a problem only for nitrate now confront nearly all films. There is, however, an additional way to prolong the life of film: by storing the original film artifact in such a way that it can itself survive. Ongoing research and practical experience continue to demonstrate the capacity of low-temperamre, lowhumidity storage conditions to extend the useftil life of films, including those in the early stages of deterioration. These scientific fmdings come at a time when historians, students of American culture, ethnic communities, and the general public are demanding that a fuller range of film production be preserved and made available for exhibition and study. Only by redefining the approach to physical preservation-by integrating improved storage with selective duplication and restoration-will it be possible to save these irreplaceable cultural artifacts. The two ways of understanding Rethinking Physical Preservation