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.

543 60 Film Preservation 1993 is dramatically cheaper than continually replicated deteriorating film elements whose lives were shortened by improper storage. In the future archival film storage may be replaced by digital computer storage to an image resolution equivalent to 3Smm film. However, although such digitalization technology does exist today two significant problems exist. First, the process is exceedingly slow and more importantly, the amount of digital data in each frame of film is so great that no practical storage technologies have yet to be invented. A full film transfer to a film equivalent digital domain with it's complete essence stored on computer tape would cost at least ten times as much as producing protection separations on film. However, digitalization of film may be an alternative to film archiving in the not-toodistant future. There is a great need for the Library of Congress and Congress to focus on the parts of our American visual heritage which do not naturally fall under someone's ownership. We speak here of that great collection of public domain material much of it on nitrate film. Those titles are called orphans because they have no protectors, no organization with the.wherewithal to transfer the material to safety film to assure that future generations will have the opportunity to view what the early part of our century looked Uke OB film. It's our suggestion that a national preservation policy address this great collection of material before time, its greatest enemy, takes it away fi-om us forever. We've all heard the tragic figure that half of the films produced before 1950 are gone. They're lost, deteriorated or destroyed. The other half is only partially protected. Recently Paramount, at our own expense in cooperation with UCLA archive, transferred a 1927 version of Mary Pickford's Tess of the Storm Country from nitrate to safety film. We were surprised to find that it was the only theatrical copy of that title in existence and we were shocked to think that it may have been lost forever. It's gratifying that the U.S. Congress recognizes the need to preserve our visual cultural heritage. It's likewise impressive to know that the Librarian of Congress is marshalling the effort. We offer our cooperation, our expertise. As for Paramount, we will continue to protect and preserve our visual heritage with total commitment and dedication. MR. TABB: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We're also glad today to welcome Mr. Kirkpatrick, the film archivist fi-om Republic Pictures. I understand you didn't wish to make a prepared statement at this time, but youll take questions; is that correct?