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.

589 present balance should not be disturbed unless it is clear that the benefits to the public outweigh the costs. Opponents acknowledge that some benefits may result from the proposed extension, but discount these benefits as insubstantial or speculative. They also note that many of the same benefits might be predicted from any extension of copyright term, whether for 20 years or 100. On the other side, they see significant negatives, and conclude that the potential benefits of the legislation have not been shown to outweigh its potential negatives. The ultimate questions are the accuracy of this assessment of the relative strength of the benefits and costs, and the level of burden of proof that should be placed upon proponents of the legislation to show that the benefits outweigh the costs. Analysis Benefits from extension of term The direct economic impact of the proposed extension is clear: American copyright owners will receive income from any exploitation of their works for an additional 20 years. The income will come from exploitations abroad as well as within the United States; it is this international trade issue that drives the pending bills. As of July 1 of this year, the European Union requires all member countries to provide a basic copyright term of life plus 70.' Because members must apply the equivalent of the Berne Convention's rule of the shorter term,'' however, the ' See Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993. The Directive contains a special rule for cinematographic or audiovisual works, extending the term of protection to 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue, and the composer of music specifically created for use in the work. Id. Art. 2(2). Cf. Art. 7(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which allows members to provide a special term for cinematographic works instead of the ordinary minimum standard of life plus 50, consisting of 50 years from the date the work was made available to the public, or if it is not made public within 50 years, 50 years from its making. ' Under the "rule of the shorter term, " an exception to Berne's general rule of national treatment, member countries are not required to provide a term of protection for any foreign work that is longer than the term provided by the work's country of