The screen writer (June 1947-Mar 1948)

THE SCREEN WRITER ment of copyright" is used to indicate outright transfer of ownership. That is, over there, the issue is stated as the issue of "licensing" versus the issue of "assignment of copyright." Here, in discussing AAA, we have of course used the phrase "assignment of copyright" as a phrase subsidiary to, not hostile to, the idea of licensing. With us we have used the phrase as meaning "trusteeship of copyright." The distinction in use and meaning is important to remember because while in one sense of the word our English colleagues are consistently opposed to "assignment of copyright," actually our position and theirs is identical at the moment. We are both for licensing and against outright sale under any terms. ) It would be bad reporting, however, to suggest that AAA is sweeping the country. It is too new, too comprehensive, to be disposed of in a few easy resolutions and generalities. The truth is many writers still have quite a few reservations about AAA, some of them valid and reasonable, some of them invalid and irrational. The position of the Screen Writers' Guild at this point is a very simple one. We say now, as we have said many times before: this is one form of licensing, it is a form in which we believe, but if it isn't the best form, give us the one that is better. We realize, for instance, that many members of the Dramatists Guild do not take easily to the theory of "assignment of copyright" even though the proposed assignment is a very limited one and would be, in fact, a revocable trusteeship. They do not take easily to this theory because they have been able to operate otherwise in the theatre. They have been able to operate under a Minimum Basic Agreement. We understand this position and we can appreciate the logic of it, for many of us have been members of the Dramatists Guild for many years. But we also realize that licensing in four fields can not be projected without some comprehensive machinery to implement that licensing and to date we have heard of no over-all machinery which would provide that implementation. True, the Authors Guild is considering the advisability of a film negotiator — like the one in the Dramatists Guild — as one possible method of regulating the licensing of the material of Authors Guild members that might be sold to motion pictures. But this is not the same thing as over-all negotiation in the fields of theatre, radio, television and films. It is a limited approach to one section of the problem and it is a very good approach. It is a step in the right direction but we in the Screen Writers' Guild think similar steps have to be taken by all guilds together: in effect, over-all, simultaneous negotiation in all fields. Through the Authors League of America of course, but through some special machinery set up to do this particular job. To date, the only hint as to a possible alternative to AAA — and it is only a hint, and perhaps an unintentional one at that — comes from George Middleton, veteran dramatist, in his excellent reissue of the pamphlet describing the operations of the Dramatists Guild Minimum Basic Agreement. Toward the end of this report, Mr. Middleton sagely observes: "Healthy differences as to policies, which may arise within the League, should not weaken a common front through which alone can the common objectives, of benefit to all authors, be achieved. To that end, Basic Agreements, I believe, should be negotiated to cover the entire field of authorship, in which European authors, who have asked our cooperation, should be invited to participate." The italics, it should be noted, are those of Mr. Middleton. They raise a provocative question. Here, of course, is the ultimate of ultimates — one to which I think most members of the Screen Writers' Guild would subscribe without hesitation. But are we in a position to project such an agreement at the present time? Isn't that the last round in the licensing fight rather than the first round? A hundred members from each of the four guilds might easily put AAA into operation, if they were the holders of enough active copyrights, for the whole principle of AAA is that of a voluntary association of writers in a limited trusteeship. But it would take the common concerted action of at least five to seven thousand writers to make effectual a Compulsory Minimum Basic Agreement covering all fields. As matters stand now, the League and its member guilds are firmly committed to the general principle of licensing and the accompanying theories of separation of copyrights and reversion for non-use. But no one has yet suggested the possible zero hour when this licensing program will take effect — and after which outright sales of literary property will no longer be countenanced by the League. And no one, with the exception of the Screen Writers' Guild, has come forward with a detailed over-all plan whereby such a licensing program might be projected through the League and its member guilds. Locally, many playwrights and screen writers are already working at the theory of licensing, even though there is as yet no League machinery to implement it. They are able to do this because they are strong enough individually to ask for and to obtain seven and ten year licensing contracts, separation of copyrights and reversion for non-use. Others, not so fortunate, face the old