Sponsor (May-Aug 1957)

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.

C«*rrl|ht IM7 »P0N»OR PUBLICATIONS INC it haft happening in I irmm that affect* tioiu WASHINGTON WEEK 4 may Of considerable significance to advertisers in general i 1 1 ■ • I . S, Supreme Court's agreement this week to decide whether .1 parodj <ii i copyrighted »<>ik violates the copyright la\\-. Parodies are common in commercial jin I p to now, 1 1 j * lowi have invested the copyright owner with complete control ovei .rk. The case coming before the top tribunal began when Loew's, In cted to ! Benny's parody of the motion picture Gaslight. \ I 5. I ourl of Vppeals' ruling upheld Loew's ((intention thai a parody or burlesque i no different from ani other copy* right infringement. The high court will listen to arguments when it reconvenes in the fill. This week's hearings on independent program packagers maj not be the I < < network study committee's last such attempt to gel information from reluctant of the t\ industry . The wording of th»> FCC announcement of the Bubpoenas indicated thai oth< follow even though it appeared that producers of film -Imw were the particular thorn in the side of the committee's chairman. Dean Roscoe Barrow. The FCC is convinced that its present multiple ownership rales ;ire ;t -ullii ienl safeguard against monopoly and thus is granting another h station to a network. So the FCC told Sen. Thomas Hennings (D, Mo. . who. .m_< -red l>\ i! ■ men! of St Louis channel 11 to CBS over Beveral competitors, directed a roster questions at the commission. Senator Hennings sought to draw a parallel l>\ a question along this line: Aren't the networks, now being studied for possible violation of anti-trust law*, in a similar position to motion picture people when th< FO d< Ferred UW for broadcast facilities on the ground they were Mill under anti-trusi indictment? Rejoined the FCC: There's no similarity whatever. The networks haven't been convicted of anything, and investigations aren't to be equated with convictioi The FCC has set 3 June as the deadline for the submission <>t arguments on its decision to substitute the Craven plan for the t>. table of allocations. After polishing up the Craven plan and adopting it b) a I -3 vote, the FCl so-called rulemaking proceeding-. To the Craven plan have been added specific protections to uhf. No applications for vbf drop-ins will l>e entertained that are within 75 mileof a uhf transmitter, unless there is ahead] a ^ lit thai dose. Or, if the principal served by a u is not getting service already hom two or i The FCC will have a complete analysis <»t dear channd and tkywave prw ings for the commission to consider on 22 May. In revealing this to this week's Senate daytime hearii g, FO general counsel Warren Baker said daytime must he considered an issue in thi Arguments will he heard 3 June on the FCl 's proposed ban on tv translator -t..tioii9 in anv place where a regular tv station is operating. The FCC's reason: Translators might retard development of local tv service. 4 may 1957 73