Re: Copyright Extension

> Professor Karjala states:
> In response to a letter from the American Film Heritage
> Association criticizing the proposed extension of the copyright
> protection period, Senator Orrin G. Hatch includes the following
> argument for the longer copyright:
>
> America exports more copyrighted intellectual property
> than any country in the world, a huge percentage of it to
> nations of the European Union. In fact, intellectual
> property is our second largest export, with the U.S.
> copyright industry accounting for roughly $40 billion in
> foreign sales last year. Because the EU Directive requires
> member countries to apply the "rule of the shorter term,"
> accepting the status quo will mean that American works will
> fall into the public domain before those of our European
> trading partners, undercutting our international trading
> position and robbing our creators of two decades of income
> they might otherwise have. Similar consequences will result
> in those countries with longer terms that choose to exercise
> the "rule of the shorter term" as provided under the Berne
> Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention. Passage
> of S. 483 will ensure fair compensation for the American
> creators whose efforts fuel the intellectual property sector
> of our economy by allowing American copyright owners to
> benefit to the fullest extent from foreign uses and will, at
> the same time, ensure that our trading partners do not get a
> free ride for their use of our intellectual property.
>
> These superficially appealing arguments do not, in fact,
> stand up to careful analysis. First, what the $40 billion figure
> does NOT say is how much is from blockbuster current works, like
> "The Lion King," which in any event have some 75 years of
> copyright protection before them, and how much is from works from
> the 1920's that, absent extension, are due to enter the public
> domain in the next few years. Nobody has presented evidence
> before any Committee of Congress or anywhere else showing that
> international trade in works from the early decades of this
> century favors the United States or, even if it does, that it
> represents more than an infinitesimal fraction of our overall
> trade in copyright-protected works. It is these old works are
> the real subject of the bill. In fact, because the public domain
> is such an important source of inspiration for the creation of
> valuable new works, maintaining our lead in CURRENT international
> intellectual property exchange may depend significantly on NOT
> extending our copyright periods, while development of European
> cultural products remains tied up in copyright knots.

In the motion picture area, I would like to see some figures on the revenues abroad NOW, as well during the 20 year extension, for motion pictures features such as THE ETERNAL CITY 1923, THE FEMALE 1924, THE HEART OF MARYLAND 1921, REVELATION 1924, A POPULAR SIN 1926. Whats more, studios more than likely do not have these films. Archives do, if they exist at all. I could go on, and on, and on with thousands of films. My point here is NO money is being made on the bulk of motion pictures ready to fall into the public domain in the 1920's. Worse of all, these films may not be preserved if the legislation passes because in many cases PRESERVATION of these works are CONNECTED with them falling into the public domain. Commercial, specialty archives are ready to preserve these films if they can use them commercially through public domain.

The extension is corporate- profit legislation aimed at extending the lives of a small percentage of films still having value...and they are dragging along all the other titles. Extension of Snow White, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and so on are the ONLY reason the motion picture industry is pushing the copyright extension...and public access and preservation be damned.

> Second, Senator Hatch slips into the common mistake of
> thinking that creative AUTHORS will be the beneficiaries from the
> extension. In fact, it is only the transferees or distant
> descendants of creative authors who will benefit, at a heavy cost
> to the public in the form of a diminished public domain and a
> smaller supply of creative works based on the public domain.

Because this is "corporate" legislation, you will not see Senator Hatch embracing any amendment to allow creative authors to benefit from the extension. This is who should benefit from the extension. The vast majority of copyright holders to benefirt from this legislation will be Sony Music, MCA music, and other copyright transferees who will reap rewards from royalties in music collected by ASCAP & BMI over the next 20 year period. Not a bad deal if you can get it.  

> Third, application of the "rule of the shorter term" in
> Europe or elsewhere does not deny "fair compensation" to U.S.
> authors or copyright owners. The copyrights in question, to the
> extent they still have economic value, will have paid royalties
> for a full 75 years. Why is that not a "fair return"?

With all these claims, why is such important legislation, affecting the future of our creative community, not being STUDIED by Congress? How many actual "authors" are still receiving revenue from a work 50 years after his/her death? I'm not talking about Rogers & Hammerstein. I'm talking about those copyrighted articles in journals, books, records, old films, poems, and so on that have no commercial value after 20 years! The United States Copyright law is BASED on a rich public domain, and public benefit. Most copyrighted works DO NOT see royalty payments over these long terms. Period! This applies to the United States, as well as Europe! I'm sure a study would find "fair compensation" overseas is only going to apply to corporate, and recent, copyrighted works. Why is this legislation retroactive anyway? (Opps, forgot Mickey Mouse.)

> Fourth, as I have pointed out on this list before, allowing
> U.S. copyright owners to "benefit to the fullest extent from
> foreign uses" by matching the European period will require not
> just Europeans but also the U.S. public to pay those same U.S.
> copyright owners (and to pay for the use of extended European
> copyrights as well). It stands to reason that we are greater
> users of U.S. copyrights than citizens of other countries. I am
> aware of no data on the question, but whatever the multiple is
> (for example, if foreign uses constitute 20% of the total use of
> U.S. works, the multiple is 4:1), the U.S. public will have to
> continue to pay that multiple of dollars to U.S. copyright owners
> for every dollar paid by Europeans. Senator Hatch's argument
> evinces no awareness of this substantial additional financial
> burden on the U.S. public.

This is exactly why " resturants and others" are opposing the bill, according to an article in Business Week, March 11, 1996. The American public will be paying the bulk of royalties on old works! The article states his campaign was sent $1000 from Sony Music for his reelection campaign. " In 1994, when he ran for reelection, Hatch bagged $32,500 in contributions from media giants such as Time-Warner, Paramount Communications, and Fox. The Senator declines to comment, but Senate Judiciary Staff Director Manus Cooney says:" It's outrageous to suggest that....we're beholden to the music and motion picture industries."  

Two points here: The article states the extension "means music and movie producers could charge royalties for the two extra decades." As Prof. Karjala states, the PUBLIC pays for the extension. Nothing creative, just another cost against the public benefit, with no creative incentive as US copyright law promotes.  

The second point is the contributions. Those who gave to Senators Hatches reelection drafted the legislation. Now it isn't so perplexing as to why legitimate arguments opposing this legislation are falling on deaf ears.

Larry Urbanski
American Film Heritage Association
<larryu[_at_]interaccess.com> Received on Mon Mar 04 1996 - 04:14:36 GMT