US Copyright Office: ar-1982

8/14/2019 US Copyright Office: ar-1982

1/32

A N N U A L R E P O R T O F T H ER E G I S T E R OF C O P Y R I G H T S

For the fiscal year ending September 30

LIBRARY O F CONGRESS I WASHINGTON I 1983


2/32

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 10-35017ISSN 0090-2845 Key title: Annual report of the Register of Copyrights

This report is reprinted from theAnnual Report of the Librorion of Congress

for the fiscal year ending September 30,1 982

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.8. Oopernment Printing OBIceWashimgton,D.C. 20402


3/32

ContentsThe Copyright Office 1Workload and Production 1General Operations 1Acquisitions and Processing Division 1Examining Division 1Cataloging Division 2Information and Reference Division 2Records Management Division 2Licensing Division 2Compendium of Copyright Office Practices 3Special Handling Fees 3Section 108(i)Report 3Copyright Office Regulations 4Legislative Developments 4The Manufacturing Clause 4

Cable Television 5Increased Penalties for Piracy and Counterfeiting 5Copyright Application Filing Fee 6Off-Air Home Taping 6Works Made for Hire 6Other Legislative Activities 6Judicial Developments 7International Developments 14Tables~nternationalCopyright Relations of the United States as of September 30, 1982 17umber of Registrations by Subject Matter of Copyright, Fiscal Year 1982 22Disposition of Copyright Deposits, Fiscal Year 1982 23Summary of Copyright Business, Fiscal Year 1982 24Statement of Gross Cash Receipts and Number of Registrations for the Fiscal Years

1977-1982 24Financial Statement of Royalty Fees for Compulsory Licenses for second& Transmissjby Cable Systems for Calendar Year 1981 25Financial Statement of Royalty Fees for Compulsory Licenses for Coin-Operated Player;(Jukeboxes) for Calendar Year 1982 25Copyright Registrations, 1790-1982 26


4/32

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. . .. 9


5/32

Report to the Librarian of Congressby the Register of CopyrightsTHE COPYRIGHT OFFICE

The most dramatic occurrence of the year in theCopyright Office was perhaps the completion,on September 30,1982, of a major move towardon-line access to the record of copyright regis-trations by discontinuing the manual filing ofcards in the Copyright Office Card Catalog, anindex to the registrations from 1870 forward. Allregistrations made after January 1, 1978, arenow available through the computerized filingsystem of the Copyright Office. With this change-over to computerized filing, the CopyrightOffice has ended 112 years of manual filing intoone of the nation's oldest and largest active cardcatalogs. The Copyright Office Card Catalog willcontinue to be accessible as an index to thecopyright registrations made between 1870 and1977; thus, its 41 million cards track a greatnumber of the literary, musical, and pictorialworks of the United States and of many foreigncountries. Its bibliographic records of registra-tions, renewals, transfers, and other documentsrelating to copyright not only are invaluable tocopyright searchers but also are an importantsupplement to the other catalogs of the Libraryof Congress. Registrations and other recordsfrom January I, 1978, onward are now accessi-ble on-line through the Copyright Office HistoryMonograph (COHM) and Copyright Office His-tory Document (COHD) files. Periodicals, notyet accessible on-line, will continue for the pres-ent to be manually filed into the Card Catalog.

WORKLOAD AND PRODUCTIONRegistrations made during fiscal 1982 totaled468,149, a decrease of less than 1 percent com-pared to the previous year. There was an in-crease in the totals for original registrations of

,. unpublished works and for renewal registra-tions: 150,334 unpublished (148,072 in 1981)and 36,332 renewals [34,243 in 1981). The de-

crease was in the number of original registra-tions for published works, the total being281,483 in 1982 as against 288,863 in 1981; in-deed, this was the second consecutive year inwhich the number of original registrations forpublished works has decreased, the total for1980 havingbeen 293,143.

GENERAL OPERATIONSThe Copyright Office performs its major linefunctions through six operating divisions. Theireffort to increase production, with a reducedstaff and without a loss in quality, was the es-sential challenge. Shown below are some of thenotable things that occurred as they strove toachieve this goal.

Acquisitions and Processing DivisionThis division is charged, among other things,with enforcement of the mandatory deposit pro-vision of the copyright law, under which workspublished in the United States with notice ofcopyright are obtained to enrich the collectionsof the Library of Congress. During fiscal 1982the division acquired, through this provision,materials valued at more than $1,875,000.

Examining DivisionThe task of determining whether the registrationrequirements of the copyright law have beenmet is that of the Examining Division. Applica-tions for registration of machine-readable workscontinue to reflect the increasing importance ofnew modes of communication. For example,during the year claims were registered in fortyweekly updates of West Publishing Company's


6/32

REPORT OF TH E REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS. 1982

automated data base, and in approximatelythirty automated data bases from other appli-cants. Registrations for computer programsnumbered four thousand; authors of such worksranged from a twelve-year-old child to thelargest corporations, and subject matter variedfrom charting one's astrological rising sign tocomplex weather forecasting; also receivedwere some two hundred videogames, includingcomputer-assisted audiovisual works. A groupof examiners was assigned to make a study ofthe applications for computer programs in orderto identify issues and policy questions; thegroup focused on such areas as the presence ofpreexisting material and the use of special tech-nical terms in the applications.Cataloging DivisionThis division, which catalogs all copyright reg-istrations and recorded documents, had virtu-ally eliminated its backlog by the end of thefiscal year through use of special "expeditedcataloging procedures." The decision had beentaken earlier to publish in the form of micro-fiche the forthcoming parts of the Catalog ofCopyright Entries, which is prepared by this di-vision; thirteen parts await publication as soonas production problems outside the CopyrightOffice are resolved.

Information and Reference DivisionThe functions of this division include dealingwith members of the public who are seekinggeneral information about copyright, either byvisit to the Copyright Office, by letter, or by tele-phone. During the year, 12,176 members of thepublic visited the Public Information Office, anincrease of almost 20 percent as against lastyear. While the number of letters (123,195) de-creased by 6 percent, the number of telephonecalls (117,745) increased by 7percent, reflectingthe growing national trend toward oral, ratherthan written, communication. Indeed, the divi-sion is seeking and trying various new means of

coping with the increasing volume of calls, manyof which are necessarily quite time-consuming.Records Management DivisionSince one of the functions of this division hasbeen the filing of cards into the Copyright OfficeCard Catalog and since, as mentioned above,that function was abolished, considerable effortwas devoted to such tasks as aiding in the place-ment of the filers in other positions; in fact, allthose who so chose were placed in other jobswithin the Library of Congress. Moreover, sub-stantial progress was made in developing rec-ommendations for a retention schedule forpublished copyright deposits and other recordmaterial. Also, new microfilm cameras havebeen acquired and should greatly facilitate thework of this division's Preservation Section.

Licensing DivisionThe principal activity of this division is to dealwith payments made to the Copyright Officeunder the compulsory licensing provisions ofthe copyright law relating to coin-operatedphonorecord players (jukeboxes) and cablesystems.During the year litigation which had sought toblock the jukebox rate adjustment from eight totwenty-five dollars per year, set by the Copy-right Royalty Tribunal, came to an unsuccessfulend, and it was necessary for the division to takesteps to issue supplemental certificates for 1982payments made earlier at the smaller amounland also to issue new certificates at the large1amount. For the fourth consecutive year therewas a decline in the number of jukeboxeslicensed, the total for 1982 being 120,000 asagainst 129,000 in 1981.Litigation which had challenged the nelncable royalty rates set by the tribunal also camto a conclusion, and the division is in the pro-cess of revising its plans to meet the impact 01the new rates.Further details concerning these provisionr


7/32

REPORT OF THEREGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1982

are set forth below as a part of the description ofchanges in Copyright Office Regulations, andthe most recent financial statements concerningroyalties paid under these provisions are in-cluded at the end of th is report.COMPENDIUM OF COPYRIGHTOFFICE PRACTICESProgress continued on the development of anew Compendium of Copyright Office Practicesto reflect the examining and related practices ofthe office under the new copyright law. At theend of the fiscal year well over half of the workon this project has been completed by the Copy-right Office. The public will be invited to com-ment on the new compendium before its issuance.It will be published in loose-leaf form to facili-tate updating and will be sold by the Govern-ment Printing Office as a priced publication.SPECIAL HANDLING FEESOn June 1, 1982, he Copyright Office begancharging a special handling fee when an appli-cant asks that the processing of an applicationfor registration be expedited. The fee, estab-lished under a provision of the copyright lawpermitting the Register of Copyrights to fix feesfor special services, was set at $120 in additionto the registration fee) and is chargeable for eachapplication for which special handling is re-quested and granted. The total in special han-dling fees received between June 1and the endof the fiscal year was $34,560.

SECTION 108(i)REPORTDuring fiscal 1982 the Copyright Office com-pleted several projects as part of its preparationof the report which it will submit to the Con-gress in January 1983.The report will addressthe many issues raised in the course of theexamination of the question posed by Congresswhen it enacted the Copyright Act of 1976:Hassection 108 of that act, which concerns library

and archival photocopying, achieved the in-tended statutory balance between the rights ofcreators and the needs of users of copyrightedworks?Among the significant developments duringfiscal 1982 which bear directly or indirectlyupon the preparation of the report were the re-ceipt and preliminary evaluation of the resultsof several statistical surveys conducted by KingResearch, Inc.; the formation of a group of librar-ians', publishers', and authors' representativeswho met on several occasions to discuss thoseareas affected by section 108 about which theydisagree; and the closing of the extensive publicrecord created by the several previous publichearings on these matters.The King report, prepared under contract tothe Copyright Office, was designed to examinethose aspects of libraries', users', and pub-lishers' photocopying-related behavior whichmight lend themselves to objective measure-ment and statistical analysis. To that end, threesurveys of libraries and their employees, two oftheir users, and one of publishers were carriedout. An advisory committee of experts familiarwith the issues aided the Copyright Office andKing Research, Inc., in preparing the overallplan for the surveys and some of the detailedquestions which were asked. The surveys, asmight be expected, generated a large quantity ofdata, much of which will prove to be a majorcomponent of the report to the Congress.A series of meetings, which began in January1982,was held at the Copyright Office and wasattended by some two dozen persons represent-ing libraries, publishers, and authors.After receipt of the King report, the final in aseries of comment periods was announced inthe Federal Register so that any interested per-sons could contribute their interpretation of thedata contained therein to the discussion and res-olution of the many issues raised in the evalua-tion of the success or failure of section 108 ncreating the desired balance. As had happenedin most of the previous comment periods, a num-ber of written submissions were made. Theyaddressed both the King report and the issueswhich will be discussed in the Copyright Office


8/32


9/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS,1982 5

works in the English language by U.S. citizensor domiciliaries must be manufactured in theUnited States or Canada in order to have fullcopyright protection. Pursuant to the new copy-right statute , which took effect in 1978, his pro-vision would expire o n July 1,1982, unless thelaw was amended. At the request of Congress,the Copyright Office prepared a report on thisprovision, in which the conclusion was reachedthat the manufacturing clause should be al-lowed to expire and tha t, if the U.S. printing in-dustry needs protection, other remedies such assubsidies, duties, import quotas, or tax creditswould be more appropriate. Nevertheless, Con-gress enacted a bill on June 30, 1982, to retainthe provision for another four years in order toprotect jobs in the U.S. printing and book manu-facturing industries. Pres. Ronald Reagan vetoedthe bill, but on July 1 3 Congress overrode theveto, thereby extending the manufacturingclause until July 1,1986.

Cable TelevisionSection 111 of the copyright statute provides acompulsory license covering certain secondarytransmissions made by cable television systems.The effectiveness and need for this provisioncontinued to be examined during fiscal 1982 bythe House of Representatives. On December 8,1981, the Register of Copyrights testified beforethe House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justiceto comment upon an agreement reached amongthe National Cable Television Association, theMotion Picture Association of America, and theNational Association of Broadcasters. Theagreement, which subsequently was incorpo-rated in an amended version of H.R. 3560,97thCongress, 1st Session [1981), introduced byRep. Robert W. Kastenmeier, essentially retainsthe compulsory license, restores by statute alimited form of syndicated program exclusivity,and codifies the must-carry and sports programexclusivity rules of the Federal Communica-tions Commission. In his testimony, the Registerreiterated his preference for the use of market-

place negotiations in place of the compulsorylicense. Nevertheless, he viewed the agreementas "a thoughtful and carefully crafted analysis ofthe issues determined most critical to the needsof the respective industries."A revised version of H.R. 3560, now desig-nated as H.R. 5949, 97th Congress, 2d Session[1982), introduced by Representative Kasten-meier, was approved by the House Committeeon the Judiciary on March 30.1982. The bill wasthen referred to the House Energy and Com-merce Committee, which reported it with amend-ments on September 24, 1982. The House ofRepresentatives passed H.R. 5949 on September28, 1982. The proposed legislation has beenjointly referred to the Senate Committee on theJudiciary and the Senate Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation. The twocommittees are expected to consider the billearly in fiscal 1983.In a related matter, S. 2881,97th Congress, 2dSession (19821, was introduced jointly by Sen.Arlen Specter and Sen. Howell Heflin. The billis intended to clarify the existing exemption i nsection lll (a )( 3)of the copyright law governingsecondary transmissions made by passive car-riers. The Senate did not consider this proposedlegislation during fiscal 1982.

Increased Penalties for Piracyand CounterfeitingSeveral bills were introduced in the 97th Con-gress proposing to strengthen the laws and in-crease the deterrent against record, tape, andmotion picture piracy and counterfeiting. S. 691,97th Congress, 1st Session (1981), introducedby Sen. Strom Thurmond, and H.R. 3530, 97thCongress, 1st Session (1983.), introduced byRep. Barney Frank, were patterned after H.R.8285, a bill introduced in the 96th Congress byRep. Robert F. Drinan. Both measures amendtitles 17 and 18 of the United States Code to raisesubstantially the penalties for criminal copy-right infringement provided for in section 506(a)of the copyright law. After hearings in the sum-mer of 1981, the House Subcommittee on Courts,


10/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1982

Civil Liberties, and t he Administration of Jus-tice reported H.R. 3530 with amendments to theHouse Judiciary Committee. The Senate passedS. 691 with amendments on December 1,1981.The Senate version was passed by the House,and President Reagan approved the bill on May24,1982.

Copyright Application Filing FeeAt the request of th e Library of Congress, H.R.4441, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981), toamend the copyright law to change the presentcopyright registration fee to a filing fee, was in-troduced on September 9, 1981, by Rep. PeterW. Rodino, Jr. Section 708 of the copyright lawwould be changed to allow the Copyright Officeto retain the fee submitted on filing each appli-cation for original, supplementary, and renewalregistration under sections 408 and 304(a) incases where registration is not made. The Housepassed the measure on May 10, 1982. On June30, 1982, the Senate passed the bill with a .amendment to section 110 of the copyright lawwhich would exempt nonprofit veterans' andfraternal organizations from performance royal-ties for the performance of nondramatic literaryworks and musical works in the course of theiractivities. Upon the recommendation of theConference Committee, which met on October1, 1982, the House agreed to the Senate-passedbill. The bill was approved by the President onOctober 25,1982.Off-Air Home TapingIn October 1981 the Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit, in Universal City Studios, Inc. v.Sony Corporation of America, 659 F.2d 963 (9thCir.), cert. granted, 50 U.S.L.W. 3982 (U.S. June14, 1982) (No. 81-1687). held that off-air homevideotaping of copyrighted television programsfor private use infringes the copyright in themotion pictures or other audiovisual works em-bodied in the programs, and that the manufac-turers, distributors, and retail vendors of the

videocassette recorders used to tape the copy-righted works were also liable as contributorycopyright infringers. Immediately after the deci-sion was announced, bills were introduced inbothHouses, H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794, and S. 1758,which would exempt home videorecorders fromcopyright liability whenever copies were madefor private noncommercial use. Thereafter otherbills were introduced, H.R. 5705 and Amend-ment 1242 to S. 1758, which would predicatesuch exemptions, for both audio- and videore-cordings, upon payments of royalties, on boththe recording devices and the blank tapes usedto make the copies. Hearings have been heldboth in the Senate and in the House, but no voteshave been taken. The Register of Copyrights tes-tified on April 21, 1982, before the SenateJudiciary Committee and on June 24, 1982, be-fore the House Judiciary Subcommittee onCourts, Civil Liberties, and the Administrationof Justice. At both hearings the Register sup-ported the Amendment to S. 1758.

Works Made for HireOn February 2, 1982, Sen. Thad Cochran in-troduced S. 2033, 97th Congress, 2d Session(1982), o amend the definition of a "work madefor hire" as it now appears in the copyright law.Under the proposed legislation a work speciallyordered or commissioned for use as a contribu-tion to a collective work, as a part of a motionpicture or other audiovisual work, or as an in-structional text would no longer be a "workmade for hire." A hearing on the bill was heldby the Senate Judiciary Committee on October1,1982.

Other Legislative ActivitiesOn April 6 ,1982, Rep. Sam Gibbons introducedH.R. 6093, 97th Congress, 2d Session (1982), togive effect to the Nairobi protocol to the Flor-ence Agreement on the importation of educa-tional, scientific, or cultural materials. On August12,1982, Representative Kastenrneier introduced


11/32

REPORT OF THE RGGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1982

H.R. 6983, 97th Cdngress, 2d Session [1982),which proposes to amend the copyright law toprovide greater protection to computer soft-ware. On June 23,1982, Rep. Thomas J. Downeyintroduced H.R. 6662, 97th Congress, 2d Ses-sion (1982), to amend the Internal RevenueCode of 1954 by removing certain limitations oncharitable contributions of literary, musical, orartistic expressions or similar intellectual prop-erty.

JUDICIALDEVELOPMENTSThe Copyright Office s involved in a number ofongoing suits either as a party or as amicuscuriae. A mandamus action commenced in 1979,Nova Stylings v. Ladd, CV 79-3798 (C.D. Cal.,Aug. 12,1980), nvolves the Register's refusal toregister claims to copyright in ten of plaintiff'sjewelry designs. The Register moved for dis-missal of this action for lack of subject matterjurisdiction, arguing that section 411(a) of thecopyright statute provides the plaintiff an ade-quate remedy at law to review the refusal of theCopyright Office to register its claims to copy-right. In August 1980 the court granted the gov-ernment's request to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. The plaintiff has appealed,arguing that in a case where the Copyright Of-fice rejects a claim to copyright and there is nosubsequent infringement action, section 411(a)is not applicable and that therefore there is noadequate remedy to review the Register's refusalto register. The appeal was argued in December1981, and the decision is awaited.Nova Stylings v. Midas Creations, Inc. andDavid Ladd, Civ. No. 80-03820 (C.D. Cal. 1980),involves two of the same jewelry designs in-cluded in the case discussed above that were al-legedly infringed by Midas. The Register wasmade a party in order to compel registration ifthe plaintiff should prevail. On November 19,1981, the court granted the Copyright Office mo-tion for summary judgment. The plaintiff hasfiled a motion to reconsider the order grantingsummary judgment, and the Copyright Officehas filed its motion in opposition. The court had

taken no further action by the end of the fiscalyear.The question whether the retransmission of atelevision signal by a common carrier to cablesystems constitutes a public performance wasaddressed in two important cases. In EasternMicrowave, Inc. v. Doubleday Sports, Inc., 691F.2d 125 (2nd Cir. 1982). the court of appeals re-versed the lower court decision. The issue in thedistrict court was whether retransmission byEastern Microwave, Inc. (EMI) of televisionbroadcasts of baseball games was a public per-formance and, if so, whether it falls within thecommon carrier exemption of section 111 a)(3)of the copyright law. EM1 is in the business ofretransmitting television signals to approxi-mately six hundred cable systems across thecountry. Doubleday is the copyright owner ofthe television broadcasts of the New York Metswhich are carried under contract by stationWOR-TV in New York. WOR-TV is one of thesignals EM1 retransmits to the six hundred cablesystems it serves. The parties agree that EMI"performs" the WOR broadcasts of the gameswhen it retransmits them as part of the WOR sig-nals. The question was whether it does so pub-licly. The district court found that it was apublic performance. The court of appeals didnot discuss the question of whether transmis-sion by an intermediate resale transmitter (EMI)constitutes a public performance. The Registerof Copyrights filed an amicus curiae brief lim-ited to an argument that EM'S retransmissionservice constitutes a public performance of theaudiovisual work transmitted. The court statedthat "in view of our disposition, we need notand do not decide that question in this case."However, the court did say that the commoncarriers whose equipment is used to distributesignals to cable system subscribers have a con-tinuing need for the common carrier exemptionof section l l l (a)( 3) o avoid copyright liability.Section lll[a)(3)provides that not all "public"performances of copyrighted works constitutecopyright infringement. The performance is notan infringement if the secondary transmission ismade by a carrier which has no direct or indirecicontrol over the content or selection of the primary


12/32

8 REPORT O F THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1982

transmission or over the particular recipients ofthe secondary transmission, and whose ac-tivities with respect to the secondary transmis-sion consist solely of providing wires, cables, orother communications channels for the use ofothers. The district court found that EM1 exer-cised control over the selection of the signal itwould retransmit and the recipients of the re-transmitted signal. In addition, the court foundthat EM1 was using its facilities not as a passivecarrier but to market the WOR signal. The ap-peals court found that EMI's choice of the WORsignal was in response to a demand for that sig-nal from its cable system subscribers who chosethat signal over others. The decision to retrans-mit the WOR signal whatever its content, thecourt said, did not evidence the control by EM1over the content and selection of the primarytransmission intended to be precluded by sec-tion 111(a)(3).There was no alteration of the sig-nal by EMI. Also, the record in the case indicatesthat no reasonable request for its services wasever refused by EMI. Thus, EM1 has not exer-cised control over the particular recipients of itstransmissions. On the question of whether EM1was a passive carrier or was itself marketing theWOR signal, the court found that EM1 merelyprovided the wires, cables, or other communica-tions channels for the use of others, namely, thereceiving cable systems who cannot afford theirown wires, cables, and channels. An analysis ofthe compulsory license and royalty schemes ofthe cable television provisions of the CopyrightAct buttressed the court's belief that its decisionis consistent with congressional intent.The district court in WGN Continental Broad-casting Co. v. United Video, Inc., 523 F. Supp.403 (N.D. I11.1981), held that retransmissions byUnited Video, Inc., of plaintiff's television signalsto cable systems was not a public performance.On appeal, WGN Continental Broadcasting Co.v. United Video, Inc., 685 F.2d 218 (7th Cir.1982), the court of appeals reversed the lowercourt and held that the United Video retrans-mission was a public performance. The Copy-right Office had entered the case as amicuscuriae in support of this position. The appealscourt found that the copyright law defines "per-

form or display . . .publicly" broadly enough toencompass indirect transmission to the ultimatepublic. The defendant also argued that its re-transmission was exempt from liability undersection 111(a)(3),which provides that a secon-dary transmission made by any carrier is exemptfrom copyright liability if the signal of the pri-mary transmitter is not altered or changed. Theplaintiff's signal contained, in addition to thecopyright program, certain teletext material(known as vertical blanking material or VBI)which has various functions, such as to syn-chronize television receivers with the broadcastsignal, provide closed captions for the deaf, orcarry an additional broadcast signal. In this casethe WGN teletext carried a WGN program guideand local news reports paralleling the nationalnews reports carried on the copyrighted newsprogram. WGN argued that the teletext was partof the copyrighted program. United Videoclaimed that it was not part of the WGN signalbut was a separate broadcast. The appeals courtfound that United Video's deletion of the tele-text signal from WGN's 9:00 P.M. news broadcastwas an alteration of the copyrighted work. Itfound the teletext to be an integral part of the9:00 P.M. news program even though the teletextwas intended to be shown on a different channelfrom the 9:00 P.M. news. The court held that theteletext was an integral part of the 9 o'clocknews program and therefore that its deletionwas an alteration or change which made theexemption from infringement liability undersection 111 a)(3) napplicable.In Norris Industries, Inc. v. InternationalTelephone and Telegraph Corporation, 212USPQ 754 (N.D. Fla. 1981), he Copyright Officehad refused registration of plaintiff's auto-mobile wheel-cover design on the ground that itwas auseful article which did not contain separ-able sculptural features which could be consid-ered a work of art. The Copyright Office enteredthe case to clarify its position on the registrabil-ity of plaintiff's wheel-cover design. After oralargument on June 4, 1981, the district courtgranted the Copyright Office motion for summaryjudgment. ITT's motion for partial summaryjudgment was also granted. Plaintiff appealed


13/32

REPORT O F THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1982

and oral argument was held in the Court of Ap-peals for the 11 h Circuit in December 1981.The Copyright Office was brought into Na-tional Conference of Bar Examiners v. Multi-state Legal Studies, Inc., 495 F. Supp. 34 (N.D.Ill. 1980), when the defendant questioned thevalidity of plaintiff's registration for its securetests. The Copyright Office regulation on de-posit fo r secure tests, 37 C.F.R. 202.20, was al-leged to be inconsistent with the statute in thatcomplete copies of the tests were not required tobe retained as deposit copies. In order to resolvethis question and make the decision binding onthe Copyright Office, the court requested thatthe Register of Copyrights be made a party to theaction. The district court found that section408(c)(l ) of the copyright law, permitting thedeposit of identifying material in lieu of copies,is sufficiently broad to encompass the regula-tion permitting the deposit of identifying por-tions of plaintiff 's secure tests. The Register'smotion to dismiss was granted. The plaintiff ap-pealed the case-including the ruling droppingthe Register as a party--and oral argument be-fore the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit washeld on February 13,1982.The plaintiff in Proulx v. Hennepin TechnicalCenters District and David L. Ladd, No. 4-79-637 (D. Minn., Feb. 9,1982), sued for copyrightinfringement of his videotaped lectures afterhaving applied for copyright registration, butbefore any final action was taken by the Copy-right Office. In correspondence, the CopyrightOffice questioned the basis of the claim and thecompleteness of the deposit. The plaintiff didnot respond, but shortly thereafter filed suit.The Register of Copyrights was joined in this ac-tion at the request of the court. The Registermoved for dismissal of the copyright infringe-ment claims, alleging that the Copyright Officehad not made a final determination on the regis-trability of the claims to copyright. Section411 a) of the copyright law permits an infringe-ment act ion to be brought only if the copyrightclaim has been registered or if the Copyright Of-fice has refused the registration. The courtfound that plaintiff's application was not inproper form; and that there were inconsisten-

cies between the application and deposit copies,as well as uncertainty regarding the scope of thecopyright claimed, which warranted further in-quiry by the Copyright Office. The plaintiff'scomplaint was dismissed for failure to exhaustadministrative remedies and obtain either a reg-istration or a final refusal of registration.In a recently filed case, The Authors League ofAmerica, Inc. v. Ladd, 82 Civ. 5731 (S.D.N.Y.,Aug. 30, 1982), the plaintiffs questioned theconstitutionality, under the First and FifthAmendments to the U.S. Constitution, of the so-called "manufacturing clause" of the copyrightlaw. The provision in question prohibits, withcertain exceptions, the importation into andpublic distribution in the United States ofcopies of any work consisting preponderantly ofcopyrighted nondramatic literary material inthe English language by authors who are UnitedStates nationals or domiciliaries, if the copiesare manufactured in any country other than theUnited States or Canada. The plaintiffs allegethat this provision deprives U.S. authors ofrights guaranteed by the First Amendment be-cause it restricts the author's right to import anddistribute First Amendment protected literaryworks; that it deprives U.S. authors of their ex-clusive rights to reproduce and distribute copiesgranted by the general provisions of the copyrightlaw; that it imposes an importation restrictiononly on copyrighted literary works by U.S. au-thors; and that it deprives U.S. publishers of theright to import and publicly distribute foreign-manufactured copies. The plaintiffs further al-lege violation of Fifth Amendment rights in thatthe manufacturing clause imposes a discrimina-tory prohibition of importation a nd public dis-tribution on a restricted class of works whichviolates the right of such authors to due process.The Copyright Office has intervened in TomyCorp. v. Astra Trading Corp., Civ. 82-1101(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23 ,1982) , pursuant to 17 U.S.C.section 411(a) of the copyright law, which per-mits the Copyright Office to enter an infringe-ment action involving a work in which the officehad refused registration. The work involved inthis case is a tetrahedron-shaped puzzle, eachside of which is brightly colored and composed


14/32

10 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS. 1982

of nine triangular parts. Each triangular compo-nent is moveable about a central pivot located atthe center of the tetrahedron body. The work wasrefused registration on the ground that simplevariations of standard designs and their simplearrangement, while they may be aestheticallypleasing, do not furnish sufficient original au-thorship to suppor t a claim to copyright.The most celebrated ongoing copyright casecontinues to be Universal City Studios, Inc. v.Sony Corp. of America, 659 F.2d 963 (9th Cir.1981), cert. granted, 50 U.S.L.W. 3982 (U.S.June 14,1982) (No. 81-1687). On June 14,1982,the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.The owners of copyrighted motion pictures andother audiovisual material brought an infringe-ment action, based on the off-air home video-taping for private use of television programsembodying their works, against manufacturers,distributors, and retail vendors of the video-cassette recorders used to tape the works, andagainst an individaal who recorded such worksin his home. The district court holding for thedefendants was reversed by the court of appeals,which saw in the case three main issues.Firstly, did the Congress intend to create ablanket exemption for home video recordingfrom the general rights granted copyright own-ers in the copyright Law? The district court heldthat it did. The appeals court disagreed, reason-ing that the language of the copyright law isclear and unambiguous and that there is noexemption for videorecording in the statute.The court stated that the legislative history ofthe law, which took effect in 1978, is silent re-garding any such exemption and that, althoughthe legislative history of the Sound RecordingAct of 1971 was instructive regarding congres-sional intent not to restrict home audiotapingoff the air, it was "entirely beside the point" inanalyzing videotaping issues.Secondly, if home videorecording is notexempt from protection, does the doctrine of fairuse apply? The appeals court said it does not be-cause of the purpose and nature of the copying.The court drew a distinction between copyingfor a "productive use" and copying for "con-venience," "entertainment," or "increased ac-

cess." It stated that the courts generally make afinding of fair use only in cases where one au-thor uses part of another author's material in anew work and that fair use has generally notbeen applied where the user has reproducedcopyrighted material for its intrinsic purpose.Lastly, if home videorecording is not exemptor a fair use, are the corporate defendants whomanufacture and sell home videorecorders li-able for contributory copyright infringement?The appeals court held that they are becausevideotape recorders are manufactured, adver-tised, and sold for the primary purpose of repro-ducing television programming, virtually all ofwhich is copyrighted, and that such use is in-tended, expected, encouraged, and the source ofthe product's consumer appeal.A decision on the merits was rendered by thedistrict court in Encyclopaedia Britannica Edu-cational Corp. v. Crooks. 542 F. Supp. 1156(W.D.N.Y. 1982), which involved large-scalecopying of copyrighted audiovisual works bythe Board of Educational Services of ErieCounty, New York (BOCES). The defendantBOCES videotaped the plaintiff's copyrightedworks from the television airwaves, maintaineda library of these videotaped works, and madecopies of the tapes for classroom use. Indeed,BOCES videotaped entire programs, includingthe copyright notice. The court found that theacts of BOCES were harmful to the plaintiffs andthat the defense of nonprofit use relying on Wil-liams b Wilkins Co. v. United States, 420 U.S.376 (1975), was not well founded. The courtfound that while the nonprofit use in Williamsb Wilkins was a reasonable use under the factsof that case, the use of the material by the defen-dant in this case could not be considered reason-able.In D.C. Comics, Inc. v. Reel Fantasy, Inc., 539F. Supp. 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), the court foundthat the defendant's depiction of the likenessesof characters from a comic book was a fair usesince the purpose of the use was to advertisesales of books containing works involving thecharacters and did not harm the plaintiff.The City Council of Santa Ana, California,was charged with infringement in Jartech, Inc. v.


15/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS.1982 11

Clancy, 666 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1982), when itmade abbreviated copies of plaintiff's films forevidence to be used i n a nuisance abatementproceeding. The court, relying on the distinc-tions in use made in Universal City Studios, Inc.v. Sony Corp. of America, 659 F.2d 963 (9th Cir.1981),cert. granted 50 U.S.L.W. 3982 (U.S. June14,1982) (No. 81-i687), found that the council'suse of the excerpts w as not the same intrinsicuse of the copied work for which the copyrightholders could expect protection.The court denied a motion for summary judg-ment in Pacific an d Southern CO. v. Duncan,CopyrightL. Rptr. (CCH)125,421 (N.D. Ga., June25, 1982). because it could not determine fromthe pleadings whether or not defendant's use ofplaintiff's film clips was a fair use. Plaintiff'swork is a half-hour news broadcast. As a separateservice, it makes and sells copies of individualnews clips from its broadcast. The defendantoperates a news clipping service which moni-tors and records television news and providescopies of short excerpts to clients. The courtsaid that the most important question was theextent to which the plaintiff engages in a busi-ness that is comparable to defendant's andwhether the defendant's use has a significantimpact on the potential market for plaintiff'swork.The Attorney General of California (OpinionNo. 81-503, Feb. 5, 1982) determined that theshowing of videocassette tapes of motion pic-tures to prison inmates is a "public perfor-mance" within the meaning of that term in thecopyright law since it represents a gathering ina place of substantial number of persons outsideof a normal family and its social acquaintances.He concluded that the showing of copyrightedmotion pictures to the inmates would amount totheir being performed "publicly" within themeaning of the copyright statute and that thepublic performance is an infringement.The district court in Gay Toys, Inc. v. BuddyL Corp., 522 F. Supp. 622 (E.D. Mich. 1981).held that a toy airplane was not subject tocopyright protection. The court reasoned that atoy airplane is useful and possesses utilitarianand functional characteristics in tha t it "permits

a child to dream and to let his or her imaginationsoar," and that the basic elements are mandatedby the overall shape required to simulate a realairplane. After concluding that a toy airplane isa useful article, the court faced the questionwhether it contained any sculptural features cap-able of existing independently of the utilitarianaspects of the airplane. The court held that thesculptural features of the airplane such as itsstubby wings and short, fat body are part of theutility of the plane as a toy and are also part ofthe effort to provide economies in packagingand shipping. It found that none of the sculpturalfeatures of the airplane can exist, physically orconceptually, independently of the utilitarianaspect of the airplane.The question whether a claimant who inten-tionally published its work without a notice ofcopyright could correct that deficiency by regis-tration and addition of the copyright notice tofuture copies was presented in O'Neill Develop-ments, Inc. v. Galen Kilburn, Inc., 524 F. Supp.710 (N.D. Ga. 1981). After the work was in-fringed, the plaintiff notified the defendant bymail of its claim to copyright in the work, com-pleted registration, and began adding notices tofuture copies. The court believed that the lan-guage of the provision of the copyright statuterelating to the omission of the copyright noticeis ambiguous and does not clearly resolve thequestion whether registration of the claim in theCopyright Office and the addition of noticewould correct an intentional omission of notice.Therefore, the court went to the legislative his-tory which indicates that Congress intendedthis provision to apply to both unintentionaland deliberate omissions of the copyrightnotice.In Roy Export Co. Establishment of Vaduz,Liechtenstein v. Columbia Broadcasting System,Inc., 672 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir. 1982), defendantColumbia Broadcasting System (CBS) claimedthat by virtue of a privilege under the FirstAmendment of the U.S. Constitution it could aircertain copyrighted film clips without regard tothe limitation of the doctrine of fair use. AfterCharlie Chaplin died in 1977, the defendantaired a compilation of film clips memorializing


16/32

12 REPORT O F THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1982

his death. Copyrights in the film clips were heldby the plaintiff. These film clips had beenshown at the 1972 Academy Awards ceremony,when Charlie Chaplin was honored upon his re-turn to the United States after a twenty-year ab-sence. CBS claimed that the showing of the filmclips at the ceremony was an "irreducible singlenews event" which CBS could rebroadcast underthe First Amendment privilege without incur-ring copyright liability. The court said that nocircuit that has considered the question has everheld that the First Amendment provides a privi-lege distinct from the fair use doctrine, and thateven if it were inclined to recognize some nar-row exception on extraordinary facts, it wouldnot do so given the facts in this case.In denying a motion for a preliminary injunc-tion the court in Apple Computer. Inc. v.Franklin Computer Corp., 545 F. Supp. 812(E.D. Pa. 19821, expressed doubt about the copy-rightability of plaintiff's computer programs.The works in this case are in object code storedin Read Only Memory (ROM) chips or on disks.In its analysis the court distinguished between"operating" programs and "application" pro-grams. An "application" program has a specifictask, ordinarily chosen by the user, such as tomaintain records, perform certain calculations,or display graphic images. An "operating" pro-gram, by contrast, is generally internal to thecomputer and is designed only to facilitate theoperation of the "application" program. Thecourt found that without a trial it is not possibleto determine the copyrightability of plaintiff's"operating" programs. It appeared to the courtthat the "operating" programs are an essentialpart of the ma ch in ~m ec ha ni ca l evices thatmake the machine work and make it possible forthe machine to use "application" programs. Ifthey are mechanical devices which are engagedin the computer to become an essential part ofthe mechanical process they cannot be consid-ered "works of authorship" under the copyrightlaw.The recent interest in electronic videogameshas spawned a number of infringement suits inwhich the copyrightability or copying of thegames is in question. In Williams Electronics,

Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3dCir. 1982), he defendant admitted it had copiedplaintiff's work but claimed that the images inplaintiff's audiovisual game are transient andcannot be fixed and that the videogame gener-ated or created new images each time the gameis played. The court rejected this contention,finding that the audiovisual features of the gameare fixed in the memory device of the game andrepeat themselves over and over. The defen-dant's argument that the memory device of thegame (ROM) is a utilitarian object and thus notsubject to copyright was found to be misdirected.The court said that the memory device is onlythe material object or copy in which the copy-righted audiovisual work is fixed, and that thecopyrightability of the audiovisual work is notaffected by the sta tus of the memory device. Thesame issue was involved in the district courtcase of Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International,Inc., 211 USPQ 1152 (N.D. 111. 1981), with thesame result. Videogame cases involving thequestion of copying but not the question ofcopyrightability include Atari, Inc. v. Amuse-ment World, Inc. et al., 547 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md.1981);Atari Inc. v. Armenia, Ltd., Copyright L.Rptr. (CCH) 125,328 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 1981);Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips ConsumerElectronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7thCir. 1982).The courts had to deal with three differentkinds of problems relating to derivative worksduring the year. In Gracen v. The Bradford Ex-change, Ltd., Copyright L. Rptr. (CCH) 125,431(N.D. Ill., April 23, 1982), the question was theamount of authorship required for a derivativework to be separately copyrightable. The courtfound no "consequential variations" from thesource material. In Eden Toys, Inc. v. FloreleeUndergarment Co., 526 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D.N.Y.1981), a nonexclusive licensee was held not tobe the proper party to bring suit because its workwas a derivative work and its copyright waslimited to its new contributions to the originalwork. The effect of termination of a grant in a de-rivative work was the issue in Harry Fox Agency,Inc. v. Mills Music, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 844(S.D.N.Y. 19821, which required an interpreta-tion of 1 7 U.S.C. 304(c)(6)[A).When derivative


17/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1982 13

works are created un de r authority of a grant be-fore its termination, the derivative work maycontinue to be utilized under the terms of thegrant after its termination. The court held thatthis section expressly makes continued utiliza-tion of old derivative works subject to the grant.Termination under section 304(c] is a means ofgiving authors "an oppor tunity to share" in theextended term of copyright. Congress limitedthe benefits that revert to authors where deriva-tive works have been prepared before termina-tion, and it provided for a continuing sharing ofthese benefits between the author and the gran-tee under whose authorization the derivativework was created.The copyrightability of a translation of indi-vidual words and short phrases made for anelectronic translator was questioned in SignoTrading International, Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F.Supp. 362 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The court held thatthe translation from one language to another ofindividual words and short phrases is not whatmakes translations copyrightable; it is rather theoriginality embodied i n the translator's con-tribution, for example, conveying nuances andsubtleties in the translated work as a whole, thatmakes it copyrightable. The court also held thatthe transliteration from Arabic into Roman let-ters was not copyrightable.In National Business Lists, Inc. v. Dun &Bradstreet, Inc., 215 USPQ 595 (N.D. 111. 1982),the issue was what constitutes fair use of a com-pilation of listings. The court found the use notto be fair use since there was substantial copyingand some of the information was appropriatedwithout independent verification.The court in Swarovski America Limited v.SilverDeer Limited, 537 F. Supp. 1201 (D. Colo.1982), held that each instrument in a chain oftitle need not be recorded as a prerequisite to in-stituting a copyright infringement action; thetransferee need only record the instrument oftransfer under which it claimed ownership ofcopyright in order to satisfy the recordation re-quirement for bringing an infringement action.In Skor-Mor Products, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuckand Co., Copyright L. Rptr. (CCH) 125,397(S.D.N.Y., May 12,1982), he court held that re-

cordation, after the suit had been filed, of the in-strument transferring a copyright to the plaintiffmay be reflected in a supplemental complaint,and that the supplemental complaint relatesback to the date of the original complaint and es-tablishes the right to bring the action as of thatdate.In Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. v. Day andNight Co., 689 F.2d 317 (2d Cir. 1982), he courtheld that, under California law, an individual 'sright of publicity terminates at his death . In Cherv. Forum International, Ltd., 7 Med. L. Rptr.2593 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 15 ,1982) , he court upheldthe right of a living celebrity to control the pub-licity and establish the conditions for the use ofhis or her name and likeness when he or she hasgiven an exclusive interview to a particularmagazine and held that any other use of the in-terview without the celebrity's permission is awrongful appropriation of the commercial valueof the celebrity's identity and right of publicity.Amusement and Music Operators Associa-tion v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal. 676 F.2d1144 (7th Cir. 1982), upheld the ru le of theCopyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) raising thelicense fee for jukeboxes in stages to $50, find-ing that it was not "arbitrary or capricious." Thefirst CRT distr ibution of cable royalties underthe 1976 Copyright Act was upheld in the con-solidated cases of National Association ofBroadcasters v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal,675 F.2d 367 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Only a $50,000award to National Public Radio was remandedto the CRT for further proceedings. When theCRT raised the royalty rates cable operators payfor the retransmission of distant television sig-nals they carry by 20 percent, those who pay andthose who receive the royalties were both dis-satisfied. The court, however, upheld the ratesin National Cable Television Association v.Copyright Royalty Tribunal, and American So-ciety of Composers, Authors and Publishers v.Copyright Royalty Tribunal, 689 F.2d 1077(D.C. Cir. 1982).The line of demarcation between trade secretprotection and copyright protection was theissue in M. Bryce & Associates, Inc. v.Gladstone, 107 Wis.2d 241,319 N.W.2d 907 (Ct.


18/32


App. 1982),cert. denied , 51 U.S.L.W. 3304 [U.S.Oct. 19, 1982)(No. 82-340). The subject matterof the trade secret was the plaintiff's methodol-ogy for the design of management informationsystems. The trade secret was included in a pre-sentation made to the defendant's staff consist-ing of an oral presentation plus printed textualmaterial containing notices of copyright. Beforethe presentation, the defendant was required tosign a nondisclosure form. The court first foundthat a trade secret existed and that it was usedby the defendant. After concluding that therewas a general publication of the printed textualmaterial, the copyright issue presenting itselfwas whether plaintiff's voluntary use of the fed-eral copyright notice on its printed material pre-vents the state of Wisconsin from applying itstrade secret law to bar use by others of the infor-mation contained in the work. The court ruledthat trade secret law protects content irrespec-tive of form of expression while copyright pro-tects form of expression but not underlyingideas, that trade secret law prohibits unau-thorized disclosure or use of protected ideasonly by persons who are privy to the trade secretby reason of some relationship to the ownerwhich legally limits use or disclosure by them,and that copyright law prohibits unauthorizedcopying by anyone of the form of expression inwhich the ideas are fixed by the authors. There-fore, the court reasoned, if trade secret protec-tion was preempted by federal copyright law, itsvalue in protecting trade secrets would be lim-ited. The court concluded that a preemption oftrade secret law by federal copyright law woulddisrupt an area of property protection which hasbeen found to be of great value and that tradesecret law was not disturbed by the new copy-right law, which took effect in 1978. The courtstated:Since no "unmistakable indication" has beengiven to the contrary by Congress and the weightof the evidence points to the recognition by Con-gress and other authorities of the value of stateprotection of trade secrets, we conclude thatstate trade secret protection has not been pre-empted by the federal copyright laws.

INTERNAT IONAL DEVELOPMENTSThis year's issues in international copyright are,with few exceptions, still those which firstemerged in the early 1970s: accommodatingcopyright to the needs of developing countries;new technologies [cable television, videore-cording, satellites, and computer uses of works)and their impact on author's rights; and protec-tion of folklore. Few programs were initiated atthe international level this year and only onepreexisting issue before the IntergovernmentalCopyright Committee of the Universal Copy-right Convention (UCC) was resolved.In November 1981 he biennial joint meetingsof the Executive Committee of the Berne Unionand the UCC Intergovernmental Copyright Com-mittee, held in Geneva, dealt with a number ofsubstantial issues on the countries' joint andseparate agendas.One of the activities of the UCC Intergovern-mental Copyright Committee was to come togrips, finally, with a problem raised by theUnited States in 1977: the availability of protec-tion under the UCC for works of the .UnitedStates Government (that is, works prepared byofficers or employees of the U.S. Government asa part of their official duties), which are in thepublic domain here. Students of the legislativehistory of the new U.S. copyright law, whichtook effect in 1978, may recall that as early as1965 a number of federal agencies asked that theprohibition against copyright in U.S. Govern-ment works be modified to permit limited copy-right in such works, generally on a selectivebasis. In 1975, shortly before passage of the newlaw, the National Technical Information Service(NTIS) sought a specific exemption from itsstrictures in the form of a special five-yearcopyright on NTIS publications. During thedebates on this proposal, it became clear thatsignificant commercial exploitation of NTISpublications was taking place in a number offoreign countries. The purpose of the proposedamendment, it was asserted, was to lay a surelegal basis selectively to enforce foreign rights:where the use was commercial in nature.The assumptions, both in 1975 and 1965, werc


19/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1982 15

that it was quite possible that U.S. Governmentworks would be protected in other UCC states,notwithstanding their public domain statushere. These assumptions rested on interpreta-tions of Article N(4)of the UCC, which con-cerns reconciling different terms of protectionamong states party to the convention. The rulewhich emerges from these provisions has beenaptly called "the rule of t he shorter term." In ef-fect, no UCC state need protect foreign works forany longer period than that class of works re-ceives in its c o u n t ~f origin.While the rule of the shorter term seems fair-after all, when a UCC state cuts back its term ofprotection for a foreign work originating in astate with a shorter te rm, it is only giving whatits own authors receive in that other state-it isbased upon reciprocity, a principle not widelysupported in international copyright. Howevervaluable reciprocity is in other areas of law, thepreference in copyright has long been to strivefor protection based upon national treatment.National law is generally shaped at the interna-tional level through minimum requirements inmultilateral copyright treaties. The rule of theshorter term in the UCC is the only significantexception to a convention otherwise generallybased on national treatpent.How U.S. Government works come into thispicture is itself interesting. By putting suchworks into the public domain in our country,have we created thereby an identifiable "class ofworks" whose term of protection is zero? If so,would UCC states be able to apply the rule of theshorter term to U.S. Government works with theresult of zero protection?The "fiction of a zero term" and its relevanceto the rule of the shorter term had been a veryserious sticking point in the drafting of the UCC.And, while the Diplomatic Conference had paidconsiderable attention to the question, reconcil-ing their compromise with the basic premises ofthe convention is still a troublesome task.Although the problem had been explored in a1979 study entitled "Applicability of the Uni-versal Copyright Convention to Certain Worksin the Public Domain in their Country of Origin,"by Barbara Ringer, then Register of Copyrights,and Lewis I. Flacks, International Copyright Of-

ficer, which concluded that the conventionshould be interpreted in a way which admittedof protection for U.S. Government works inother UCC member states, the discussion of theissue was not conclusive, there being wide di-vergences of view expressed in the committee,as indeed there had been among the commentspreviously elicited from the member states.In the final analysis, it appears clear that theextent to which U.S. Government agencies mayexercise foreign copyrights in their works underthe UCC can be determined only on a country-by-country basis.Other subjects the UCC IntergovernmentalCopyright Committee considered concerned on-going programs of study.The effort to develop an international recom-mendation for the protection of folklore was ap-proved, and at the end of October 1981, groupof experts met to refine further earlier draftmodel statutory provisions to be recommendedto national legislatures. The thrust of these pro-visions is toward some form of comprehensivelicensing at the national level, for two purposes:

1) o ensure authentici ty of works incorporatingmaterial expressions of folklore, and 2) to pro-vide remuneration derived from the commercialexploitation of Such folklore derivative worksfor the indigenous communities historicallyassociated with the particular folklore motifused. While these goals are generally laudable,they raise profound conceptual problems indrafting appropriate provisions consistent withmodern copyright jurisprudence. A centralproblem is to protect indigenous materials con-taining folkloric elements in a way that does notinhibit modern creation. Also important is theproblem of identifying protectible subject mat-ter and fixing ethnic authorship for purposes ofremuneration. The draft recommendations wereprepared principally by ethnologists and folk-lore specialists; and in 1983 heir draft will besubmitted to the scrutiny of the governmentalcopyright officials of Berne and UCC memberstates.The study of problems arising from the use ofcopyrighted works in electronic computers,which the World Intellectual Property Organi-zation (WIPO) and UNESCO have been pursuing,


20/32

- --REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYR IGHTS, 1982

was also reviewed at the Geneva meetings.Again, the program i s formative. The committeeof governmental experts which examined thecopyright computer uses issue in December1980was unable, in the limited time available,to formulate detailed preliminary recommenda-tions for national lawmakers. As a result, thedraft recommendation, completed by the sec-retariats and officers of the governmental ex-perts meeting, has only recently been circulatedto states for their comment. The discussions atthe Intergovernmental and Berne ExecutiveCommittee meeting revealed the view of impor-tant delegations that the division of computerproprietary rights and liabilities questions intotwo groups (that is, use of works in computersand protection of software) was somewhat artifi-cial. Inquiry into computer software protectionhas been conducted principally within theframework of the Paris Union for Protection ofIndustrial Property. A number of delegations.stressing the relationship between software pro-tection under any sort of regime and copyrightprotection for data bases, urged that the man-date of the governmental experts studying com-puter uses be expanded to include protectionunder copyright of computer software. In fact,the distinction between computer uses andsoftware protection will in all probability bemaintained for the time being. The software pro-tection issues which arise out of considerationof computer use of copyrighted works will doubt-lessly be noted at the governmental experts'meetings, but the topic will not be systemati-cally analyzed or made a part of the experts' rec-ommendations.Between 1973 and 1977,WIPO and UNESCOprovided a forum for preliminary examinationof the copyright problems created by cable tele-vision. With cable a relatively new service andnational legislation in Berne and UCC stateseither untested or otherwise undeveloped, rela-tively little could be settled by 1977.However,beginning anew in 1980,WIPO convened aseries of meetings of independen t experts , in-tended to develop recommendations to nationallegislatures for treatment of cable television'scopyright obligations and privileges. With cabletelevision growing rapidly in Europe and the

new U.S. copyright law finally in force, thecopyright issues considered first in 1973 had amore concrete basis. As a result, the new look a1cable television begun in 1980 has moved to-ward developing an international consensus oncopyright aspects of this technology. In May1982,he Association Littbraire et Artistique In-ternationale (ALAI), one of the world's oldesland most prestigious associations of authorsand artists, held an international symposium oncable television. Copyright specialists fromEurope, North America, and Japan contributedpapers on national copyright measures applica-ble to cable, while the symposium as a wholesought to distill common principles from statepractices. David Ladd, the Register of Copyrights,delivered a paper at the symposium entitled"Pavan for Print: Accommodating Copyright tothe Tele-Technologies." The paper, along with anumber of other contributions to the ALAI Sym-posium, was published in the February 1982issue of the Bulletin of the Copyright Society ofthe U.S.A.The complex problem of copyright in workscreated by employee-authors was first raised inthe context of the creation of computer-assistedworks in 1979. In September 1982 a workinggroup of experts met in G,eneva to begin analysisof the legal treatment of employee-authors, on abroad basis rather than limited to computer con-texts. The three sponsoring international organi-zations, WIPO, UNESCO, and the InternationalLabor Organization, commissioned detailedstudies of the copyright status of employee-authors under three general legal traditions:Anglo-Saxon, Continental, and Socialist. Thefirst study was prepared by Harriet Oler, KentDunlap, and Marilyn Kretsinger of the Copy-right Office, under the editorial supervision ofthe Copyright Office general counsel, DorothySchrader. Ms. Schrader attended the meeting ofthe working group as an independent expert.Respectfully submitted,

DAVID LADDRegister of Copyrights andAssistant Librarian of Congressfor Copyright Services


21/32

REPORT OF TH E REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS,1982 17

International Copyright Relations ofthe United States as ofSeptember30,1982This table sets forth U.S. copyr ight relations of curre nt interest with the o ther inde pen den t nations of the world.Each entry gives country na m e (and al ternate name] and a s tatement of copyright relat ions . The fol lowing codeis used:Bilateral Bilateral copy righ t relations with th e United States by virtue of a proclamation or treaty, as ofthe date g iven. W here there is more than one proclamat ion or t reaty , only the date of the f i rstone is g iven.BAC Party to th e Buenos Aires Convent ion of 1910, s of th e da te given. U.S. ratification deposite dwith t he go vernment of Argentina, May 1, 1911; roclaimed by the President of the UnitedStates , July 13,1914.UCC Geneva Party to th e Universal Copyright Convent ion, Geneva, 1952, s of the date given. Th e effectivedate for he U ni ted States was September 16,1955.UCC Paris Party to th e Universal C opyright Convent ion as revised at Paris , 1971, s of the d ate given. Th eef fec t iveda te for the Uni ted Statesw as July 10,1974.Phonogram Party to th e Convention for the Protection of Produ cers of Phonogram s Against Unau thorizedDuplica tion of Their Phonograms, Geneva, 1971, s of the date given. Th e effective dat e for theUni ted S tates was March 10,1974.Unclear Became indepe nden t s ince 1943. Has not established copyright relations with the UnitedStates , but ma y be hono ring obl igations incurred und er former pol i t ical status .None No copyright relations with th e United States.Afghanis tan Aus t r i a Bhu tanNone Bilateral Sept. 20,1907 NoneUCC Geneva July 2,1957Alban ia BoliviaPhonogram Aug. 21,1982None BACMay 15,1914

Bahamas , The BotswanaAlgeria UCC Geneva July 10,1973 UnclearUCCGeneva Aug. 28,1973 UCC Paris Dec. 27,1976UCC Paris Ju ly 10,1974 Brazi lBa hra in Bi lateral Apr. 2,1957Ando rra None BACAug. 31,1915UCC Geneva Sept. 16,1955 Ban gladesh UCC Geneva Jan. 13,1960UCC Geneva A ug. 5,1975 UCC Paris Dec. 11,1975Angola UCC Paris Aug. 5,1975 Phonogram Nov. 28,1975Unclear Barbados Bu lgar i aAnt igua Ba rbu da Unclear UCC Geneva June 7,1975Unclear Belau UCC Paris June 7,1975Argent ina Unclear Burm aBilateral Aug. 23,1934 Belgium UnclearBAC Ap ril 19,1950UCC Geneva Feb. 13,1958 BilateralJuly 1,1891 B u r u n d iPhonogram June 30,1973 UCC Geneva Aug. 31,1960 UnclearBel ize CambodiaAustral iaBilateral Mar. 15,1918 Unclear (See entry under Kampu chea)UCC Geneva M ay 1,1969 Benin C a me r o o nUCCParis Feb. 28,1978 (formerly Dahom ey) UCC GenevaM ay 1,1973Phonogram Jun e 22,1974 Unclear UCC Paris July 10,1974


22/32

18 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS,1982

CanadaBilateral Jan. 1,1924UCCGeneva Aug. 10,1962Cape VerdeUnclearCentral African EmpireUnclearChadUnclearChileBilateral May 25,1896BAC Jun e14,1955UCCGeneva Sept.16,1955Phonogram March 24,1977ChinaBilateral Jan. 13,1904ColombiaBACDec. 23,1936UCC Geneva June18,1976UCC Paris Jun e18,1976ComorosUnclearCongoUnclearCosta RicaBilateral Oct. 19,1899BACNov. 30,1916UCCGeneva Sept.16,1955UCC Paris Mar. 7,1980Phonogram June17,1982CubaBilateral Nov. 17,1903UCC Geneva June18,1957CyprusUnclearCzechoslovakiaBilateral Mar. 1,1927UCCGeneva Jan.6,1960UCCParis Apr. 17.1980DenmarkBilateral May8,1893UCCGeneva Feb. 9,1962Phonogram Mar. 24,1977UCCParis July11,1979DjiboutiUnclear

DominicaUnclearDominican RepublicBAC Oct. 31,1912EcuadorBAC Aug. 31,1914UCC Geneva June5,1957Phonogram Sept. 14,1974EgyptPhonogram Apr. 23,1978For works other than sound re-cordings, noneEl SalvadorBilateral June30,1908,y virtue ofMexico City Convention, 1902UCC Geneva Mar. 29,1979UCC Pari sMar. 29,1979Phonogram Feb. 9,1979Equatorial GuineaUnclearEthiopiaNoneFijiUCCGenevaOct. 10,1970Phonogram Apr. 18,1973FinlandBilateral Jan. 1,1929UCC Geneva Apr. 16,1963Phonogram Apr. 18,1973FranceBilateral July 1,1891UCC Geneva Jan. 14,1956UCCParis July10,1974Phonogram Apr. 18,1973GabonUnclearGambia, TheUnclearGermanyBilateral Apr. 15,1892UCC Geneva with Federal Repub-lic of Germany Sept. 16,1955UCC Paris with Federal Republicof Germany July10,1974Phonogram with Federal Republicof Germany May 18,1974UCC Geneva wi th German Demo-cratic Republic Oct.5,1973

UCC Paris with German Democratic Republic Dec. 10,1980GhanaUCC Geneva Aug. 22,1962GreeceBilateral Mar. 1,1932UCC Geneva Aug. 24,1963GrenadaUnclearGuatemalaBACMar. 28,1913UCC Geneva Oct. 28,1964Phonogram Feb. 1,1977GuineaUCC Geneva Nov. 13,1981UCC Paris Nov. 13,1981Guinea-BissauUnclearGuyanaUnclearHaitiBACNov. 27,1919UCCGeneva Sept. 16,1955HondurasBACApr. 27,1914HungaryBilateral Oct. 16,1912UCC Geneva Jan. 23,1971UCCParis July10,1974Phonogram May 28,1975IcelandUCC Geneva Dec. 18,1956IndiaBilateral Aug. 15,1947UCCGeneva Jan.21,1958Phonogram Feb. 12,1975IndonesiaUnclearIranNoneIraqNoneIrelandBilateral Oct. 1,1929UCC Geneva Jan. 20,1959


23/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1982

Israel LuxembourgBilateral M ay 15,1948 Bilateral Jun e 29,1910UCC Geneva Sept. 16,1955 UCC Geneva Oct. 15,1955Phonogram May 1,1978 PhonogramMar. 8,1976ItalyBilateral Oct. 31,1892UCC Geneva Ian. 24.1957

Madagascar(Malagasy Republic)Unc lea r~ h o n o g r a m ~ a r .41 1977 MalawiUCC Paris Jan. 25,1980 UCC Geneva Oct. 26,1965Ivory CoastUnclearJamaicaNone

MalaysiaUnclearMaldivesUnclea rMali

Japan ' Unclea rUCCGeneva Apr . 28,1956UCCParis Oct. 21,1977 MaltaPhonogramOct . 14,1978 UCC Geneva Nov. 19,1968MauritaniaJordan Unclea rUnc lea r MauritiusKampucheaUCCGeneva Sept. 16.1955KenyaUCC Geneva Sept. 7,1966UCC Paris July 10,-1974Phonogram Apr. 21,1976KiribatiUnclea rKoreaUnclea rKuwaitUnclea rLaosUCC Geneva Sept. 16,1955LebanonUCC Geneva Oct. 17,1959LesothoUnclea rLiberiaUCC Geneva July 27,1956LibyaUnclearLiechtensteinUCC Geneva Jan. 22.1959

UCC Geneva Mar. 12,1968MexicoBilateral Feb. 27,1896BAC Apr. 24,1964UCC Geneva May 12,1957UCCParis Oct. 31,1975PhonogramDec . 21,1973MonacoBilateral Oct. 15,1952UCCG eneva Sept. 16,1955UCC Paris Dec. 13,1974PhonogramDec . 2,1974MongoliaNoneMoroccoUCC Geneva May 8,1972UCCParis Jan. 28,1976MozambiqueUnclea rNauruUnclea rNepalNoneNetherlandsBilateral Nov. 20,1899UCC Geneva June 22,1967

New ZealandBilateral Dec. 1,1916UCCG eneva Sept. 11,1964Phonog ram Aug. 13,1976NicaraguaBAC Dec. 15,1913UCC Geneva Aug. 16,1961NigerUnclea rNigeriaUCC Geneva Feb. 14,1962NorwayBila tera l Ju ly 1,1905UCC Geneva Jan. 23,1963UCC Paris Aug. 7,1974Phonogram Aug. 1,1978OmanNonePakistanUCCG eneva Sept. 16,1955PanamaBACNov. 25,1913UCCG eneva Oct. 17.1962UCC Paris Sept. 3.1980Phonogram June 29.1974Papua New GuineaUnclea rParaguayBAC Sept . 20,1917UCC Geneva Mar. 11,1962Phonog ram Feb. 13,1979PeruBA CA p r . 30,1920UCCG eneva Oct. 16,1963PhilippinesBilateral Oct. 21,1948UCC status undeterm ined by Unes-co. (Copyright Off ice consid ersthat UCC rela t ions d o not exist .PolandBilateral Feb. 16,1927UCC Geneva Mar. 9,1977UCC Paris Mar. 9,1977PortugalBilateral July 20,1893UCC Geneva Dec. 25,1956U Cc P a r i s J u ly 30,1981


24/32

20 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS,198:

QatarNoneRomaniaBilateral May 14,1928RwandaUnclear

Sri LankaUnclearSudanUnclearSurinamUnclear

United Arab EmiratesNoneUnited KingdomBilateral July1,1891UCCGeneva Sept. 27,1957UCCParis July10,1974Phonogram Apr. 18,1973Saint Lucia SwazilandUnclear Upper VoltaUnclear Unclear

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines sweden UruguayUnclear Bilateral June1,1911 BACDec. 17.1919San MarinoNoneSBo Tom6 and PrincipeUnclearSaudi ArabiaNoneSenegalUCC Geneva July9,1974UCCParis July10,1974SeychellesUnclearSier ra LeoneNoneSingaporeUnclearSolomon IslandsUnclearSomaliaUnclearSouth AfricaBilateral July1,1924Soviet UnionUCC Geneva May 27,1973

UCC Geneva July1,1961UCCParis July10,1974Phonogram Apr. 18,1973SwitzerlandBilateral July1,1891UCCGeneva Mar. 30,1956SyriaUnclearTanzaniaUnclearThailand .Bilateral Sept. 1,1921TogoUnclearTongaNoneTrinid ad a nd TobagoUnclearTunisiaUCC Geneva June19,1969UCCParis June10,1975TurkeyNone

Spain TuvaluBilateral July10,1895 UnclearUCCGenevaSept.16,1955UCCParis Julyi0,1974 UgandaPhonogram Aug.24,1974 Unclear

VanuatuUnclearVatican City(Holy See)UCC Geneva Oct. 5,1955Phonogram July18,1977UCCParis May6,1980VenezuelaUCC Geneva Sept. 30,1966VietnamUnclearWestern SamoaUnclearYemen (Aden]UnclearYemen (San'a)NoneYugoslaviaucc ~ e n e v a ay 11,1966UCCParis July10,1974ZairePhonogram Nov. 29,1977For works other than sound recordings, unclearZambiaUCCGeneva June1,1965ZimbabweUnclear

Effective June 30, 908, his country became a party to the 1902Mexico City Convention, to which the United State,also became a party effective the same date. As regards copyright relations with the United States , this convention is considered to have been superseded by adherence of this country and the United States to the Buenos Aires Conventionof 1910.

Bilateral copyright relations between Japan and the United States, which were formulated effective May 10,1906, nconsidered to have been abrogated and superseded by the adherence of Japan to the Universal Copyright Convention, Geneva1952, ffectiveApril 28,1956.


25/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1982

Section 104 of the copyright law (title 17 ofthe United Statescode) i s reprinted below:5 104. Subject matter of copyright: Nationalorigin(a) UNPUBLISHED WORKS.-The worksspecified by sections 102 and 103, while unpub-lished, are subject to protection under this titlewithout regard to the nationality or domicile ofthe author.(b) PUBLISHED WORKS.-The works speci-fied by sections 102 and 103, when published,are subject to protection un de r this title if-(I] on the date of first publication, one ormore of the authors i s a national or domicil-iary of the United States, or is a national,domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a for-eign nation that is a party to a copyright treatyto which the United States is also a party, oris a stateless person, wherever that personmay b e domiciled; or(2) the work is first published in the UnitedStates or in a foreign nation that, on the dateof first publication, is a party to the UniversalCopyright Convention; or

(3) the work is first published by theUnited Nations or any of its specialized agen-cies, or by the Organization of AmericanStates; or(4) the work comes with in the scope of aPresidential proclamation. Whenever thePresident finds that a particular foreign na-tion extends, to works by authors who arenationals or domiciliaries of the UnitedStates or to works that are first published inthe United States, copyright protection onsubstantially the same basis as that on whichthe foreign nation extends protection toworks of i ts own nationals and domiciliariesand works first published in that nation, thePresident may by proclamation extend pro-tection under this title to works of which oneor more of the authors is , on the date of firstpublication, a national, domiciliary, orsovereign authority of that nation, or whichwas first published in that nation. The Presi-dent may revise, suspend, or revoke anysuch proclamation or impose any condi-tions or limitations on protection under aproclamation.


26/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS. 1982

Number ofRegistrat ions by Subject Matter of Copyright. Fiscal Year 1982Category of material Published Unpublished Total

Nondramatic literary work sMonographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. 911 24. 405 116.316Serials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112. 430 112.430. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .achine-readable works 1.181 1.490 2.671Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205. 522 25. 895 231. 417

Works of the performing arts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .usical works 25. 647 99. 824 125.471Dramatic works. including any accompanying music .. 954 7. 746 8. 700. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .horeography and pantomimes 24 108 132. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .otion pictures and filmstrips 6. 880 737 7. 617

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Works of th e visual artsTwo-dimensional works of fine and graphic art. including. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .rints and art reproductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .culptural works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .echnical drawings and models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hotographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .artographic works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ommercial prints and labels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .orks of applied art

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. 326 9. 962 42. 288Sound recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 971 5. 907 13.878

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ultimedia works 2. 159 155 2. 314

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .rand total 281. 483 150.334 431. 817. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .enewals 36. 332

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .otal. all registrations 468. 149


27/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS,1982 23

Disposition of Copyright Deposits, Fiscal Year 1982Received forReceived for copyrightcopyright registration Acquiredregistration and forwarded or depositedand added to other withoutto copyright departments of copyrightCategory of material collection the Library registration Total

Nondramatic literary wo rk sMonographs, inc lud ing machine-readableworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,298 123,781 14,504 226,583Serials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . none 224,860 191,677 416,537

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,298 I 48,641 a 206,181 643,120Works of the performing BrtsMusical works; d rama tic works, includingany accompanying music; choreographyandpantomimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,561 26,367 155 161,083...........otion pictures and filmstrips 3,166 4,451 286 7,903

Total .............................. 137,727 30,818 441 168,986Works of the visual artsTwo-dimensional works of fine and graphicart, including prints and art reproductions;sculptural works; technical drawings and

models; photographs; commercial prints. . . . . . . .nd labels; works of applied art 71,363 2,174 834 74,371Cartographic works ..-.-............... 1 1,076 666 1,743Total .............................. 71,364 3,250 1,500 76,114

Sound recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,878 7,971 586 22,435

Of this total, 73,729 opies were transferred o theExchange and Gift Division for use inits programs.Of this total,5,119 opies were transferred to theExchange and Gift Division for use in its programs.Includes3,405motion pictures returned to remitter under theMotionPicture Agreement.


28/32


Summary of Copyright Business. Fiscal Year 1982Registration Fees

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ublished works at $10.00 281.483 $2.814.830.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .npubli shed works at $10.00 150.334 1.503.340.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .enewalsat$6.00 36.332 217.992.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .otal registrations fo r fee 468. 149 4.536.162.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for recording docume nts 167.130.50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for certified docu ments 31.340.00Feesforsearchesmade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109.028.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for import statements 663.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for deposit receipts under 17 U.S.C. 407 582.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for full-term storage of deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... none. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for special handling 34.560.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .otal fees exclusive of registrations 343.303.50

Total fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,879,465.50

Statement of Gross Cash Receipts and Number of Registrationsfor the Fiscal Years 1977-1 982

Fiscal yearPercentage ofGross Number of increase or decreasereceipt s registrations in registrations

-Reflects changes in reporting procedure.


29/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS. 1982 25

Financial Sta tement ofRoyolty Fees for Compulsory Licenses for Sec on da gTransmissions by Cable Systemsfor Calendar Year1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oyalty fees deposited $26.122.391.26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .nterest income paid on investments 2.576.983.42

$28,699,374.68. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ess: Operating costs 355.916.00Refunds issued ....................................... 61.313.69. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .nvestments pu rchased at cost 28.057.441.72

Balance as of September 30. 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.703.27Face amount of securities purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.635.000.00Cable royalty fees for calenda r year1981 vailable for distribution by the. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .opyright Royalty ~r i b u n a l 29.859.703.27

~ i n a n c i a l tatement of Royalty Feesfor Compulsory LicensesforCoin-Operated Players [Jukeboxes) or Calendar Year1982

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oyalty fees deposited $2.656.101.36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .nterest income paid on investments 228.718.14$2,884,819.50

Less: Operating costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 130.029.00Refundsissued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,561.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .nvestments purchased at cost 2.647.811.47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .alance as of September 30. 1982 105.418.03

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ace amount of securities purchased 2.460.000.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .stimated interest income due September 30. 1983 385.600.00Jukebox royalty fees for calendar year 1982 vailable for distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .y the Copyright ~ o ~ a l t yribunal 2.951.018.03


30/32

26 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF CO PYRIGH TS. 1982

Copyright Registrations, 1790-1982Patent OfficeDistrict Library of

Courts I Congress a Labels Prints Total Total


31/32

REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 198 2 27

Copyright Registrations, 1790-1982Patent OfficeDistrict Libraryof

Courts ' Congress a Labels Prints Total Total


32/32

28 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1982

Copyright Registrations, 1790-1 982Patent Office 'District Library of

Courts ' Congress Labels Prints Total Total

1961 247,014 247,0141962 254,776 254,7761963 264,845 264,8451964 278,987 278,9871965 293,617 293,6171966 286,866 286,8661967 294,406 294,4061968 303,451 303,4511969 301,258 301,2581970 316,466 316,4661971 329,696 329,6961972 344,574 344,5741973 353,648 353,6481974 372,832 372,8321975 401,274 401,2741976 410,969 410,9691976Transitionalqtr. ' 108,762 108,7621977 452,702 452,7021978 ' 31,942 331,9421979 429,004 429,0041980 464,743 464,7431981 471,178 471,1781982 468.149 468,149Total 150,000 18,612,634 55,348 18,098 73,446 18,836,080

Estimated registrations made in the offices of the Clerks of the District Courts [source: pamphle t entitled Records inthe Copyright Office Deposi ted by the United States District Courts Covering the Period 1790-1870, by Martin A. Roberts,Chief Assistant Librarian, Library of Congress, 1939).

Registrations made in the Library of Congress under the Librarian, calendar years 1870-1897 (source: Annual Reportsof t he Librarian). Registrations made i n the Copyright Office under the Register of Copyrights, fiscal years 1898-1971 (source:Annual Reports of the Register).

Labels registered in Patent Office,1875-1940; Prints registered in Patent Office, 1893-1940 (source: memorandum fromPatent Office,dated Feb. 13,1958,based onofficial reports and computations).

Registrations made July 1 ,197 6, through September 30,1976, reported separately owing to the statutory change makingthe fiscal year srun from October 1 hrough September 30 instead of July 1 hrough June30.

Reflects changes in reporting procedum.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 0 - 430-238 (382)

Date post:	31-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	copyright
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times