Page images
PDF
EPUB

NEW POSITIONS REQUESTED

Mr. ANDREWS. Give us a breakdown on these 25 newly requested positions.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. The summary is contained on page 107, the specific justifications given on page 109.

In the cataloging division it would be four catalogers at GS-5 and two clerk-typists at GS-4. You will note that these are lower grade positions needed to catch up with the work.

In the examining positions it would be eight examiners. This has been the real load so far as meeting the influx of complex materials. There are eight examiners at GS-7, now the entering grade, and four correspondence clerks at GS-4.

In the Reference Division it would be two reference searchers and one correspondence clerk.

In the Service Division, which is the Division responsible for distributing and controlling this material, it would be 1 master index clerk, 1 connection clerk, and 2 mail clerks, for a total of 25.

Mr. ANDREWS. All of those new employees are requested for one purpose to reduce the waiting time that a registrant waits to get his application acted on?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. The increase requested over 1966 is $193,500. The cost of those 25 positions would be $141,405. Is that right?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right, sir.

WITHIN-GRADE INCREASES, REALLOCATION AND PAY INCREASES

Mr. ANDREWS. Tell us about the other $52,900 increase you are requesting.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is accounted for by the in-grades and the personnel benefits provisions. The pay raise is also included for the full year. I think that comes to $19,600 for the pay raise alone. Mr. ANDREWS. And the others are in-grade promotions, mandatory? Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. All the $52,900 is mandatory?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. For pay raises and in-grade promotions?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. Does that take into consideration the 25 new posi

tions you are requesting?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Steed?

Mr. STEED. I have no questions.

Mr. ANDREWs. Mr. Langen?

EFFECT OF REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS ON WORKLOAD

Mr. LANGEN. I noted your reference to a new copyright law which has been in progress for quite some time. What would happen to your work if that were to become the law of the land? Would it add to your work?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. It would. The bill now provides for at least a year's period before the law would take effect. We would hope that if

Congress acted it might be somewhere during the middle of the year so we would actually have about a year and a half to tool up. We would expect there would be an increase in work and we also would hope that we would have automatic machinery to help us meet that problem. Mr. LANGEN. So what you are saying is that it would amount to a great increase in the number of registrations.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. I think it would. The new law provides for registration of materials where it is not available today such as unpublished manuscripts of novels, stories, articles, and poetry. The law, today, permits registration for unpublished music but not for an unpublished novel or article.

We would assume there would be quite a bit of that coming in.

Mr. LANGEN. Have you been able to meet all the objections raised to some of the added requirements for registration?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. The subcommittee now has sat through 23 executive sessions trying to reconcile the issues still presented by the bill. I think they have done an amazing job.

Last Friday they issued a tentative decision in the area of community antenna. I don't know of any more difficult problem in the whole area of copyright.

Mr. LANGEN. How much would you expect the registration to go up? Would it be a third, 10 percent, 50 percent?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. We really have no firm basis on which to predict. I would estimate somewhere in the range of 25 percent at the outset, although I would not be surprised if registrations more than doubled within a few years.

AUTOMATION OF REGISTRATION

Mr. LANGEN. You mentioned automation of some kind to fit into this pattern, too. Do you have such plans in mind now?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Eventually, I think we have to try to automate some or most of this process. The present workload is becoming too great to handle with existing procedures. Whether or not the revised law passes there should be some way of expediting the examination and processing of simple applications, perhaps by placing the information on punchcards as soon as they are received.

This is in the future, but we are beginning to work out plans for doing this.

VIOLATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAWS

Mr. LANGEN. What about violations of copyright rights? Do you become involved in any of these?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Thank goodness, no. Infringement actions go to the courts.

Mr. LANGEN. This does not become a problem to you other than supplying them with the registration or information related thereto? Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. That is all.

Mr. ANDREWs. Mr. Reifel?

COPYRIGHT FEES

Mr. REIFEL. Is there a flat rate charged for a group of registrations and applications?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Not at the present time, because the law provides that the application speaks as of the date of publication.

If you publish a group of related works together-in other words, if you publish the volumes of an encyclopedia together-you can submit them as one publication. If you publish each volume separately you need separate applications.

Mr. REIFEL. As I understand it, one application may involve a lot more work than another?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. REIFEL. You still charge the same amount, a flat rate?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right. We are now registering computer programs which involve a great deal more work since the office has little experience in this field. Again, this is a settling-in process. Eventually it will be simpler after the legal and procedural problems are solved, but right now we do not even have equipment with which to examine these deposits.

Mr. REIFEL. It is administratively difficult to try to charge what should be charged rather than charging a flat rate? I imagine you have gone over this many times before.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. We have considered it at one time or another, and in connection with revision, but it becomes too complicated as a matter of judgment. You would have to charge on the basis of time spent, and you would be charging too much for the first few applications for new types of material.

Mr. REIFEL. In the long pull you are coming out ahead, anyway, are you not?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. We think so, so far as receipts to the Government are concerned.

Mr. REIFEL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. One final question. You have the same fee for every request for copyright?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Every application except in the renewal case. Mr. ANDREWS. In the original application?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. That is right.

RESEARCH TIME ON APPLICATIONS

Mr. ANDREWS. Give us an idea about minimum time spent in research on the application and the maximum time. Also give us an

average.

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. The minimum time could be as little as 5 minutes, although the average for all classes, including the simplest, is at least 15 minutes.

Mr. ANDREWs. And the maximum?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. It could be months, literally. There are many problems presented by the law which never have been resolved; for example, in the manufacturing clause and the renewal clause. In the case of the renewal clause for example, one case went to the Supreme Court where we did appear as amicus curiae to support our position, but it took a long journey through the courts.

We are involved in mandamus suits where there is a refusal to register or because we did register.

COURT RECORD ON COPYRIGHT CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENTS

Mr. ANDREWS. What is your record of being upheld or overruled by the courts?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Since I have been with the Office, which is close to 20 years now, we never have been overruled where the Office itself was involved as a party in the case. And, in general copyright infringement cases, the percentage of certificates upheld is amazingly high.

The record for the sustaining of copyright claims in the courts is so much better than it is in the field of patents, for example, that there is really no comparison.

COPYRIGHTS AND PORNOGRAPHY

Mr. ANDREWS. What guidelines, if any, do you have with regard to issuing copyrights for lewd, vulgar books?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Again, we don't frequently have this problem. About 6 years ago we asked the Attorney General for an opinion as to just what our role and function should be here. That opinion states that we can disregard this factor for purposes of registration under the copyright law.

In the case of material such as the Post Office and the Department of Justice are interested in, the so-called hard-core pornography, very few people want to file an application claiming proprietorship. This is material that is usually passed under the counter and people are not ready to file a claim and say they own it and are responsible for its circulation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Have you refused any copyrights because of pornography, for example?

Mr. KAMINSTEIN. Not since the Attorney General's opinion.

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »