[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E753]]



              THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT, H.R. 2589

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HOWARD COBLE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 5, 1998

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my remarks regarding 
H.R. 2589, the ``Copyright Term Extension Act,'' which was passed by 
the House on March 25, 1998.
  The writers, screen actors, and directors guilds have expressed 
concern about their inability to obtain residual payments that are due 
to their members in situations where the producer of the motion picture 
fails to make these payments, for example where it no longer exists or 
is bankrupt. The guilds may be unable to seek recourse against the 
exclusive distributors, transferees of rights in the motion picture, 
because those parties are not subject to the collective bargaining 
agreement or otherwise in privity with the guilds. Although the 
collective bargaining agreements generally require the production 
company to obtain assumption agreements from distributors that would 
effectively create such privity, some production companies apparently 
do not always do so.
  Section 5 of H.R. 2589 would address this problem without interfering 
with the collective bargaining process and the ability of the parties 
to determine the terms of their relationships. It would, in certain 
circumstances, impose on distributors the obligations to make residual 
payments and provide related notices that are currently required by the 
collective bargaining agreements governing the motion picture. It does 
so by making the distributor subject to the applicable obligations 
under the assumption agreements, incorporating the applicable terms 
into the transfer instrument by operation of law. The provision would 
not affect broadcast and cable licensees because it excludes transfers 
that are limited to public performance rights.
  The ``reason to know'' language is intended to be interpreted in 
light of common sense and industry practice. Because many motion 
pictures made in the United States are produced subject to one or more 
collective bargaining agreements, the distributor would ordinarily 
perform some check on whether the motion picture is subject to such an 
agreement, for example by inquiring of the producer. The provision 
would not, however, require a burdensome or exhaustive investigation. 
Publicly available information that indicates a work's status, such as 
records of a guild's security interest in the motion picture filed with 
the Copyright Office, would ordinarily provide ``reason to know'' 
within the meaning of the Act. The guilds may wish to provide an easily 
accessible source of information, such as a World Wide Web Site, that 
identifies which motion pictures are subject to a collective bargaining 
agreement. If the existence of such a site is made known in the 
industry, the listing of a particular motion picture would clearly give 
reason to know of that picture's status.
  In order to protect distributors who have negotiated transfers based 
on misrepresentations, the provision makes the producer who fails to 
inform distributors of its collective bargaining agreement obligations 
liable to those distributors for any resulting damages. Disputes about 
the application of the provision and claims for damages from 
misrepresentation would be resolved in federal district court, with the 
court having discretion to award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

                          ____________________