Volume 02

Download Volume

Abstract

Volume Two

The second year of the Bulletin, this volume will continue the same structure of reporting on legislation, cases, articles, and happenings. In Issue 4, however, we get a series of articles for the first time, in this case, related to the Universal Copyright Convention. The journal is starting, already in its second year, to take the form that it would have for the next seven decades. For more commentary, see the Editor’s Note, and to read/download the issue, go to the upper right hand corner, and select “Download”.

Editor's Note

Volume 2

Volume two continues the standard structure of the Bulletin, but also has a series of articles in Issue 4 related to the Universal Copyright Convention.

Volume 2, Issue 1: August 1954

The second year of the Bulletin. Issue 1 begins with a message from the President of the Copyright Society of the USA, Samuel W. Tannenbaum. “Every effort will be made so that the future issues of the Bulletin will be an increasing source of information and of greater usefulness not only to the Copyright Bar, but also to the creators and users of works affected by copyright and to all interested in literary and intellectual properties generally.” Oh, and the ratification of the Universal Copyright Convention by the US and 39 other countries on August 18, 1954.

So, what was happening? The implementing legislation for the UCC was passed by Congress. “As this issue goes to press, the measure as passed by both the House and the Senate awaits the President’s signature.”

As well, the U.S. Copyright Act continues to apply to the Virgin Islands. Public Law 517, approved July 22, 1954, 15 p (3rd Cong. 2d Sess., S 3378). But most of the news relates to the UCC, and a little bit of Alien Property thrown in. The Bulletin notes that “about 400 vested trademarks and 500,000 vested copyrights…cannot be released without new enabling legislation. The summary explains, “Particularly in the case of Germany, the trademarks are important to export trade with the United States, and return of copyrights would eliminate a point of friction in our cultural relations.” I am so fascinated by the Alien Property. Which 500,000 copyrights? These were not restored under 104A.

And copyright cases? We learn that there is a contract interpretation case related to both copyright and right of publicity. The case summaries were 2-3 paragraphs long. Copyright infringement of songs, of catalogs of refrigeration supplies and accessories, and contract issues and registration.

Volume 2, Issue 2: October 1954

The volume begins with a one-page in memoriam for Sir John Blake, Comptroller General of the British Patent Office, and head of the UK Delegation to the UCC, who died suddenly on May 18, 1954. It will be interesting to see if more memoriams continue throughout the history of the journal. But Sir John seemed an important figure in the development of the UCC “and he never lost confidence in the successful outcome of the deliberation and always proposed wise adjustments of controversial issues.”

The issue continues with more related to the UCC, and the Copyright Office issuing a bulletin of how the current copyright law had to be amended, P.I. 743; Revision of Copyright Law.

And last minute news: President Eisenhower signed the instrument of ratification of the Universal Copyright Convention! How exciting! The President of the Copyright Society, Samuel W Tannenbaum was even present, among others.

Volume 2, Issue 3: December 1954

A regular issue. Not much to report.

Volume 2, Issue 4: February 1955

The Issue is dedicated to articles — yes, articles — related to the Universal Copyright Convention! This is an amazing issue that starts with a Preface of the ratification of the UCC on November 5, 1954 by President Eisenhower. As part of the ratification, a series of papers was presented at the Copyright Institute of the Federal Bar Association of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, as a special symposium of the UCC. The Copyright Society published condensed versions, and the Federal Legal Publications, Inc. published the full proceedings. The symposium had three panel discussions. The full publication included additional documents, and the full text of the UCC.

And for the first time, we get information that Walter J. Derenberg is the Chairman of the editorial board. (He signs the preface for the issue). Walter Berenberg taught a copyright class at NYU, one of the first of its kind. This is noted in a footnote from Pallante’s 60th ann. Speech: See E. Gabriel Perle, Copyright Law and the Copyright Society of the USA, 1950-2000, 47 J. COPYRIGHT Soc’Y 397, 398 (2000). Also, during the Register’s speech, the audience made known that Gala attendees (CS members) Jon Baumgarten and Judith Saffer were students of Professor Derenberg!

Let’s take a look at what these first articles were doing. The Introduction to the issue is penned by the Register Arthur Fisher. He gives a bit of history on how the Universal Copyright Convention came about.

Part I, The UCC, Its Effect and Scope, begins with a piece by Samuel W. Tannenbaum, the President of the Copyright Society. His article, “Works Protected and the Principle of “National Treatment” under the Convention = Articles 1 and II.

The UCC would mark the first international convention that the US joined, and so it stands to reason that reviewing basic concepts are necessary. Tannenbaum begins with the fact that the US never had joined the Berne Convention due to the formality requirements of US law, and the serious problem that this caused. “The only means to a United States author to obtain protection under the Berne Convention was the “back door” method, of first or simultaneous publication in a Berne Country.” So begins the conversation — how the UCC will assist U.S. authors. And then, Tannenbaum turns to the problems of foreign authors in the U.S., describing the history of the Chase Act, and the fact that foreign authors could not obtain copyright protection until their country of origin signed a bilateral treaty with the U.S., and that did not begin until March 3, 1891. (For more on this, see the Copyright Office’s current Circular 38A, International Copyright Relations, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf, which lists when those bilateral treaties were signed for each country — and some that never did.) The UCC was a big step in US/foreign relations. What is lovely about the piece is that Tannenbaum contextualizes the moment and need for the UCC as he discusses Article I and Article II.

It’s really a beautiful piece, and for me, makes we want to see the full article that was published as well. Tannenbaum reminds us that the goal is to create a simple system of copyright protection, with minimum requirements.

He reminds us that the goal of the UCC was not to create a uniform system but to “fuse the diverse domestic system into a simple workable international agreement, containing minimum formalities.” (86). To that end, the convention is not self-executing, and each country must decide what must be modified in their domestic legislation, and that this, of course, does not replace the Berne Convention or other “present and future inter-Amerian multilateral or bilateral copyright conventions.” (Id). He also notes that the structure of the UCC differs from the Berne Convention in that it does not define the works and rights protected, but leaves it up to the individual countries. The motion picture companies feared the sound portion of a film would not be protected, but that fear was allayed.

Tannenbaum then discusses Article II: national treatment of published and unpublished works, both registered works and those protected by state common law.

The second article, “Copyright Formalities — Article III” was written by Abraham I. Kaminstein, Chief, Examining Division, U.S. Copyright Office. Again, the article emphasizes that the UCC was to bring simplicity. Here, Kaminstein discusses formalities, and the great compromise of the UCC: the use of the © symbol as a universal symbol of copyright protection.

He notes that if publishers in the U.S. want to continue to use the word “copyright”, they should also add © to the notice. During the transition stage, he notes that the addition of the © notice for domestic works “can do no harm” but removing the word “Copyright” may result in the loss of U.S. copyright protection. The short article discusses the requirements of name, date and position of the notice as well.

Sydney M. Kaye next presents “Duration of Copyright and the Concept of “Dedication” – Article IV and VI” The question was how to establish minimum terms, when some countries measure from the date of publication, and others from date of publication or registration.

And the UCC included a provision related to “comparison of terms,” or also called “rule of the shorter term.”

He continues a discussion that includes the concept of countries with renewal terms and how to measure, and what counts as the “country of origin.” And moreover, a country is not required more than the original term, and not the renewal term. This would eventually lead to the addition of Section 104A in the 1990s to the 1976 Copyright Act, to restore foreign works that had fallen into the public domain as they had not been renewed. [put in my work here] Kaye then turns to Article VI, which defines publication for the Convention, rather than altering a domestic law. .

Next, Herman Finkelstein writes about The Right of Translation — Article V, which he writes is one of the most important provisions of the UCC. The Berne Convention recognized the importance of this.

Alfred H. Wasserstrom then writes, “Some Observations on Articles VII, IX, X, XV, and XX of the UCC.” Article VII concerns the non-retroactive application of the UCC, including that the UCC does not resurrect works already permanently in the public domain. The question is what does permanent mean? Article IX concerns the minimum number of countries that have to ratify it. Article X records that the UCC is not self-executing. Article XV says individuals cannot bring copyright disputes to the International Court of Justice. And Article XX submits that reservations to the UCC are not permitted.

And with that we have completed Part I. Part II looks at the impact of the UCC with bilateral and multilateral treaties, by Roger C. Dixon. At the time of ratification, the US had 35 bilateral agreements, and 50 proclamations. (103). He provides a good amount of detail. It is worth taking a look at. Arfad Bogsch writes about, The UCC and the Berne Convention, Harry G. Henn writes about The interrelation between the UCC and the Pan-American Copyright Conventions. In Part III, George D. Cary writes about The Impact of the Convention on US Copyright Law.

Finally, there is a note on the Copyright Society’s Translation Services.