Copyright Law and Practice
by William F. Patry

Copyright © 1994, 2000 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Reprinted with permission.

Table of Contents:

Chapter 1

- Introduction

- England and the Statute of Anne

- The Colonies and Copyright

- The Constitutional Clause

- The First Copyright Act

- Statutory Revision

- Amendments to the 1909 Act

- The 1976 Act

- Amendments to the 1976 Act


- Amendments to the 1976 Act

- The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Amendments to the 1909 Act

There were no general revisions of the 1909 Act until 1976. Instead, there were a series of amendments designed principally to take into account new technologies and international developments. As with the 1790 Act, we shall review these amendments chronologically.

The Townsend Amendment of 1912

The first amendment to the 1909 Act occurred in 1912, and provided express protection for motion pictures. Prior to this revision (known as the Townsend Amendment),209 motion pictures were protected as photographs. The Amendment created two new subject matter categories in Section 5: (1) “motion picture photoplays” (class 5(l)), and, logically, (2) “motion pictures other than photoplays” (class 5(m)). The first category was reserved for motion {Page 62} pictures that were dramatic in character and told a connected story; the second category was used for newsreels, travelogues, and the like.210 The congressional reports explain one reason for the amendment:

The occasion for this proposed amendment is the fact that the production of motion-picture photoplays and motion-pictures other than photoplays has become a business of vast proportions. The money invested therein is so great and the property rights so valuable that the committee is of the opinion that the copyright law ought to be so amended as to give them distinct and definite recognition.211

There is evidence of a far different motive for the Townsend Act, that of limiting the liability of motion picture companies and their distributors for infringement of “undramatized” or “nondramatic works” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 1911 decision in Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros.,212 which held that the motion picture Ben Hur infringed the novel of the same name. Yet a third (rather weak) reason for the amendment, ease of classification by the Copyright Office, has also been suggested.213 It is strange that neither the 1909 Act nor the Townsend Amendment cured a gaping hole in the protection of motion pictures: the lack of a right of public exhibition. The courts grappled with this surprising omission creatively by treating unauthorized exhibitions as the making of a “copy.”214

The 1913 Housekeeping Amendment

Asmall housekeeping amendment in 1913 required additional information to be provided on applications for copyright, principally with respect to the place and date of first publication and the country of origin.215

{Page 63}

The 1914 International Amendments

The year 1914 saw two developments in our international copyright relations. First, on July 13, 1914, President Wilson proclaimed compliance with the Buenos Aires Convention, the second international treaty adhered to by the United States. The convention was originally effective between the United States, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, but later included 15 Latin American countries. The Convention was ratified without implementing legislation.216

The second amendment, made at the request of the Copyright Office, eased the deposit requirements for foreign authors: foreign authors whose works were published in foreign countries could deposit one, instead of the customary two, copies of the best edition of the work.217

The 1919 Retroactive Protection and Ad Interim Amendment

During World War I, compliance with copyright formalities by foreign authors was, understandably, rendered difficult at best, and impossible in most cases. At the conclusion of the war, the State Department and the British government discussed the possibility of legislation in both countries that would provide retroactive protection for war-time works. Legislation to this effect was introduced in 1919, and signed into law by President Wilson that same year.218 Under the Act, works first published abroad after August 1, 1914, and before March 3, 1921, were retroactively protected in the United States, provided that the foreign author’s country granted U.S. authors similar protection, and provided further that within 15 months from March 3, 1921, the foreign author complied with “the conditions and formalities prescribed with respect to such works by the copyright laws of the United States.”219

Another section of this Act relaxed the ad interim provisions. The 30-day {Page 64} ad interim provision of Section 21 of the 1909 Act was, not surprisingly, too short and, moreover, added unnecessary and expensive burdens.220 In his 1916 annual report to Congress, Register Solberg requested extension of the ad interim time limit, but it was not until the 1919 Act that a modest increase to four months, based on registration, deposit, and compliance with other formalities (e.g., notice) within 60 days of first foreign publication, was approved. The new provision was effective for works first published abroad on or after March 3, 1921.

The University Professors’ Act of 1926

A seemingly innocuous amendment in 1926,221 designed to aid university professors and others who were not able to have their books printed during World War I, inadvertently called into question the scope of the manufacturing clause by declaring that the clause did not apply to “works printed or produced in the United States by any other process than those specified in this section.”222 The processes referred to were typesetting, lithography, and photoengraving. The amendment’s apparent premise was that under the previous law all relevant works had to be manufactured by one of the statutorily enumerated processes in order to be protected. Under such an approach, published typewritten or mimeographed works in the English language were, presumably, in the public domain. One would have presumed instead that the previous law stood for the simpler proposition that if a work was manufactured by any of the enumerated processes, then that process had to be carried out in the United States. An opinion to this effect had, in fact, been issued by the Attorney General in 1910.223

The Fee Increase Act of 1928

In 1928, the fee for certificates of registration for published works was doubled, to $2, as was the charge for other services, such as recordation.224 This was the first general increase in fees since 1831.

{Page 65}

The Postal Act of 1938

By special legislation, and at the apparent request of a group of philatelists, an exception to the general prohibition on copyright in works of the U.S. government contained in (then) Section 7 of the 1909 Act was created for stamps and other publications of the Post Office. The exception stated that the Post Office could “secure copyright on behalf of the United States in the whole or in part of the publications authorized by section 405 of title 39.”225 The nature and purpose of this exception was the subject of debate during the revision process that led up to the 1976 Copyright Act.226

The Prints and Labels Act of 1939

In 1939, Section 5(k) of the 1909 Act, which had covered “prints and pictorial illustrations,” was amended to cover “prints and pictorial illustrations including prints or labels used for articles of merchandise,”227 thereby ending the Patent Office’s connection with such works, a connection engineered by the Librarian of Congress in an 1874 Amendment.228 As of July 1, 1940, the Register of Copyrights was charged with registering such claims. No doubt unintentionally, the renewal provisions for labels and prints previously registered by the Patent Office were altered in this Act, so that only the proprietor of copyright, and not the author or his or her heirs, had the right of renewal. However, since most of these labels were created in a work-made-for-hire relationship, the adverse consequences of this apparent error were probably not too widespread.

{Page 66}

The 1940 Amendments

Two acts were passed in 1940, involving renewal of contributions to collective works and the importation provision.

Renewal of Contributions to Collective Works

The first law passed in 1940 amended Section 23 of the Copyright Act, which governed renewal rights in collective works. This law and the proviso it amended have a long, confused history, and raise the question of whether authors who contributed separately copyrightable works to a “composite work upon which the copyright was secured by the proprietor thereof,”229 (e.g., an article in a magazine), can renew in their own names, notwithstanding that their separable contributions were not individually registered by them for the original term.

The Copyright Office’s position, before the 1940 amendment, was that the author had the exclusive right to renew his or her individual contribution, with the proprietor having the right to renew only the composite work “as a whole.” In an apparent misreading of then-existing Section 23 of the Act as negating this principle, the phrase “when such contribution has been separately registered” was deleted in the 1940 amendment.230


The second law passed in 1940 permitted the Secretary of the Treasury and Postmaster General to require copyright owners who claimed infringing importation to provide certificates of registration.231

Ad Interim Protection During World War II

In light of the obvious difficulties of complying with the manufacturing clause during World War II, in 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt was given proclamation power to grant “such extension of time as he may deem appropriate” to fulfill the clause’s requirements.232 The first proclamation, for the benefit of British nationals and citizens of Palestine, was issued on March 10, {Page 67} 1944, and extended indefinitely the time periods for securing ad interim and renewal copyrights for covered works.

The 1947 Codification

In 1947, the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended and contained in the Revised Statutes, was codified and enacted into positive law as title 17 of the United States Code.233 Although no substantive changes were made in the law, some technical clarifications were made to a few sections, a number of obsolete sections were deleted, and many provisions were renumbered, causing countless future researchers headaches. The Copyright Office published a parallel reference table to assist in comparisons.234

The 1948 Fee Increase

In 1948, the fees for copyright services were increased: the fee for certificates of registration was set at $4, except for prints and labels used for articles of commerce, which were set at $6. Recording fees and the price of the yearly catalog of copyright entries were also increased.235

The 1949 Relaxation of the Manufacturing Clause

Post-World War II conditions in Europe rendered compliance with the manufacturing clause extremely difficult, leading to a dramatic decrease in the number of foreign registrations. With an eye toward increasing the importation of English-language books and periodicals created by foreign authors, Register of Copyrights Sam Warner obtained a substantial revision of the manufacturing {Page 68} clause in 1949.236 The ad interim registration and deposit period for English-language books and periodicals of foreign origin was increased from 60 days to 6 months, and the domestic manufacturing period from 4 months to 5 years. In addition, importing 1,500 foreign-manufactured copies (with notice) was permitted without loss of copyright in order to allow an American publisher the opportunity to determine whether domestic reprinting was commercially worthwhile. Finally, the deposit requirements for foreign works were changed to permit foreign authors to save the $4 registration fee by sending instead an additional deposit copy and a catalog card, an alternative that had some appeal in the cash-poor post-war days.237 The amendment was eminently successful, with the number of foreign registrations being unusually high in 1950; by 1951, registrations for English-language foreign books rose 43 percent.238

The 1952 Nondramatic Literary Works Amendment

In 1952, authors of nondramatic literary works were granted, for the first time, a right of public performance, limited, however, to for-profit performances.239

Adherence to the Universal Copyright Convention

In September 1952, reflecting the United States’ unwillingness to amend its law sufficiently to comply with the provisions of the Berne Convention, a new multilateral treaty, the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), was signed by 40 nations, including the United States.240 On June 10, 1953, President {Page 69} Eisenhower submitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent.241 A bill to amend the copyright law to make the requisite changes in U.S. domestic law comply with the UCC was introduced in both Houses in the summer of 1953. Hearings were held before both Houses in April 1954, with printers and bookbinders testifying in opposition to adherence, based on the need to abolish the manufacturing requirement for works of UCC member country authors first published in those countries.242

Notwithstanding this opposition, the treaty was ratified by a vote of 65-3 in the Senate on June 25, 1954. The implementing legislation passed the House on August 3, 1954, and the Senate on August 18, 1954. President Eisenhower signed the Act into law on August 31, 1954.243 On December 6, 1954, the instrument of accession was deposited with UNESCO. The treaty (and the implementing legislation) became effective on September 16, 1955.

Among the changes made to domestic law by the 1955 UCC implementing legislation was an amendment to Section 9 of the 1909 Act, which established a new subsection (c). This subsection: (1) provided national eligibility for works whose country of origin was another UCC country; (2) exempted such works from the need to provide reciprocal mechanical reproduction rights similar to those found in 17 U.S.C. 1(e); (3) exempted from the deposit requirement all works by authors of a UCC country and those works first published in a UCC country; and (4) exempted such works from the manufacturing clause requirements, provided that a “UCC notice” was affixed. This notice consisted of “the symbol © accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright.”244 Ad interim protection previously secured for works of UCC origin was automatically extended to the full term. These provisions did not apply to works of American citizens and domiciliaries {Page 70} published abroad or to works first published in the United States. However, the substitution of the term “first published abroad” for the term “of foreign origin” in the first proviso of Section 16 had the effect of extending the 1,500 copy ad interim exemption from the manufacturing clause to English language works of American authors first published abroad.

Unconnected with the need for revision to comply with the UCC, Congress amended the notice provisions to permit the use of “©” for all classes of works; previously, this short-form notice had been permitted only for pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.245

The 1956 Identifying Material Amendment

In 1956, the deposit requirements for most pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works were relaxed to permit photographs thereof to be submitted in lieu of the actual copies, where it was “impracticable to deposit copies because of their weight, fragility, or monetary value.”246

The 1957 Statute of Limitations Amendment

In 1957, Section 115 was amended to provide for a three-year statute of limitations on civil actions, measured from the date the “claim accrued.”247 Before this amendment, there was a statutory three-year limitations period for criminal actions, but none for civil cases.

U.S. Government Liability for Infringement

The issue of U.S. government liability for copyright infringement under the 1909 Act was unclear. This situation was clarified in 1960 with an amendment to title 28, which established a new Section 1498(b), pursuant to which actions against the government and its contractors were (and presently are) to be brought exclusively in the Court of Claims.248 An exemption from all liability {Page 71} was also made in 1961 for the microfilming of presidential papers in the collections of the Library of Congress.249

The 1962 Acts

Extension of the Renewal Term

Beginning in 1962, Congress enacted the first of a series of extensions of the renewal term for existing works, in anticipation of passage of an omnibus revision of the 1909 Act.250 The effect of these laws was to extend to December 31, 1976, the renewal term of all works scheduled to expire between September 19, 1962, and December 31, 1976.251

Trading With the Enemy Act

The second Act passed in 1962 has an unusual history. On October 6, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson approved the “Trading With the Enemy” Act.252 Section 10 of this Act provided that it was lawful for an author or inventor from an enemy (or an ally of an enemy) country to file and prosecute, in the United States, a patent, trademark, or copyright application. The Act further provided that if such an individual, on account of conditions arising out of World War I, was unable to comply with the required procedures or formalities, an extension of time to do so would be granted, provided that {Page 72} similar privileges were extended by the alien’s country to citizens of the United States.

These benign provisions must be contrasted with other provisions that permitted the government to seize title to the intellectual property of enemy authors. An Office of the Alien Property Custodian, in the Justice Department, was set up for this purpose, and issued numerous vesting orders pursuant to which enemy copyrights were seized. Under these orders, the government was authorized to, and did, issue licenses to U.S. citizens to use and publish copyrighted works of enemy authors seized under the Act. The general purpose of the orders was not, however, confiscatory. Instead, vesting orders were used to encourage the reproduction of scientific works helpful to the war effort under circumstances where normal licensing conditions were not possible.

Although the Office of the Alien Property Custodian was abolished in 1934, the Office was reestablished under the First War Powers Act following the declaration of war on Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary in 1941.253 Section 10 of the 1917 Act remained in effect.

The Alien Property Custodian was quite active during World War II, and the numerous vesting orders recorded in the Copyright Office caused the Office considerable work. By fiscal year 1944, 185,102 titles had been recorded, with 146,690 waiting to be indexed. Licenses were also issued for the use of foreign authors’ works under contract to U.S. licensees when the war broke out. Royalties of $5 million were collected and deposited with the U.S. Treasury from the exploitation of musical works such as Puccini operas, books such as Mein Kampf and Goebbels’ diaries, and films such as The Blue Angel. Approximately 700 scientific books and 3,200 issues of foreign scientific periodicals were licensed under the orders.254

After the conclusion of World War II, the War Claims Act of 1948 was passed. This Act provided, inter alia, for the satisfaction of U.S. war claims from funds obtained from the sale or licensing of seized intellectual property. At the same time, title to copyright was returned to the rightful foreign author or his or her heirs in a number of cases.

In 1962, legislation was enacted255 that provided that where copyrights had not already been returned to enemy authors by the Alien Property Custodian or the Attorney General, all copyrights seized were “as a matter of grace” returned to the authors or their heirs. All unpaid royalties were, however, to be paid to the Attorney General.

{Page 73}

The Standard Reference Data Act of 1968

Based on a finding that reliable standardized scientific and technical data “are of vital importance to the progress of the nation’s science and technology,” in 1968, Congress authorized the Secretary of Commerce to

secure copyright and renewal thereof on behalf of the United States as author or proprietor in all or any part of any standard reference data which he prepares or makes available under this Act, and may authorize the reproduction and publication thereof by others.256

However, in light of the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,257 it is unlikely that the compilations of data this Act has historically protected meet the constitutional originality requirement as set forth in the Court’s opinion.

The 1971 Sound Recording Act

On October 15, 1971, legislation to protect, under the Copyright Act, sound recordings – the particular series of musical, spoken, or other sounds fixed on a tape or record album and the performance embodied therein – was enacted,258 effective February 15, 1972. Prior to this date, sound recordings were generally protected solely by state common law or criminal statute. Published literary or musical works embodied in the tape or record album were, of course, already subject to federal copyright protection.

{Page 74}

The 1971 Sound Recording Act was rooted in concerns over piracy and this concern is reflected in the legislation’s granting the copyright owner the right only to “duplicate the sound recording in a tangible form that directly or indirectly recaptures the actual sounds fixed in the recording.” A proviso reinforced this limitation by declaring that the rights granted did not “extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that is an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. . . .”259 With minor changes in phraseology, this proviso is continued in Section 114(b) of the 1976 Act.

Next section: The 1976 Act

209 Act of August 24, 1912, Pub. L. No. 62-303, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 37 Stat. 488. According to Motion Pictures 1894-1912 Identified From the Records of the United States Copyright Office (Walls 1953), 8,506 works, representing 6,000 titles, were registered in the period 1894-1912. In the period 1894-1897, the Library of Congress registered 172 motion pictures as photographs, all but 9 by Thomas Edison. The first registration, in January 1894, for EdisonKinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze, January 7, 1894 (better known as “Fredd Ott’s Sneeze”), was made by William Kennedy Laurie Dickson of West Orange, New Jersey, an employee of Edison. The early deposits were in many media: mutoscope reels, sample 35mm frames from every scene in the motion picture, positive photographic paper prints, celluloid, photographic stills or enlargements, kinegraphs (better known as thumb or flip books), and even complete motion pictures printed on 35mm positive photographic paper rolls. There were no registrations from the end of 1894 to October 23, 1896. From 1896 to 1907 there were numerous registrations for newsreels, but by 1908 such registrations practically ceased, in favor of fictional motion pictures.

210 Television programs were later accepted for registration in the appropriate motion picture category.

211 H.R.Rep. No. 756, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1912); S. Rep. No. 906, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1912).

212 222 U.S. 55 (1911). See also H.R. Rep. No. 756 and S. Rep. No. 906, supra note 211, Townsend Copyright Amendment: Complete File of Arguments Before the Committee on Patents on H.R. 15263 and H.R. 20596, 62d Cong., 2d Sess.(1912), and Townsend Copyright Amendment: Hearing on H.R. 22350 Before the House Committee on Patents, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. (1912). Section 25(b) of the 1909 Act, as amended by the Townsend Amendment, limited damages for infringement of an “undramatized or nondramatic work by means of a motion picture” to a maximum of $100 where the infringer showed that “he was not aware that he was infringing and that such infringement could not have been reasonably foreseen.” For infringement of dramatic and dramatico-musical works under the same circumstances, liability was limited to a maximum of $5,000 and a minimum of $250.

213 See Copyright Office Study No. 3, The Meaning of “Writings” in the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 43, 76 (Senate Comm. Print 1960). The first work registered under the amendment was Black Sheep’s Wool, received on September 12, 1912.

214 See, e.g., Patterson v. Century Prods., 93 F.2d 489 (2d Cir. 1937).

215 Act of March 2, 1913, Pub. Law No. 62-405, 62d Cong., 3d Sess., 37 Stat. 724; H.R. Rep. No. 847, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. (1912); S. Rep. No. 1187, 62d Cong., 3d Sess.(1913).

216 InBogsch, Protection of Works of Foreign Origin, Copyright Office Study No. 32, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (Senate Comm. Print 1960), it was stated that the lack of implementing legislation “create[d] some area of uncertainty, as [the] Convention[] may be thought to exclude the applicability of some provisions in the present U.S. statute; the manufacturing clause . . . the requirement of a specified form of copyright notice . . . , and – . . . the requirement of deposit and registration in the U.S. Copyright Office.”

217 Act of March 28, 1914, Pub. L. No. 63-78, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 38 Stat. 31. See also 1913-1914 Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights at 154-155.

218 Act of December 18, 1919, Pub. L. No. 66-102, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 Stat. 368. Seven proclamations were signed between 1920 and 1922 for Austria, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, and New Zealand.

219 The Act itself referred to “the date of the President’s proclamation of peace.” Under the provisions of a Joint Resolution of Congress, Act of March 3, 1921, P. Res. 64, 66th Cong., 3d Sess., the December 18, 1919, Act became effective on March 3, 1921.

220 Two applications had to be filed, two fees paid, and three copies deposited.

221 Act of July 3, 1926, Pub. L. No. 69-464, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 44 Stat. 818. Also in 1926, an act to “consolidate, codify, and set forth the general and permanent laws of the United States in force” was passed and signed by President Coolidge on June 30, 1926, Pub. L. No. 69-440, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 44 Stat. 777. Section 36 of this Act contained the laws on patents and copyrights; the laws themselves were not amended.

222 See H.R. Rep. No. 1100, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.(1926); 1926 Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights at 238.

223 28 Op. Att’y Gen. 265 (May 2, 1910). See also McCannon, The Manufacturing Clause of the U.S. Copyright Law, Copyright Office Study No. 35 (1972), and Second Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Law: 1975 Revision Bill, Ch. XIV at 10 (draft ed. 1975) (describing the amendment as a “highly debatable interpretation”).

224 Act of May 23, 1928, Pub. L. No. 70-478, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 45 Stat. 713. The fee for registration of unpublished works remained at $1.00.

225 Act of January 27, 1938, Pub. L. No. 75-421, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 52 Stat. 6; H.R. Rep. No. 1633, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (1937); S. Rep. No. 1159, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (1937). This provision was later codified in Section 8 of title 17 by the Act of July 30, 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-281, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 652. See also Act of September 7, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-646, 87th Cong., 76 Stat. 442.

226 The United States Postal Service, a quasi-private successor to the United States Postal Department, took the position that the 1938 Act did not “intend to provide a title 17 copyright at all.” Instead, according to the Postal Service, the Act “assigned authority to the Post Office Department in the nature of a general property right in its stamp designs in order to enable the Department administratively to issue licenses to permit controlled private uses of the designs, to the extent found appropriate, beyond the limited statutory authorization for certain philatelic uses permitted by the 1938 Act’s amendments to the otherwise prohibitive criminal statutes.” Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on H.R. 2223 Before the House Subcomm. on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice of the House Judiciary Comm., 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 2157 (1975).

227 Act of July 31, 1939, Pub. L. No. 76-244, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 53 Stat. 1142.

228 See supra text at note 149.

229 Act of March 15, 1940, Pub. L. No. 76-434, 76th Cong., 3d Cong., 54 Stat. 51.

230See Ringer, Renewal of Copyright, Copyright Office Study No. 31, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 107, 143-149 (1960); Brylawski, Renewal of Copyright in a Magazine Contribution: A Belated View, 42Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 737 (1977); Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc., 425 F.2d 397 (2d Cir. 1970); Applied Innovations, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 876 F.2d 626, 631-632 (8th Cir. 1989).

231 Act of April 11, 1940, Pub. L. No. 76-450, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 54 Stat. 106.

232 Act of September 25, 1941, Pub. L. No. 77-258, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 55 Stat. 732.

233 Act of July 30, 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-281, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 652. See also H.R. Rep. No. 151, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (1945). Four years later, the United States Code was amended by the Act of October 20, 1951, Pub. L. No. 82-248, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 65 Stat. 710, 716. This Act made technical corrections to Sections 3, 8, 112, and 114 of title 17.

234 Copyright Enactments: Laws Passed in the United States Since 1783 Relating to Copyright at 137, Copyright Office Bulletin No. 3 (Revised) (1973).

235 Act of April 27, 1948, Pub. L. No. 80-501, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 62 Stat. 202. See further fee increases in the Act of October 31, 1951, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 65 Stat. 710, and the Act of October 27, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-297, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 79 Stat. 1072. Also in 1948, Sections 101(f), 102, 103, 110, and 111 were repealed and recodified in title 28. Act of June 25, 1948, Pub. L. No. 80-773, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 62 Stat. 869.

236 Act of June 3, 1949, Pub. L. No. 81-84, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 63 Stat. 153. See Relaxation of Copyright Law as to Foreign Works: Hearings on H.R. 2285 Before Subcomm.No.4 of the House Judiciary Comm., 81st Cong., 1st Sess.(1949); H.R. Rep. No. 238, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949); S. Rep. No. 375, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.(1949).

237 See statement of Register Warner, id. at 38-44.

238 1950Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights at 1.

239 Act of July 17, 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-575, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 61 Stat. 653. The Act was effective January 1, 1953. See H.R. Rep. No. 2470, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952) (conference report).

240 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report accompanying ratification of the UCC gives as reasons for not adhering to Berne the requirements of automatic protection, retroactive protection for works of Berne member countries that have not fallen into the public domain in their country of origin except through expiration of term, and protection of moral rights and oral works. S. Exec. Rep. No. 5, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.(1954). The first of these bars to Berne adherence was removed by the 1976 Act; the last was simply a misunderstanding of the Berne Convention, which permits member nations to grant copyright to (nonfixed) oral works, but does not require such protection.See Berne Article 2(2)(Paris text 1971). In any event, the United States, of course, adhered to the Convention on March 1, 1989 without providing protection to unfixed works.

241 See the more detailed history in Chapter 17, text at notes 122-56.

242 See S. Rep. No. 1936, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954); H.R. Rep. No. 2608, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954); Joint Hearings on Ex. M and Ex. S Before a Subcomm. of the Senate Foreign Relations Comm. and a Subcomm. of the Senate Judiciary Comm., 83d Cong., 2d Sess.(1953);Universal Copyright Convention and Implementing Legislation: Hearings on the Universal Copyright Convention and S. 2559 before a Subcomm. of the Senate Foreign Relations Comm. and a Subcomm. of the Senate Judiciary Comm., 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). See also Removal of Domestic Manufacturing Requirements for the Acquisition of Copyright by Certain Foreign Nationals: Hearings on H.R. 4059 Before Subcomm. No. 3 of the House Judiciary Comm., 82d Cong., 2d Sess.(1952).

243 Act of August 31, 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-743, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 61 Stat. 655. On July 10, 1974, the United States adhered to the 1971 Paris revision of the UCC, but adherence did not require amendments to U.S. law. See Revised Universal Copyright Convention: Hearing on Ex. G. Before the Comm. on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972); S. Exec. Rep. No. 92-32, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), and discussion in Chapter 17, text at notes 157-60.

244 U.C.C. Art. III(1). Use of the notice by U.S. authors, of course, excused compliance with formalities of other UCC countries, such as Canada’s manufacturing clause.

245 An unrelated Act signed into law on April 13, 1954, permitted actions required to take place on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday to be taken on the next succeeding business day. Act of April 13, 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-331, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 68 Stat. 52.

246 Act of March 29, 1956, Pub. L. No. 84-452, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 70 Stat. 63.

247 Act of September 7, 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-313, 85th Cong., 71 Stat. 633. The Act was effective September 7, 1958.

248 Act of September 8, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-726, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 62 Stat. 941. See also S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960); H.R. Rep. No. 624, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); Hearing on H.R. 4059 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Judiciary Comm., 86th Cong., 2d Sess.(1960).

249 Act of September 21, 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-263, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 75 Stat. 544 (amending Act of August 16, 1957, Pub. L. 85-147, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 71 Stat. 368).

250 Act of September 19, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-668, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 76 Stat. 555; Act of August 28, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-142, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 79 Stat. 581; Act of November 16, 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-141, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 81 Stat. 464; Act of July 23, 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-416, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 82 Stat. 397; Act of December 16, 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-147, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 83 Stat. 360; Act of December 17, 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-555, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 84 Stat. 1441; Act of November 24, 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-170, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 85 Stat. 490; Act of October 25, 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-566, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 86 Stat. 1181; Act of December 31, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-573, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 88 Stat. 1873.

251 Since the 1976 Act did not become effective until January 1, 1978, at first blush it might appear that copyrights scheduled to expire between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, were out of luck; however, §304(b) of the 1976 Act, which under Transitional and Supplementary Section 102 became effective upon enactment (October 19, 1976), states: “The duration of any copyright, the renewal term of which is subsisting at any time between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, or for which renewal registration is made between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, is extended to endure for a term of seventy-five years from the day copyright was originally secured.”

252 Act of October 6, 1917, Pub. L. No. 65-91, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., 40 Stat. 411.

253 See Executive Order 9095, March 11, 1942, amended by Executive Order 9193, July 6, 1942. See generally, Domke, Trading With the Enemy in World War II at 273-295 (1943); Domke, The Control of Alien Property 189-190, 308 (1947).

254 1944Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress at 132. See also Office of Alien Property Custodian Annual Reports 1942-1949.

255 Act of October 22, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-846, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 76 Stat. 1107.

256 Act of July 11, 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-366, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 82 Stat. 339. See Standard Reference Data Act: Hearings on S. 998 Before the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967).

257 499 U.S. 340 (1991), discussed in Chapter 2, text at notes 299-310.

258 Act of October 15, 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-140, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 85 Stat. 391. See also S. Rep. No. 92-72, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); H.R. Rep. No. 92-487, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971);Prohibiting Piracy of Sound Recordings: Hearings on S. 646 and H.R. 6927 Before Subcomm. No. 3, House Judiciary Comm., 92d Cong., 1st Sess.(1971). An effort in 1962 to protect sound recordings under the Criminal Code failed, in part, because of the Copyright Office’s opposition to granting copyright-like protection without regard to duration, and because of the inclusion of severe criminal penalties. See Counterfeit Phonograph Records: Hearings Before Subcomm.No.3, House Judiciary Comm., 87th Cong., 2d Sess.(1962). In 1974, the sunset protection granted in the 1971 Act (until January 1, 1975), was removed, and increased penalties for willful infringement were included. See Extending Limited Copyright in Sound Recordings: Hearings on H.R. 13364, Before Subcomm.on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, House Judiciary Comm., 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974) and infra note 303. Also in 1974 (March 10), United States Adherence to the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms (better known as the Geneva Phonograms Convention), a multilateral treaty for the protection of sound recordings, became effective. No amendment to U.S. law was necessary for adherence.

259 17 U.S.C. §1(f)(1972). See also United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp. 1010 (C.D. Cal. 1974), aff’d, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976).