Letter from Hillary Rosen to Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA).
Re: request for Congressional hearing on sound recordings as works for hire.
Date: February 1, 2000.
Source: Recording Industry Association of America.

February 1, 2000

Dear Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Berman:

I am writing to strongly urge you to hold a hearing, during the current Session, on the issue of sound recordings as “works made for hire” under the Copyright Act.

In the past two months since this provision became part of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), I have heard from artists and artist managers in the music community who are concerned that the amendment – which names sound recordings as eligible to be considered “works for hire” –substantively changes the rights of artists under the copyright law.  Given their sincere and strongly held views, I believe that the most direct and constructive way to address these concerns is to have an open congressional hearing that gives interested parties an opportunity to engage in a comprehensive discussion on the issue.

I continue to believe that the clarifying provision added to SHVA simply restates existing law and industry custom and practice over the decades.  Moreover, it is appropriate and sensible to confirm that parties involved in the production of sound recordings can by agreement deem those sound recordings “works made for hire” under the Copyright Act.  This accepted treatment derives from the early recognition that where multiple parties are involved in the creation of a work, the parties often wish to designate the work as “made for hire” to promote the most reliable and widest possible commercial utilization of that work. If others have studied this issue and have concluded otherwise, I would be interested in understanding their perspective.

At its core, I do not believe that this is an issue between record labels and artists.  It seems that all parties have a common interest in allowing sound recordings to at least be eligible for work for hire status, or else risk seriously impairing the ability to reap commercial benefit from the work.  If every creative participant on an album could claim to be a “co-author” under the copyright law with an equal right to license its use, it would be virtually impossible to make commercial use of the recording.  This is what work for hire status is meant to avoid, and why such status is beneficial to both artists and record labels alike.

For all these reasons, I would welcome an open hearing to make it possible for these points to be considered, as well as the opinions of others who currently share a different view.  I sincerely hope that you will be able to schedule such a hearing.  Thank you for your consideration.

cc: Members of the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee
 The Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr.
 The Honorable Elton Gallegly
 The Honorable Robert Goodlatte
 The Honorable William Jenkins
 The Honorable Edward Pease
 The Honorable Chris Cannon
 The Honorable James Rogan
 The Honorable Mary Bono
 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
 The Honorable Rick Boucher
 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
 The Honorable William Delahunt
 The Honorable Robert Wexler