COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE’S PROPOSALS CRITICISED

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29077, 14 December 1959, Page 17

COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE’S PROPOSALS CRITICISED

The drastic reduction in the terms of New Zealand copyright proposed by the Copyright Committee is an attack on literary and artistic property, says Mr Charles Brasch, the editor of the quarterly magazine “Landfall,” in a statement to “The Press.” “It affects all writers and composers, and their families and dependants,” Mr Brasch says. “The recommendation in the Copyright Committee’s report which probably affects writers and composers most nearly is one that proposes to reduce the pie-' sent term of copyright, which is for the lifetime of the author and 50 years thereafter, to the lifetime of the author or 56 years from the date of publication of the work, which ever is longer,” says Mr Brasch. The Copyright Committee which tabled its report in the House of Representatives last August, consisted cf’ Judge Dalglish (chairman), Professor I. A. Gordon, and Messrs N. Butcher and J. W. Miles. It was set up to determine what changes were desirable since the passing of the Copyright Act, 1913, and whether it was desirable that New Zealand should accede to the Universal Copyright Convention or to the Brussels revision of the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. , “The Copyright ■ Committee claims, in the opening section of its report, to have received submissions representative “of all points of view on the subject.’ But when we consult the appendix listing the persons and organisations that appeared before it, we do not find the names of either of the two writers’ organisations, the P.E.N., New Zealand Centre, and the New Zealand Women Writers’ Society, or of any single writer,” Brasch says. “It appears that these organisations alone were not invited to make submissions to the committee. If this is the case, it is a very extraordinary omission.

“Writers, of course (with composers and other artists), only create the work which the law of copyright is designed to protect. They profit from it, no doubt, a good deal less than other bodies which appeared before the committee. Nevertheless, since they often, give their whole lives to writing books rather than to more profitable occupations, they are surely entitled to such reasonable return for their families as their work may incidentally produce. “And since without their work there would be no such thing as copyright, it might have been expected that their views would at least have been sought and heard. “But apparently they were not heard, and to that extent the Copyright Committee failed to do the work it was intended to do under its terms of reference,” Mr Brasch sayl

“No legislation affecting copyright should be introduced until the persons who will be most nearly affected by it, namely writers, have been given an opportunity of expressing their views. All writers will study the matter and make their views known, through P.E.N., the New Zealand Women Writers’ Society, or in some other way. “I think the time has come, in the light of this report, to consider the possibility of forming a national body to which all writers should belong, and which would protect their interests and act for them in matters like the present, as the Society of Authors does in Britain and the Fellowship of Australian Writers in Australia,” says Mr Brasch.