Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 050.djvu

 in both Houses during the early 1960’s. It passed the Senate as separate legislation on three occasions, in 1962, 1963, and 1966. It was reintroduced in the 90th and 91st Congresses, and on December 10, 1969, the Senate Subcommittee conjoined it with the general copyright revision bill, reporting it as Title III of S. 543. As a separate title of S. 1361 of the 93d Congress, and now of S. 22, the design legislation has passed the Senate on two additional occasions.

In reporting S. 22, the House Judiciary Committee has deleted Title II. Until 1954, designs for useful articles were not generally subject to copyright protection. The primary protection available was the design patent, which requires that the design be not only “original”, the standard applied in copyright law, but also “novel”, meaning that it has never before existed anywhere.

However, in 1954 the Supreme Court decided the case of Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, in which it held that works of art which are incorporated into the design of useful articles, but which are capable of standing by themselves as art works separate from the useful article, are copyrightable. The example used in the Mazer case was an ornamental lamp base.

Title II of S. 22 as passed by the Senate would create a new limited form of copyright protection for “original” designs which are clearly a part of a useful article, regardless of whether such designs could stand by themselves, separate from the article itself. Thus designs of useful articles which do not meet the design patent standard of “novelty” would for the first time be protected.

S. 22 is a copyright revision bill. The Committee chose to delete Title II in part because the new form of design protection provided by Title II could not truly be considered copyright protection and therefore appropriately within the scope of copyright revision

In addition, Title II left unanswered at least two fundamental issues which will require further study by the Congress. These are: first, what agency should administer this new design protection system and, second, should typeface designs given the protections of the title?

Finally, the Committee will have to examine further the assertion of the Department of Justice, which testified in opposition to the Title, that Title II would create a new monopoly which has not been justified by a showing that its benefits will outweigh the disadvantage of removing such designs from free public use.

The issues raised by Title II have not been resolved by its deletion from the Copyright Revision Bill. Therefore, the Committee believes that it will be necessary to reconsider the question of design protection in new legislation. At that time more complete hearings on the subject may be held and, without the encumbrance of a general copyright revision bill, the issues raised in Title II of S. 22 may be resolved.

An analysis and discussion of the provisions of S. 22, as amended, follows:

The significant definitions in this section will be mentioned or summarized in connection with the provisions to which they are most relevant.