Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover

Supreme Court brief1962

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OQcToBER Term, 1960

;

, a ee

° .

No. C.

Pustic Arras Associates, Inc. Trading as

Pusiic Arrairs Press, Petitioner

Vick Apminat Hyman G. Rickover, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STANLEY B. Frosu

1300 Connecticut Ave.. N.W.

Washington 6. D.C.

Hanry N. RosenrieLb

1735 De Sales Street. N.W.

Washington 6, D.C.

{ttorneyvs for Petitioner

C AY PRINTING WASHINGTON 11. D ¢

INDEX

Opinions below

Jurisdiction

(Questions presented

Constitutional provisions and statutes involved

Statement of the case

Reasons for granting the writ

I. Conflicts between Courts of Appeals

H]. Conflict with “applicable decisions of this court”

A. Definition of “offieial duty”

Respondent's speeches and his official duty

B. “Official duty” of policy-making official

III. Unsettled questions of Federal Law

A. Meaning of “Government publication” unsettled

B. Decision below is impossible to effectuate

C. Decision below fails to stem evasions of

IV. Unsettled Ccastitutional questions

A. Freedom of Press guarantees people’s

right to know

B. Right of access to Government publications

C. Decision of Court Below abridges

Freedom of Press

Special request

Conclusion.

Appendices

A. Decision of the Court Below

B. Judgment of the Court Below

C. Press Release Samples

D. List of Respondent’s speeches issued

as official press releases

—~

ii Index Continued

age

BE. U.S. Army Copyright: Practice 53

F. Official Military Histories Copyrighted

by Army Officers +4

G. Publications of U.S. Naval Institute 50

H. U.S. Air Force Copyrighting Practice a

I. Copyrighting Practice in Atomic Energy 58

J. Atomic Energy Commission’s Copyrighting

Practices . a)

kK. Congressional Copyrighting Practice 60

CITATIONS —

CASES:

A.F.L. v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321] 26

Associated Press v. U.S., 326 U.S. 1 23, 24

Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 9, 10, 14. 24

Baxley v. U.S., 134 F. 2d 938° 26

Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 26

Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U Ss. 280 7

Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F, 2d 135, cert. denied 305 U.S.

643 10, 11>

First Trust Co. of St. Paul v. Minn. Historical Society,

146 F. Supp. 652 aff'd sub nom. U.S. v. First Trust Co.

of St. Paul, 251 F. 2d 686 7

Glass v. Ickes, 117 F. 2d 273, cert. denied 311 U.S. 719 10

Gregoire v. Biddle, 117 F. 2d 579, cert. denied 339 U.S.

949 10

Grosjean v. Amer. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 26

Guinn v. U.S., 238 U.S. 347 26

Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F. 2d 280 10

Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 26

Lovell v. Grifin, 303 U.S. 444 24

MeGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 28

Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.. 338 U.S. 912 17

Milwaukee Publication Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 26

Preble v. Johnson, 275 F. 2d 278 10

Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 16

Sawyer v. Crowell, 46 F. cs 471. afd 122 F. 2d 497,

cert. denied 323 U.S

Index Continued ik

Page

Spalding v. V — 161 Us. 483 8.11

Speiser ». Randall, 357 U s. 513 26

U.S. vy. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 9.10

US. vy. First Trust Co. of St. Paul, 251 F. 2d 686 6.7

iS. v. Jones. 204 F. 2d 745. cert. denied 346 UWS. 854 12

Los. v. MacDaniel, 7 Pet. | 10

Los. v. Rumely. 345 U.S. 41 26

Winters vo New York. 333 U.S. 507 24

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THIS CouRT AND RULES OF Court:

Harlan, Manning the Dikes . . . . 13 Record of the

N.Y.C.B.A. 541 (1958) ef

Hughes, Address, 20 A.B.A.J. 341 5

Letter, Sen, Rep. 711, 75th Cong., Ist Sess.. p. 38 16

Vinson, Address to American Bar Association. 69 S.CL.V 5, 17

Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 19, 1(b) 3, 7,8, 15

CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS:

Constitution, First Amendment, Second clause a ae

Printing Law 44 U.S.C. 58 2.16

President: Executive Order No. 10561, 3 C.F.R. 71 18

Solicitor General of the United States: Briefs before this

Court 10, 11, 24. 25

Berger. Copyright in Government Publications, Copy-

right Office, Study No. 21C 16, 17, 19. 2)

Department of the Navy: General Regulations, Act 1252. 3

Navy Civilian Personnel Instructions 290 18

U.S. Civil Service Commission: Federal Personnel Man-

ual, R-1-40 18

Lecar Artictes or TREATISES:

Gunnels, Copyright Protection for Writers Employed by

the Federal Government, 1960 Wasu. U. L. Q. 182 6. 7. 16

Hanson, The Two Bulwarks of Liberty: A Free Press

and 1n Independent Judiciary, 41 A.B.A.J. 217 23

iV Index Continued

Pilpel. But Can You Do That7, Pustisners WEEKLY.

Dec. 26, 1900 7

Recent Cases, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1219 22

Recent Developments, Speeches Wruten by Public Offic-

ial dre Copyrightable by Him Even Though Related

to Content of His Assigned Duties, 60 Coiw. L. Rev.

398 7414

ROBERTSON AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF THE Su-

PREME Court oF THE Unirep States (Wolfson &

Kurkland ed. 1957) $350 16

Stiefel. Piracy in High Places-—Government Publications

and the Copyright Law, 24 Gro. Wasu L. Rev. 423 16

Yankwich, Legal Implications of, and Barriers to, The

Right to Know. 40 Marg. L. Rev. 33 25, 26

VIISCELLANEOUS:

Dallas (Texas) Morning News, Dee. 7, 1959 26

6 Writincs or James Mapison (1906 ed) 398 23

Vew York Times, May 31, 1957 24

ParTerRsON, Free SPEECH AND A Free Press 121 23

Rickover:

Speeches quoted 12.13

Counse! quoted

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

OctToBer Ter, 1960

No.

Pupiic Arrairs Associates, INc.. Trading as

Pusuic Arrairs Press, Petitioner

Vice ApmiraL Hyman G. Rickover, Respondent

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Public Affairs Associates, Inc., trading as Publie Affairs

Press, respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review

the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, in case No. 15,463, is set forth

hereinafter as Appendix A. The judgment of the court below |

is set forth as Appendix B.

The opinion of the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia is reported at 177 F. Supp. 601, and is set forth

in the Brief for Appellant and Appendix Below, at p. 54.

(This Appendix served as the Joint Appendix below.)

]

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered in’ the

above-entitled action on October 20, 1960.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 20 U.S.C.

1254 (1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Where speeches by a high-ranking and policy-making Federal

official, which deal with subjects connected with and growing

out of his official responsibilities, were prepared on Govern-

ment time and with Government personnel and facilities, were

publicly delivered while he was on official duty, and were

widely distributed as official press releases on Government

letterhead without disclaimer of official character, may such

public official:

1. copyright such speeches as private property, or are they

“Government publications” under the Printing Law or “publica-

tions of the United States Government” under the Copyright

Law?

2. arbitrarily bar or limit access of the press to such speeches

under the First Amendment to the Constitution?

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

STATUTES INVOLVED |

The Copyright Law, 17 U.S.C. 8, provides: “No copy-

right shail subsist... in any publication of the United States

Government, or any reprint, in whole or in part, thereof... ~

This provision of law dates from 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, § 7.

2. The Printing Law, 44 U.S.C. 58, provides in part that

. No publication reprinted from such stereotype or electro-

type plates (“from which any Government publication is print-

ed” ] and no other Government publication shall be copy —-

This provision of law dates from 1895, 28 Stat. 608, § ¢

3. The First Amendment to the Constitution, so far as Sec

nent, provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridg-

ing the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the

people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances.”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Phe facts are as follows: ~

Petitioner is an educational publisher, located in Wash-

ington, D. C.; it specializes in pamphlets and books on national

affairs.

Respondent is a Vice Admiral, one of 26 top ofhcials

in the entire United States Navy. During the pertinent period

he was on active duty in the Navy Department as Assistant

Chief of the Bureau of Ships for Nuclear Propulsion and also

as Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, Division of Reactor

Development, United Stetes Atomic Energy Commission. He

is generally credited with a major role in achievement of

America’s first atomic submarine as well as the nation’s first

commercial atomic power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

3. Between October 20, 1955 and October 27, 1958, Admiral

Rickover delivered 22 speeches on matters divsady related to

or growing out of his official duties.

4. The texts of all these 22 speeches were official publications.

As shown in Plaintiff's Exhibit Below 6B thirteen were officially

issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and nine by

the U.S. Department of Defense as official and sanctioned

Government press releases on Government letterhead, with

official notice thereon that Government information officers were

available to discuss and provide further information on the

speech or its contents. Copies were also officially furnished

to the press and made available to the public at large. At

the time of delivery and distribution no resiriction whatsoever

was placed upon their publication, in whole or in part, nor

was there any indication whatsoever that they were not official

statements.

For this Court’s convenience, photocopies of the title pages

of two such speeches are reproduced in Appendix C,.

The General Regulations of the U.S. Navy, Article 1252,

Par. 3, require that all non-official publications by all persons

in the Naval Service shall bear “a statement to the effect that

the opinions or assertions contained therein are the private one

of the writer and are net to be construed as othcial or retlecting

the views of the Navy Department or the naval service at large.”

(Exhibit Below, No. 14. See Brief for Appellant and [Joint]

Appendix, p. 28 and opinion below ).

6. Respondent admits that he did not make such disclaimer

in any of the 22 speevhes. (Respondent’s Brief Below, p. 2)

The Trial Court found that “some of them dealt with ideas

that the Admiral developed in connection with his activities as

a Naval ofhcer”, 177 F. Supp. 601. 602.

7. Respondent made no application for copyright registra-

tion on any of these 22 speeches until December 1, 1958,

after all of them had been delivered and official press releases

had been officially distributed. When furnished to the Copy-

right office the speeches were identical with the original releases

in all respects but one: they did not ceveal their original .

government imprimaturs as shown in Exhibit C.

8. On or about October 29, 1958, the Petitioner requested

Respondent for copies of certain of these speeches in order to

quote from them. Therefore, but prior to December 1, 1958,

Respondent adjured the Petitioner not to quote from = such

speeches.

9. Respondent delivered four speeches after December 1,

195%. Contrary to earlier practice, these were submitted to

the Copyright Office for registration prior to their delivery.

10. A list of the 26 speeches, their delivery dates, and the

United States Government agencies which published them as

press releases appears in Appendix D. Among these 22 speeches

were the following titles:

“Metallurgy in Atomic Power”

“Nuclear Power and the Navy” (twice)

“Lead Time and Military Strength”

“Nuclear Power-—Challenge to Industry”

“The Challenge of Nuclear Power”

“The Naval Revolution”

“The Meaning of the Nautilus’ Power Voyage”

Subsequent speeches included “The Shippingport Atomic

Power Station: Lessons from its Operation.”

At all times when he delivered the speeches the Respon-

dent was on official duty and had not taken leave for personal

purposes. His travel to the location of the speech was paid

for by the United States Government.

12. No quesiion is involved of secrecy or control of informa-

tion for reasons of nationa! security or because of executive

privilege.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

This is an important case. It involves issues of national

concern, unresolved construction of Federal statutes of wide

application, subsiantial conflicts among the various Courts of

Appeals, refusal of the Court of Appeals below to follow applic-

able determinations of law by this Court, and unsettled Con-

stitutional issues of Freedom of the Press.

This is a case “of general importance’, in the terms of Mr.

Justice Harlan’ It involves what Chief Justice Hughes called

“controversy of importance with respect to legal principles”.

Its result will, in the words of Chief Justice Vinson, “have

immediate importance far beyond the particular facts and parties

involved” and affect “tremendously important principles upon

which are based the plans, hopes, and aspirations of a great

many people throughout the country.” *

I. Conflict between Courts of Appeals (Rule 19,

1(b), first clause).

The Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eighth Circuits

have rendered decisions involving private ownership or copy-

right of documents alleged to have been prepared by a Federal

' Manning the Dikes—Some Comments on the Statutory Certiorari

Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Statement Practice of the Supreme Court

of the United States, 13 Tue Recoro or tHe N.Y.C.B.A. 541. 557

(1958).

* Address to American Law Institute, “fay 10, 1934, 20 A.B.A.J.

(1934).

* Address to the American Bar Association, Work of the Federal

Courts, Sept. 7, 1949, 69 S. Ct. V. at VI.

employee in the course of official duty. In each such case these

Courts of Appeals adopted a rule of law in conflict with the

rule of law adopted below here. Such rulings of the Second

and Eighth Circuits, if applied here, would yield an opposite

result on the determinative legai issue of whether Respondent's

speeches were made iu the course of official duty.

Sawyer v. Crowell Publishing Company, from the Second

Cireuit, held that a map produced by a Federal employee could

not be copyrighted by him in his private capacity because it

was produced in the course of his official duties. The incon-

sisteney between Sawyer and the decision below is very aptly

deseribed in a perceptive and scholarly discussion of the very

ease now before this Court by Mr. Donald L. Gunnels.” The

“basic qnestion raised was the same”, he says, in both eases.

The courts differ in “the degree or amount of connection re-

quired between the material and an employee's paid job

functions to warrant a denial of copyright protection”:

“The courts in Rickover and Sherrill believed an employee

to be entitled to copyright protection in any material not pro-

duced by him as the specific thing which his duties required

him to produce. The court in the Sawyer case felt that an

employee has no claim to protection in any material he pro-

duces which has a direct relationship in subject matter io his

paid job activities. Tt should also be noted that the Sawyer

case also attached weight to the fact that Government time and

facilities were utilized in producing the material whereas the

Rickover case considered ‘these factors to be of no material

consequence whatever.” ”

Likewise in conflict with the decision below is United States

r. First Trust Co. of St. Paul, from the Eighth Cireuit, which

* 46 F. Supp. 471 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1942), aff'd 142 F. 2d 497 (2d Cir.

IObE). cert. denied 323 U.S. 735 (1944).

' Copyright Protection for Writers Employed by the Federal Govern:

ment, 1960 Wasu. U. L. Q. 182.) (The note dealt with the District

Court's decision: on this issue , the Court of Appeals confirmed the

District Court’s ruling.)

* Id. at 180. The views of the court below en the use of Government

facilities are stated in footnote 20 of its opinion.

involved the original rough notes for the formal diary of the

Lewis and Clark Expedition. There the United States claimed

that such notes had been made in the course of official duty:

the court held otherwise on the foliowing basis: ‘These notes

had no relation to the affairs of the [Indian] Agency. They

were not made in connection with Clark’s conduct of the Ageney™

{and therefore were not made in the course of his official duties |’

The chasm between the court below and the conflicting deci-

sions of the Second and Eighth Circuits can be seen from the

very fact that the court below did not even believe it necessary

to attempt to distinguish between the speeches pertaining to

the Respondent’s official duties and those which possibly did

not.” *

Thus, two other Courts of Appeals use different legal ap-

proaches “on the same matter.” approaches that are in direct

conflict and would cause opposite results from the court below

on the same facts" It is respectfully submitted, therefore.

that this Petition is clearly within the first clause of Rule 19,

l(b), and that it comes within the reach of this Court’s ruling

in Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280, 284 (1946): “Be-

cause of the various views expressed as to controlling legal

principles in the decisions .... we granted certiorari... ”.

The present case involves a conflict between Courts of Appeal

“that can be effectively resolved by the Supreme Court alone™.""

* First Trust Co. of St. Paul v. Minn. Historical Society, 146 F.

Supp. 652.668 (D.C. Minn. 1956), affd sub nom. U.S. v. First Trust

Co. of St. Paul, 251 F. 2d 686,691 (8th Cir, 1958).

S See Gunnell. op. cit. supra note 5, at 187,

* Td. at 188. See also Pilpel, But Can You Do That?, PuBLisuers’

WEEKLY, Dec. 26, 1960, p. 31 (° . .. the speeches dealt with subject

matter with which the Admiral was officially concerned”): Finding of

Trial Court below, noted in Paragraph 6 of “Statement of the Case”.

supra, Recent Developments, Speeches Written hy Public Official

Are Cupyrightable by Him Even Though Related to Content of his

Assigned Duties, 60 Cotum. L. Rev. 398 (1960).

' Mr. Justice Harlan. op. cit. supra note 1, at 552.

Il. Conflict with “applicable decisions of this court”

(Rule 19, 1(b), fourth clause).

a. Definition of “official duty”.

The decision below is in cenflict with a whole line of “applic-

able decisions of this court” on the capstone legal issue decisive

in the instant case: the legal criterion for determining when

a high-ranking and policy-making Federal official acts within

the scope of his oflicial duties. The Court below ruled on this

question as follows:

“It cannot be properly said... . that a governmental official

who speaks or writes of matters with which he is concerned

as an official is by the very fact of being such an official barred

from copyright on his productions. If they are statements

called for by his official duties or explanations as guides for

otheial action, they are barred from copyright... We hold

that none of these papers is a government publication.”

The “applicable decisions of this court” appear in cases

dealing with the tiability of Federal officials for actions pur-

sued in the course of their official duty. ‘Fhe issue arises when

a Federal ofhcer or employee makes a statement, writes a

letter, or issues a press release which might be actionably

libelous to anoth . party. The typical ruling in such eases is

that if the statement i: made by a Federal officer in_ the

course of his official duty, he is immune from the otherwise

applicable liability for defamation. Thus, the basic legal

question in this line of cases is: When is the Government ofhcer

or employee acting in his ofheial capacity and within the scope

of his official duties?

The underlying legal issue in the instant case is, thus.

identical with the underlying legal issue in the Government

libel cases, and therefore the rulings in the defamation cases

are “applicable decisions of this court” under the fourth clause

of Rule 19(1)¢b).

In the leading case on the subject, Spalding v. Vilas, 161

U.S. 483, 498 (1896), Mr. Justice Harlan said that the tee?

of otucial duty was whether it involved “action having more

or less connection with the general matters committed by law

to his control or supervision”.

This Court’s latest relevant decision is Barr v. Matteo, 300

U.S. 564 (1959) where the question was whether press release

by the Acting Director of the Office of Rent Stabilization

were within the scope of his duties and therefore “privileged”

against a suit for libel. In finding that these press releases

were within the scope of the official duties this Court ruled:

“It would be an unduly restrictive view of the scope of the

duties of a policy-making executive ofhcial to hold that a

public statement of agency policy in respect to matters of wide

public interest and concern is not action in the line of duty.

That petitioner was not required by law or by direction of his

superiors to speak out cannot be controlling in the case of an

official of policy-making rank, for the same considerations

which underlie the recognition of the privilege as to acts done

in connection with a mandatory duty apply with equal force

to discretionary acts at those levels of government where ti.

concept of duty encompasses the sound exercise of discretionary

authority” (at 575).

fn a concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Black took special note

that “the subject matter discussed in the release was germane

to the proper functioning” of the government agency concerned.

He continued: “It is enough for me here that the press

release was neither unauthorized nor plainly beyond the scope

of Mr. Barr’s official business, but instead related more or

less to general matters committed by law to his control and

supervision, See Spalding v. Vilas .-.” (at 577). 1:

In Barr v. Matteo, this Court cited with approval two former

decisions from other fields, in which the underlying issue was

the same. United States v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (1914)

involved an employee's improper receipt of monies.

Mr. Justice Hughes set forth this Court’s criterion of “oflicial

action” as follows: “To constitute it official action, it was not

necessary that it should be preseribed by statute it was sufficient

that it was governed by a lawful requirement of the Depart-

ment under whose authority the officer was acting ... Nor

was it necessary that the requirement should) be prescribed

hy a written rule or regulation. It might also be found in an

established usage which constituted the common law of the

Department and fixed the duties of those engaged in its active

ties... In numerous instances, duties not completely defined

by written rules are clearly established by praciice -.. ~ (at

230-31).

A similar rule was earlier enunciated in (United States v.

VacDaniel, 7 Pet. 1, 14 (1833), which was a suit by the

Government for recovery on settlement of a Navy official's

accounts,

The Courts of Appeals for the Second,'? Seventh,'* and

Tenth Circuits'’ have also taken positions on this same under-

lying legal issue which are in direct conflict with the decision

below in defamation and other cases, thus following the ruling

of this Court in Birdsall and MacDaniel that the above noted

definition of “official duty” is.a general rule of law and is

not limited to defamation cases.

As a matter of fact, there is serious question as to whether

the court below has been consistent with its own previous

decisions on this subject arising in malicious prosecution actions'*

as well as in Government defamation."”

The position taken before this Court by the U.S. Govern-

ment on the vely issue of the scope of a Federal employee's

official duties is both pertinent and instructive. In Barr v.

Vatteo, supra, the Government’s Petition for a Writ of Certior-

ari, at pages 11-12, stated:

1 Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, S81 (2d Cir. 1949) (per L.

Hand, J.). cert. denied 339 U.S. 949 (19503.

' Us. v. Jones, 204 F. 2d 745, 754 (7th Cir. 1953) cert. denied 346

Us. 854 (1953) (not a libel case).

'S Preble v. Johnson, 275 F. 2d 275. 278 (10th Cir. 1960).

if Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F. 2. 135, 139 (CLA.D.C. 1938). cert.

denied 305 U.S. O43 (1938). This case was cited with approval in

Hoffman v. Halden. 268 F. 2d 280, 300 (9th Cir. 1959).

ne ™ Glass v. Ickes. LL7 F. 2d 273 (C.A.D.C. 1940). cert. denied 311

US. 718 (1941).

“In Spalding v. Vilas, supra. this Court held that, in order

to receive the protection of immunity, it was not necessary that

the official be under a positive legal duty to act, but it’ was

sufficient that the general legal authority for the act existed -

i.e.. that the statements have “more or less connection with the

veneral matters committed by law to his control or supervision.”

lol U.S. at 498-9.”

The Government’s Brief on the merits interpreted the Spald-

ing Case as follows:

... it is not necessary that the otheial be under a positive

legal duty to act; it is sufficient that general legal authority

for the act existed - . . So far as official communications are

concerned, the doctrine of Spalding v. Vilas has not been

limited to heads of executive departments hut has been applied

to government ofhicials of lesser rank.” (at p. 12).

“And in Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F. 2d 135 (CADC).

certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 643, the court ruled that in order

for an act to be within the scope of official duties it was not

necessary that it be preseribed by a statute or specifically

directed or requested by a superior officer” (at p. 17}.

The Solicitor General claimed, in terms quite apposite to

the instant case, the court below had adopted “an artificially

restrictive test of ‘line of duty’, one which fails to take into

account the nature of the officer's functions and the cireum-

stances necessitating and justifying his decision... ~ (Brief,

p. 16).

b. Respondent’s speeches and his official duty.

Did Admiral Rickover’s speeches have “more or less con-

nection with the general matters committed by law to his

control or supervision”? For a high-ranking Vice Admiral whe

is Assistant Chief of the Navy's Bureau of Ships for Nuclear

Propulsion, and also Assistant Director of the Atomic Fnergs

Commission's Division of Reactor Development. it) scarcely

needs any argument that the following speeches are connected

with “general matters” under his “contro! or supervision”

“Metallurgy in Atomic Power”

“Nuclear case and the Navy”

“Nuclear Power—Challenge to Industry”

~The Naval Revolution”

“The Meaning of the Nautilus’ Poiar Voyage”

~The Shippingport Atomic Power Plant: Lessons from its

Operation”.

In what way are the Respondent’s so-called “educational”

speeches connected with his official concerns?

The following are excerpts from Admiral Rickover’s spee h

entitled “Edueation:. Our First Line of National Defense’,

delivered on December 1), 1958 "":

“Though | have never taken a course in ‘education’, | have

heen running schools for years. Everyone in my aiomic powe:

sroup has taken a hand at some time or other at teaching what

he has first had to teach himself about the new science of

engineering. MWe have set up schools for our own engineers

and for industrial people, as well as for the officers and men

who will operate our nuclear ships. In our post-graduate pro-

gram we teach the exacting requirements of reactor design.

construction and management.”

Respondent is a distinguished engineer of the U.S. Govern-

ment. His educational concerns, he says. come out of this

very fact:

“As any engineer would, | noticed many years ago that

Russia, with her tremendous new educational program

Was gaining momentum at a time when we were losing mo-

mentum. This shows up in the constant lengthening of lead

time in this country... As an engineer, engaged in’ pushing

through a new engineering project, it has long been obvious

lo me that we cannet shorten lead times . . . unless we find

ways to remove the many roadblocks . 2. Nearly all those

roadblocks are caused by people whose education has not pre-

" Plamntiff’s Exhibit No. ). before court below. up. T6200 FF-23.

(Emphasis added

pared them for the extremely ditheult’ problems which arise

when we seek to progress beyond present levels of techno-

What did Admiral Rickover. as a government ofhetal “en-

vaged in pushing through a new engineering project”. think

was necessary to do his job betters “Our nuclear engineers

had to be more broadly and more thoroughly educated... ~

Lacking this proposed remedy, the present situation directly

affects his duties in carrying out his ofheial responsibilities:

“It is no exaggeration to say that a major part of our time

has been taken up with fighting for higher levels of performance

which are resisted because their necessity ts not understood

Resistance comes_from . —. an inflexibility which has its roots

in an educational! system that does not prepare young people

for life in our constantly changing world”.

Respondent makes it crystal-clear that he is talking about

difficulties confronting him in recruiting his own official staff

lor lus own official assignments:

“LT have interviewed more than owo thousand young men in

the last twelve vears, all top men in their college class. My

naval reactor engineering group presently numbers about 150.

Since the men who came to see me had already passed through

a number of previous interviews where all but the best were

eliminated, it is evident that those who could not meet the

requirements of the nuclear power project -and hence infer-

entially of any new development project — vastly outnumbered

those who qualified.”

“This experience made a deep impression on me. /t led

me duectly tea study of why our educational system produces

so few men who are qualified to do the work we must do if we

are to progress. 1 found that our schools are the greatest

‘cultural lag” we have today”.

Your Petitioner does not wish to be misunderstood in this

connection. Respondent is to be commended for his broad

vision of the responsibilities placed upon him by the enor-

mously important tasks committed “to his control or super-

vision”. But he cannot have it both ways. Tf while perform.

ing his duty he aets as if education is part of his job’) then

he cannot elsewhere validly contend that education is solely an

dvecational interest. The speeches involved in this litigation

are all clearly within the seope of duty committed to Respon-

dents “eontrol ov supervision.”

c. Official duty of policy-making public official.

In still another respeet. moreover. the court below failed to

follow “applicable decisions of this court”. We have already

quoted trom Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion for the Court in Barr

concerning the broader interpretation that must be given to the

scope of duties of “a polievanaking executive official”. 360

Eos. at 575. In the same decision he also stated that “the

higher the post. the broader the range of responsibilities and

duties, and the wider the seope of diseretion. it entails” (p.

véedd.

The Respondent is and was a highly important offeial of

Iwo major agencies of the Government. both of which are

engaged ino a wide range of engineering and educational

activities, both internally and externally. In the course of hi-

seneral duties with the Navy Department and the Atomic Eneres

Commission, the Respondent participates in the formulation and

execution of policies and programs critically affecting the pre-

sent and the future of the Nation. In virtually everything he

does he necessarily, by virtue of his high-level poliev-making

post. has a wide exercise of diseretion.’” The higher the

official the higher the trust plaeed an him, the higher his re-

sponsilulities, and the broader the interpretation of his scope

of otheral duties and responsibilities.

Whatever may be the relevance of the “works-for-hire”

Counsel for Respondent: said before the Trial Court: “The

Adimirals interest in the subject of education . . . was stimulated by

his experience in the Navy. In recruiting scientific personnel for

his work on nuclear propulsion no one can say that he is not interested

in improving the Naval Serviee .. 2", Brief for Appellant and [Joint]

Appendix. Below, pp. 47-48.

see Recent Developments. op. ce supra note 9, at 100.

deetrine. adopted by the court below, for private employment,

or even in low-level and purely ministerial public employment,

it clearly does not apply to high-level and policy-making posi-

tions such as that occupied with such distinetion by the Re-

-pondent. In addition to the broad substantive seape of their

responsibilities, such high-level public officials have an im-

plieit duty” to enlighten the American people through public

statements on matters “having more or less connection with

the general matters committed by law to his control or super:

Vision.” 4

ft is respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeals in the

instant case has serie ry narrowed and misconstrued the “ap-

plicable decisions of this court, as well as the doctrine accepted

by the United States for its own determination when an indivi-

dual Government ofheial is acting within the scope of hi-

official duties. °

This Court has stated that a Government emplovee’s ofheial

duty includes “action having more or less connection with

the general matters” entrusted to that employee. This Court

has also ruled that no specific requirement is necessary to do

the particular act tnveived and that no speeffie direction from a

superior is necessary to qualify such action as official. Con-

trary te such rulings of the Court, however. the Court of

\ppeals below specifically rejected this test” and required

that the action be “ealled for by his offieial duties” or that

they Le “explanation as guides for offeial action”. There-

fore the decision below is “in confliet with applicable decisions

of this court.”

1H. Important questions of federal law not settled

by this Court (Rule 19. 1(¢b). third clause).

The interpretation of Federal statutes is a customary basi-

1° id.

“* The court below said: “Tt cannot be properly said... that a

governmental othcial who speaks or writes of matters with which he i-

concerned as an official is by the very facet of being such an ofheial

barred from copyright on his productions.”

for granting a writ of certiorari where novel, unsettled and

important questions are presented’ e<peciaily where their

authoritative solution by this Court i matter of major im-

portance to the American public as a whole In such in-

stances, said Chief Justice Hughes, “review by the Supreme

Court is thus in the interest of the jaw. its appropriate exposition

and enforcement. not in the mere interest of the litigants.”~’

au. Meaning of “Government publication” is unsettled.

The terms “Government publication” (in the Printing Law,

$4 US.C. 58) and “publication of the United States Govern-

ment” (in the Copyright Law, 17 U.S.C. 8) have been on the

statute books since 1895 and 1909, respectively, bui they are

not defined in the statutes and their meaning “remains un-

answered to the present day”.°* There is urgent “need for a

comprehensive and workable definition of ‘any publication’ of

the Government”.*” The “confusion that has arisen as to the

meaning of ‘Government publication’ ” * has led the Copyright

Office to express dissatisfaction with the law’s present unsettled

state: %

“The term ‘Government publication’ in the Printing Law, and

the corresponding term ‘publication of the United States Govern-

ment’ in the Copyright Law, as used in connection with the

prohibition of copyright, have proved to be ambiguous. Within

the coniext of the Printing Law, ‘Government publication’ has

heen construed as including all material published by the

Government. From the standpoint of the copyright prohibition

*! ROBERTSON AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME CouRT

or THE Unitep States (Wolfson and Kurkland ed. 1951) § 350.

** See Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 (1955).

** Letter to United States Senate from Chief Justice Hughes, March

21, 1937, Sen. Rep. No. 711, 75th Cong., Ist Sess., p. 38 et. seq.

** Stiefel, Piracy in High Places-—-Government Publications and the

** Gunnell, op. cit. supre note 5, at 183.

** Berger, CopyricHt iN GovERNMENT PusBtications, Copyright

Office. Study No. 21 C, p. 6 (mimeo, Oct. 1959).

this definition seems unsatisfactory since it would include pri-

vately-owned material when used in a document published by

the Government; and it would exclude material produced or

owned by the Government if it were published through private

channels only”.”?

That clarification of the precise legal question at issue in

this case is necessary has been emphasized by the Copyright

Office.” The court below itself called attention to the need

for a definition of the statutory term: “No clarification of the

meaning of ‘publication of the United States Government’

appears in the Rules and Regulations of the Copyright Office’’.*”

From the standpoint of the public, the press, and the Govern-

ment “° definitive interpretation by this Court is both desirable

and necessary. The circumstances indeed cry out for such

statutory construction by this Court.

Petitioner respectfully calls this Court’s attention to “the

actual, practical effect of the disputed decision—its consequences

for other litigants and in other situations.” “' Petitioner will

attempt to show two serious results that will accrue from the

decision of the court below:

That its test is impossibl) ** apply and therefore only adds

to the existing confusion, 4

that the decision below fe tem the vast system of evasion

of the present law.

b. The decision below is impossible to effectuate,

The definition of a “Government publication” adopted by

the court below is that it is a publication “commissioned or

printed at the cost and direction of the United States, These

would be authorized expositions . . . ~ (emphasis added).

“7 Id. at 22.

*8 Id. at 23.

“" See text associated with footnote 16 of opinion of Court below,

“ See Nir. Justice Frankfurter’s comment in Maryland v. Baltimore

Radio Show, Inc.. 388 U.S. 912, 918 (1950) (“Wise adjudication ha-

its own time for ripening.)

*! Cited from Chief Justice Vinson, op. cit. supra note 3.

Elsewhere the court says that they must be “called for by his

otheial duties” (emphasis added).

The authoritative way to determine what is “ealled for” is

lo look to the otheial job description established by the em-

ploying Government ageney for the employee involved. — But,

as a general rule. this information is virtually impossible for

anyone not in the Government itself to obtain and for very

few within the Government. Under express authorization of

Presidential Executive Order, ~ the U.S. Civil Service Com-

mission has issued to all government agencies instructions that

“no one will have access to them [employees’ Official Personne!

Folders] except as authorized for official use.” “* In the Navy

Department, for example,

“Information from an employee's personnel’ records may not

he disclosed to persons other than authorized Federal e mploy ces

without the employee's consent except as provided in NCPI

290, 5-8 and as follows: ... (4)... and others having a

legitimate reason for requesting such information, and who

present proper credentials, may be given information regarding

the employee. Such information should usually be limited

to status, tenure and verification of the employee's salary.” *!

Thus. the test enunciated by the court below requires access

to confidential employee personnel records properly forbidden

under present official regulation. Therefore. the court's rule

of law is for all practical purposes ineffectual. Instead of re-

solving the issue, it only compounds confusion.

Decision below fails to stem evasions of Copyright

Law.

\ system of substantial evasion of the Printing and Copv-

\ t ps

* Executive Order No. LO56L, Sept. 13, 1954, 3 CPR. 71.

“US. Civil Service Commission, Federal Personnel Manual, R-1-10,

' Navy Civilian Personnel Instruction 2290 (July 1960). Section

3-1, referred to in the above quoted language, deals with lists of names,

salaries, titles and status: even in this connection § 5-Gib) provides:

" Lists for private purposes should be furnished only . . . if

employees would not be disadvantaged by being listed.”

right Laws prevails today in respect of copyrighting govern-

mental wvblicetions, The Copyright Office reports:

“As shown by registrations in the Copyright Othee, copy-

right hes been claimed in a substantial number of works (chiefly

nistorical, instructional, or technical materials) which were pre-

pared by employees of a Government agency or a quasi-govern-

mental organization and were used or published by the ageney

or organization.” ©

Sometimes, it is pointed out, the Government agency itself

sponsors the private copyrighting by the government employee”

for a variety of reasons largely related to efforts to evade the

the use of the Government Printing Office’s facilities.” The

evasion of statutory copyright: restrictions has gone so far

within the Government as to include a formal Budget Cireular

issued by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget in 1943 re-

commending private publication instead of compliance with

the law in order “to avoid the expense of printing and distri-

buting a Government publication”.

Thus, a vast system of conscious as well as unconsciou:

evasion of the restrictions on copyrighting of “Government

publications” is practiced both by Government agencies as well

as by their officers and employees. Sometimes the works

involved are openly described as official government reports

or documents; other times this fact is concealed or not revealed.

This illegal practice of by-passing the restrictions on copy:

righting of government publications developed out of the

absence of ag definition by this Court of the meaning of “Gov-

ernment publication” in the applicable laws. Whatever the

ciology of this situation, the decision and opinion of ihe

court below not only fail to help curb it bat even give. it

sustenance,

The following are examples of current: practice:

1. An official history of the United States Army in World

Berger, op. cit. supra note 26, at 12-13.

Td. at 13.

* dd. at 14.

Td. at 1A.

War IL, written by the Assistant Chief of the Office of Military

History while oecupying that post, and published by the U. s.

Goverument Printing Othce for the Department of the Army.

was copyrighted in the name of the government: employee-

author. See Appendix E for photo-copies of the tithe page and

the copyright notice of this Government publication.

This is but a single example of a widespread current practice

whereby publications of the Othee of Chief of Military History.

Department of the Army, are printed as avowedly government

publications, but under copyright of individuals. See Appendix

F for list of names of books, authors and copy right holders in

whiel this evasive practice has been pursued.

2. A similar practice of evading copyright restrictions pre-

vails inthe Navy Department. For example. the book How To

SURVIVE ON LAND AND SEA was authored by the “Office of

Chief of Naval Operations. U.S. Navy”, but it was copyrighted

in LOS and in 195) by the UL. Ss. Naval Institute, a private

hon-prout organization, A’ partial list of the Tnstitute’s pub-

lications is incorporated in Appendix G.

3. The Avmy Air Forces in World War Tl through its

Historical Division, assembled a seven-volume history of the

record ot the AAF in World War th All seven volumes were

privately published under copyright restrictions, See Appendix

H for a reproduction of announcement about these volumes.

1. The Atomic Energy Commission and related agencies

have tikewise been party to private publication and copyrighting

of otheial materials despite the provisions of the copyright law. -

lie original Smyth report. for example. which was subtitled

“The Otheial Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb

under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940-

JO1S” was privately published and copyrighted. See Appendix

1. When the Atomic Energy Commission produced the first

complete reactor-engineering reference book. it was offered

to the public by a commercial publisher under private copy-

right. See Exhibit J tor an extract from the announcement of

this book. :

The practice of by-passing or evading the statutory restrictions

on copyrighting of official publications is followed by other

Government agencies as well.

5. To the Petitioner's best knowledge and information, for

instance, there are no less than 48 books by scientists who

performed work for Government atomic energy projects which

have been privately copyrighted. The following title is an

example: CRYOGENIC ENGINEERING (1959), prepared by the

National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.

for the Atomic Energy Commission.

6. The Radiation Laberatory Series, 25> books arranged

for by the U.S. Office ot Scientific Research and royalties for

which are paid into the U.S. Treasury. are privately copy-

righted and published.

7. The Rand Corporation is a Government-sponsored non-

profit corporation which prepares reports for various official

agencies, including the Air Foree, under contract. Where it

submits a report which it has been paid specifically to prepare.

the Rand Corporation copyrights the report thus furnished to

the contracting government agency.”

8. Private copyright of clearly official documents has spread

to the Congress. Appendix K is a photocopy of the title page of

Spacek HanpBook: ASTRONAUTICS AND Its APPLICATIONS, which

was copyrighted although it is a Staff Report of a Congressional

Committee, published by the Government Printing Office as a

document of the Congressional Select Committee on Astronautics

and Space Exploration."

see Berger. op. cit. supis note 26, at 23.

The Congressional vademecums on parliamentary procedure were

privately copyrighted, but only after specific legislative ormission

from the Congress. CANNON, Procepure i THE Houst oF REPRESEN |-

TIVES, H. Doc. No, 122. 6th Cong.. Ist Sess.. was privately copyrighted

by Congressman Cannon (although published by the U.S. Government

Printing Office). pursuant to authority granted in 62 Stat. 1052 (104):

73 Stat. 20 (1959). Likewise with the approval on May 2, 1958 of the

private copyright of WATKINS AND RIDDICK, Senate Procepurr.

PRECEDENTS AND Practices, Sen, Doc. No. 93, 85th Cong.. 2nd Sess.

Your Petitioner's facilities for uncovering such examples

are, of course, very limited. But the known facts clearly dis-

close a creeping paralysis of statutory restrictions upon copy-

righting of Government publications. The decision of the

court below will. if permitted to stand, cause serious mischiet

through encouragement to copyright by stratagem and to grow

ing evasion of the provisions of the Printing and Copyrignt

Laws dealing with the noneopyrightability of Government pub-

lications. Tt will place a premium on subterfuge. artifices and

machination to dodge copyright: restrictions on official works.

The public interest requires an end to the continuing eresion

of statutory requirement and the danger of even worse evasion

of law. This Petition presents the opportunity for authoritative

construction of the applicable statutes by this Court.

IV. Unsettled Constitutional questions.

This Court's most delicate and important function is called

into exercise with the resolution of unsettled questions of

Constitutional law. Such a question, not even touched by the

court below.’ appears in the instant case.

Does the First Amendment's guaranty of Freedom of Press

permit a Government official to arrogate to himself a private

Does it abridge the First Amendment for a Government agency

which employs such ofheial to acquiesce in or be party to such

private copyright of “Government pul.ications” by its emplovees

or others? “

a. Freedom of Press guarantees the people's right

to know what their Government officers do and say in

their official capacity ?

1. The First Amendment established the Constitutional right

of freedom of the press. The nation’s founders saw two vital

needs for such protection: (1) that a free society cannot survive

without full knowledge of its Government's activities, and (2)

*T See Recent Cases, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1219, 1220 (1960).

that a free press was the people's only instrumentality for ob-

taining such information.

2. James Madison was chairman of the committee that

drafted the First Amendment (Patterson, Free Speech and a

Free Press (1939), 121) and presumably knew its purpose. He

wrote: “the right of freely examining publie characters. and

measures, and of free communication thereon, is_ the only

effectual guardian of every other right..." 6 Writings of James

VWedison (1906 ed.), 398.

3. The essentiality of a free press for a free people has long

been a key element in this Court's rulings. In Associated

Press v. United States, 326 US 1, 20 (1915). Mr. Justice Black

wrote for the Court:

“The First Amendment . .. rests on the assumption that the

widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and

antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public,

that a free press is a condition of a free society.”

4. Freedom of the press was not designed as a special

privilege for the pubtishing business, but rather as an extension

of the personal rights of each American. It is a gua ranty of the

individual’s right, and was thus joined in the First Amendment

with the individual’s rights of free speech, assembly and petition.

The press itself is fully aware of this obligation to. the

public, as witness the statement of Elisha Hanson. counsel for

the American Newspaper Publishers Association:

“The right to have a free press-is the right of the people.

not a privilege of a particular segment of our economy engaged

in the business of gathering and disseminating information

in printed form, Publishers are but trustees of this right.

Thus the press not only has the obligation to gather and dis-

seminate information of general publie interest, but it has

the greater obligation—that of preserving the right of the people

to have a press free from restraint in the performance of. its

function and from whatever souree restraint may spring.” *

*° The Two Bulwarks of Liberty: A Free Press and an Independent

Judiciary, 41 ABA Journat 217, 218 (1955).

Thos, while the American people do not appear as — party

to this law suit. it is their rights which are at stake.

The Constitutional Freedom of the Press is indivisible.

The press is not free, this Court has said. if any classification

of publisher is denied free press: “The liberty of the press is

not confined to newspapers and periodicals... The press in

its histerie connotation comprehends every sort of publication

which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” Lovell v.

Griffin, 303 Us. FA 452 (1938). per Hughes, Ch. J.

Elsewhere this Court has said: “Freedom to publish means

freedom for all and not for some.” Associated Press v. United

States, 326 U.S. 1. 20 (1945).

b. Right of access to Government publications is a

sine qua non of a free press and is protected by the

a Amendment.

The Vew York Times once editorially said that freedom to

ae a blank page is hardly freedom of the press. May 31.

1957, 3 1, p. 26, col. 3.) The right to publish and the right to

distribute have already been clearly athrmed as part of Freedom

of the Press. Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 452; Winters v. New

York, 333 U.S. 507, 509 (1948).

The First Amendment would be sterile today if its sanctions

were limited to the mere act of printing. The Zenger case

decided that over 200 years ago. This Court has not so limited

Freedoni of Press. Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 452. Freedom of

Press means more than freedom to print; it includes freedom of

access to materials ofhcially and publicly released by the United

States Government. Anything less would hamstring the public’s

right to know and undermine the fundamental objective of the

First Amendment.

The United States Government has itself urged upon

this Court the very point here being urged by your Petitioner.

In its Brief before this Court in Barr v. Matteo, supra. the Solici-

tor General said:

“The interest of the people in having access to the facts is

at stake, for press releases and press conferences by subordinate

ofhcials exercising policy-making functions have become an

important and aecepted means of communication. The decision

below, if allowed to stand, will necessarily tend to curtail the

dissemination of controversial information wheth the public

is entitled to receive.

“In recent years, Congress has given repeated emphasis to

the public's ‘right to know’. Legislative bills have included

‘a positive aflirmation of Congress’ intent’ that the people be

enabled to know what is going on in their Government .. . °

H. Rep. No. 1770, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 23. The importance

of a free flow of information to the public was recently ex-

pressed by a congressional committee in these terms (H. Rep.

No. 1758, 85th Cong., 2d. Sess. 17):

That the people must know’ is a premise which is cemented

into the foundations of any working democracy. James Monroe

put the principle very well in his seventh annual message on

the state of the Union: “To the people, every department of

the Government and every individual in each are responsible

and the more full their information the better they can judge

the wisdom of the policy pursued and the conduct of each in

regard to it.”

“These statements do net unduly emphasize the importance

of a public officials informing function... (at pp. 19-20).

3. A distinguished Federal judge has written on this sub-

ject in terms which are precisely applicable here:

“Governmental activities do not allow differentiation between

what is private and what is public. All the business which

persons in public office, high or low, perform is of a public

nature. So there is no conflict, as in the case of privacy,

between the individual rights and the public’s demands—but

rather between the right of the public to be informed and

the arrogative right of persons in public ofhce to withhold

information.”

“The adoption in the Federal and State constitutions of the

cuarantee of freedom of speech and press and of the other

democratic rights led to the recognition of the right of access

and publication of the activities of public men and) public

hodies.”

“Hf those in. public ofhee arrogate to themselve- the unre-

stricted power to determine what information shatl be made

known to the public. it would become too easy for them to

conceal their conduct and misconduct,——their deeds and = mis-

ee 4733

deeds.

L. This Court has said that First Amendment rights must

he “guarded with a jealous eye” 4.F.L. rv. Swing, 312 U.S.

321. 325 (1941), per Frankfurter, J. A liberal interpretation

of such rights is “the only conelusion supported by history”:

“For the First Amendment does not speak equivocally .. . It

must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit

language. read in the context ef a liberty-loving society. will

allow.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252. 203, 265 (1941),

per Black J."*

First Amendment rights have been persistently protected

liy this Court from erosion by indirection as well as by direct

act.’ “Sophisticated as well as simple minded” evasions’ of

Constitutional rights have been condemned.“

5. The history of the struggle for Freedom of the Press

bars any notion that the Bill of Rights provides freedom to

print and disseminate information but denies freedom to acquire

it. Freedom of Press must embody free access to facets con-

cerning the Government's operations and to all officially released

Government materials.

' Yankwich. Legal Implications of, and Barriers to, The Right to

Anow, 40 Marovurtre L. Rev. 3. 6. 33, 35 (Summer 1956).

' See also Baxley v. United States, 134 Fo 2d 937, 936 cdth Cir.

1943).

® Guinn v. United States. 238 U.S. 347, 361 (1915): Grosjean v.

Amer, Press Co.. 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936): Speiser v. Randall, 357

U.S. 513. 518 (1958). See also Milwaukee Publication Co. vy. Burleson.

255 U.S. 407, 430-31 (1931) (Brandeis, J.. dissenting): United States

v. Rumely. 345 U.S. 41, 58 (1953) (Douglas, J.. concurring}.

" See Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s comment. Lane v. Wilson, 307 Us.

208, 275 (1939).

c. Decision of Court Below Abridges Freedom of the

Press.

1 Wt Admiral Rickover has copyright: monopoly over bis

speeches relating to his otheial responsibilities. he can deny

lo anyone, ineluding the daily press and news periodioals. the

right to quote these speeches. That he granted such limited

right is a matterlof grace on his part. not a question of right

on the part of thespress. As the Dallas (Texas) Worning News

stated editorially: “Application of this rule in the past would

have deprived the nation of George Washington. Farewell

Address and Abraham Lincoln's imperishable remarks at Getty »-

burg.” (Dee. 7. 1959).

By sanetioning Respondent - Hight to conceal or selectively

to release otheially published materials, the court below hobble»

the publie’s right to know. The Constitutional guarantee of a

free press ts lost if its effectiveness depends on the sufferance

of those from whom the Constitution guaranteed the press

freedom.

2. In the present case Respondent exercised his copyright

power to shut off all press rights or turn them on atwill When

first he copyrighted the speeches. he allowed only “contemporary

press use’. Later he decided to change this permission to

read “for newspaper or news periodical use. Bret for Appellant

and [Joint] Appendix Below. p. 30.

Today Respondent tavors the daily press: tomorrow he mas

tummonit. ft free press cannot exist on the basis of juggled and

discriminatory permissions granted or withheld soiely by the

grace of a Government officral.

3. The opinion of the court below. at allowed te stand.

permits a Government otheral to

dictate oy manipulate the press = use of an ofherally-issued

pe Css re lea se.

make it avatlable only to those who speak Lavorable of hin

and interpret it in an “approved” manner, and

limit its use to political. seeil religious or other favorites.

In other words, the opinion means that a Government official

can deny, limit or restrict the press” access lo officially released

and sanctioned press releases except on his own terms.

b. This Court has warned against the dangers in limiting

Government information to what a Government ofheial plesse-———

to make known. In a case arising out of the Teapot Dome

scandals of the 1920's the Court said: “Experience has taught

us that mere requests for such information often are unavailing,

and also that information which is volunteered is not always

accurate or completes...” MeGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S.

135. 175 (1927).

9. Inconspicuous suppression of public documents can

effectively be achieved through copyright. The law) permits

copyrighting of materials that are pot printed. Moreover, a

great amount of copyrigated material is aot accessible to the

public and is not even available for examination at the Library

of Congress because the Library cannot possibly store all copy-

righted material and must return or discard countless thousands

of such works. In addition a substantial portion of copyrighted

material never appears in the ofhcial catalog cards filed in the

reading rooms of the Library of Congress and furnished to

the nation’s libraries, For example. not one of Kespondent’s

26 speeches listed in Appendix D. copyrighted by him as of

the beginning of October, L960. was listed ins the ofheial

reading room card files of the Library of Congress or in ecards

furnished to the nation’s libraries. For practical purposes.

therefore, the result is actual suppression of the speeches of

high-ranking Federal officials since the public’ at large has no

means of becoming aware of them or of obtaiming ACCESS to

them.

©. Thus. by action of Respondent Government otheial. and

because of the failure of the United Mates Government to. pre-

vent such behavior on the part of its emplovees, your Petitioner

has been deprived of rights guaranteed to it by the First

Amendment.

7. The peculiar genius ot the Bill of Rights is its adaptability

to the proflems of each successive generation of Americans.

This generation s special problem is the public's right of ACCESS

to official government information. The very nature of First

\mendment rights calls for their expansion to meet new and

undecided issues. Such is this case.

SPECIAL REQUEST

Your Petitioner has attempted to show the varied interests

of the United ‘States Government in the underlying issue of

this case, as follows:

1. As an employer, interested in the scope of ofhcial employ-

ment,

2. As the administrate: of the Copyright Othee. with obliga-

lions of interpreting the laws affecting copyright:

3. As the operator of the Government Printing Othee. with

the need to know the meaning of the statutory term “Govern-

ment publication”;

1. As the Government of the Lanited States. whose own actions.

and whose employees actions, have been alleged to be uncon-

stitutional: and

®. As the representative of the American peaple, responsible

for aiding in the equitable, just, and effective enforcement of law.

Consequently, it is respecttully suggested to the Court that

it consider whether the Solicitor General should be invited to

submit a bret amicus curiae in this proceeding. either in con-

nection with this Petition or, in the event the Petition be granted,

on the merté.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons. the Petition for a writ of certiorari

should be granted.

Respectfully submitted.

STANLEY BL Frosn

Hanky N. Rosexrieip

January L9G).

APPENDICES

Appendix A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15.463

Pisrtc Arras Associates, Ive., Trading as Public

Affairs Press, APPELLANT

Vv.

Vice Apvirart Hywan G. Rickover, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

Decided October 20, 1960

Vr. Stanle, B. Frosh for appellant.

Vr. Joseph A. McDonald, with whom Wr. Edwin S. Nail

was on the brief. for appellee.

Before Mr. Justice Reed. retired.* and Washington and

Danaher, Cireuit Judges.

Mr. Justice Reed. sitting by designation: This is an appeal

from the judgment of the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia dismissing after trial on the merits a

complaint for a declaratory judgment.’ | Appellant. an educa-

tional publishing organization, complained on January 16.

1959, that appellee, an admiral of the United States Navy.

refused appellant the right to “use, quote or publish” speeches

appellee had made “in his capacity as an admiral.” Appellant

* Sitting by designation pursuant to See. 204(a), Tithe 28, L/s.

Code.

' Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 177 F. Supp. 601.

claimed the right to publish because appellee used the “facili-

ties. information and data obtained . . . in connection with his

duties as a public ofhcial.” Appellant further alleged that

the speeches have been released to the public press and there-

fore “are in the public domain and not subject to any curtail-

ment as to use.”

Judgment was sought “declaring defendant may not restrict

the quotation from these public speeches. either in full or in

part. in book form or otherwise. once thev have been delivered

publicly”; that “copyright” restrictions on his public speeches

le declared removed.” ;

After an answer denying portions of the complaint, an agreed

statement of facts was filed. That statement showed that the

appellee during the pertinent period was a viee admiral on

active duty in the Navy Department as Assistant Chief of the

bureau of Ships for Nuclear Propulsion and Assistant. Director

for Naval Keactors, Division of Reactor Development, United

Sates Atomic Energy Commission. From October 20, 1955,

to the commencement of this action, Admiral Rickover delivered

twenty-three speeches in public.’ Some months prior to the

* Jurisdiction and the existence of actual controversy is not eon.

tested. 28 US.C. £ 1338: White sv. Kimmel. 198 FL 2d 744 Oth Cir.

1952).

(1) Metallurgy in Atomic Power. October 20, 1955, National Metals

Congress of the American Society for Metals: 62) Nuclear Power and

the Navy. October 27, 1955, San Francisco Couneil of the Navy League.

the Chamber of Commerce and the Conmmercial Club: (3) Engineering

and Scientifie Education. November 22. 1955. the Thomas Alva Edison

Foundation, Ines: (4) Lead Time and Military Strength, January 12.

1956. The Societys of Business Magazine bditors: (5) Nuclear Power

and the Navy. August 16. 1956. Bellefonte Sesquicentennial: (6+ The

Education of Our Talented Chiidren, November 20, 1956. The Lnstitute

Sponsored by the Thomas Alva Edison Poundation, Ines: (7) Nuclear

Power Challenge to Industry, January, 1957: (3) The Challenge of

Nuclear Power. March 1. 1957. Westinghouse Science Talent Search

Award Ceremony; : (10) tioergy Resources and Our Future, May 14. 1957,

Annual Scientific Assembly of the Minnesota State Medical Association:

(1h) Whe Naval Revolution, September Th 1957, American Legion

Naval Afiairs Committee: (12) International Communication Award

institution of this suit, July 9, 1958, he had contracted with

FE. P. Dutton & Co., Ine., to publish a book to be known as

Addresses of Admiral Rickover, based in part on certain of

said speeches. The contract asserted that ownership of the

speeches was in Admiral Rickover. On December 1, 1958,

the Admiral filed, subsequent to their delivery, an application

for registration of a claim to copyright in a compilation of the

first 22 of the speeches in question with a copyright notice.

The appellee recognizes that the “compilation did not revive

any exclusive rights held in such material prior to” previous

publication, The same day appellee filed application for

registration of speech No. 23. This last speech was delivered

December 11, 1958. On January 12, 1959, a book published

by E. P. Dutton & Co., Education and Freedom, based largely

on a number of the speeches in controversy, was oflered for

The agreed statement of facts shows that the writing of these

speeches was done at home after normal working hours or

while traveling. 't was agreed:

“The speeches were written by the Admiral in’ longhand.

“Christopher Columbus.” October 12, 1957; (13) The Balance Sheet

on Kdueation, November 22, 1957, The Institute Sponsored by the

Thomas Alva Edison Foundation, Inc. at the Engineering Society of

Detroit: (14) Revolution at Sea, December 5, 1957, Overseas Press

Club: (15) Education in the Nuclear Age, December 6, 1957, Dedi-

cation of Nuclear Power Training School: (16) European and Ameri-

ce 4 Secondary Schools —A Comparison, March 23, 1958. Fiftieth

Anniversary. Mt. Alban’s School: (17) The Truth Shall Make You Free,

April 19, 1958, The Inauguration Ceremonies of Polytechnic Institute

of Brooklyn: (18) The Meaning of Your Profession, June 14. 1958.

Stevens Institute of Technology: (19) Investment in Human Resources.

September 25, 1958, Engineers Club of St. Louis; (20) The Meaning

of the Nautilus’ Poler Voyage, September 29, 1958, Altoona Lions

Club; (21) A Common Heritage, October 23. 1958, Columbia U niver-

sity Forum: (22) Theodore Roosevelt- Modern American, October

27, 1958. Presentation, Theodore Roosevelt) Distinguished Service

Meda!: (23) Education -Our First Line of Defense. December 11.

1958. The Harvard Club of New York City.

A large part of the speeches were typed by Mrs. Rickover at

home. The typewritten material plus some hendwritten por-

tions were brought in to the Admiral’s office for the typing

of a final copy and the preparation of a multilith master by

the Admiral’s seeretary. In some cases the master was pre-

pared directly from the typewritten copy as brought in from

home. All of the speeches were multilithed on Government

duplicating machines.”

* + * +

The defendant admits that it was his practice to have his

speeches as prepared for distribution bear his name, his rank

in the United States Navy and his title in the Atomic Energy

Commission, that the speeches as distributed customarily bore

a statement ‘for release’ giving the date and frequency the time

of the release and with few exceptions were on the paper stock

used for press releases by the Department of Defense or the

Atomic Energy Commission.”

After multilithing and at or before delivery, all speeches

except Nos. 7 and 12 in footnote 3, supra, were distributed.

The statement of agreed facts shows as follows:

“Certain of the speeches, approximately sixteen in number,

were also made available to the press through the Publie In-

formation Office of the Department of Defense or of the Atomic

Energy Commission, or both. In distributing the speeches,

Admiral Rickover mailed some to individuals who had request-

ed copies or who[m] Admiral Rickover believed would be inter-

ested in the subject. Some were sent by Admiral Rickover,

approximately 50 in each case, to the sponsor of the speech

to be made available to the press and others at the place where

the speech was to be delivered. Some speeches were sent to

the Press Club in Washington by Admiral Rickover for the

use of representatives of the press.”

Each speech was cleare’ by the Department of Defense.

Office of Security Review. This was done under $ 1252 of

the General Regulations of the Navy which, inter alia, provide:

“3. Persons in the naval service desiring to publish articles

on professicnal, political, or international subjects in. accord.

ance with the provisions of this regulation shall cause their

signatures to appear-on such articles, together with a statement

to the effect that the opinions or assertions contained therein are

the private ones of the writer and are not to be construed as

otheial ov reflecting the views of the Navy Department or the

naval service at large. Immediately upon the acceptance of

such articles for publication, the writer shall forward a com-

plete copy of such articles to the Secretary of the Navy for

the files of the Navy Department.”

There was also a Department of Defense Directive in effect

during the time the speeches were delivered.’

Admiral Rickover had duties of supervision and inspection

that could be carried out at or near the various points of

delivery. and arrangements were made to make the speeches

in free or “off duty” hours. No transportation costs were paid

by Admiral Riekover in connection with his addresses. Hon-

oraria, when offered, were paid directly to charities specified by

the Admiral.

The District Court in its opinion determined that the addresses

listed in note 3 fell into a class of Verary productions “that

arise out of [the author's] official actions, although writing the

book or delivering the address in question, is no part of his

ofheial duties.”’ Therefore, the trial court determined these

‘ON. KB eriting for Publication by Defense Personnel, as Individuals.

Personnel of the Department of Defense. military and civilian, who

write for outside publicatio not in connection with their official duties

on any subject or in any form shall ascertain that such activity will

net interfere or conflict in any way with their regularly assigned duties.

Such activity will not be conducted during normal working hours, or

woomplished with the use of Department of Defense facilities, o1

personnel. Such writers will be on an exact parity with outside

professional writers with respect to acCessibility and use of technical or

other information for manuseripts or articles written for publication,

Articles by such personnel, dealing with military matters. will be sub-

mitted to the Office of Security Review, OASD (PA). for review and

clearance to avoid any possible violation of military security.” DOD

Directiv., No. 52.309, Aug. 17, 1957.

177 FF. Supp. 601, 604,

addresses were not governmental publications. It was also

held that the issue of the press releases and the delivery of the

speeches were not “on abandonment of the literary property

or a dedication to the publie.” ”

Underlying an analysis of the respective contentions of the

parties here is the legal right of an author of books, lectures

or addresses in’ his unpublished writings. Copyright, the

exclusive right of an author to publish for a limited time his

work. did not exist at common law even though at common

law an author had a property right in his unpublished werk.’

This property right enabled an author to control the disposition

of his work until such time as he released it to the publie.

If this right of control had not ended with publication, there

would have been no need of copym,t protection. The property

right would have been perpetual. The problem of balance be-

tween the rights of authors to the fruits of their efforts and

the right of the public to have opportunity for learning or diver-

sion was solved by adoption of the copyright acts.” Although

after publication the rights of authors in the United States are

now measured by the Copyright Act. their common law right

to the first publication has been preserved.” We have not

depended primarily upon the flexibility of the common law

* Td., at 606.

7 Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201. 214-215: Wheaton vy. Peters. & Pet.

591. 657. 662: White Smith Musie Co. v. Apollo Co. 206 UlS. 1. 15,

8-20 (concurring opinion). The weight of the English cases supports

this view. See Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (1769

K.B.): Donaldson v. Beckett. I] Brown 12% 1 Eng. Rep. 837 (1774

H.L.): Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 HW. L. Cas. 815. 961 (1854): Copinger

and Skone James. Copyright (9th ed.. 1956) 2. 16.

* See Holmes v. Hurst. 174 U.S. 82, 85.

“17 USC. § 2: “Rights of author or proprietor of unpublished

work, Nothing in this title shall be construed to annul or limit the

right of the author or proprietor of an unpublished work, at commen

law or in equity. to prevent the copying. publication, or use of such

unpublished work without his consent. and to obtail damages therefor.”

in the development of copyright. This right to choose the time

and manner of releasing to the public the labor product of the

mind protects against literary piracy.'"

Speeches and lectures for oral presentation may be copy-

righted under the Copyright Code.'' Their texts. of course,

may be copyrighted as writings under § 4.'* Were the Admiral

a private citizen, therefore, no substantial question would exist

as to the susceptibility of these works to statutory copyright.

The cases make it clear that an author's common law copyright

may exist in lectures and other works that are performed as

well as in writings.’’ Our consideration turns first to whether

the lectures’ general susceptibility to copyright is affected by

the Admiral’s status as a high government official and the

nature ot the material discussed. Narrowly stated in terms

of the statutory provisions, were these speeches or their written

texts publications of the United States Government in) which.

under § 8 of the Code, no copyright shall subsist.

In these present case Public Affairs Press asserts first, that

as these speeches “resulted from his official responsibilities”

they should be classified as a “publication of the United States

Government” under 17 U.S.C. § 8, wh’ ch provides, “No copy-

right shall subsist in any publication of the United States

Government.” '* This generalization creates a sea of trouble-

some questions. Such publications range from the Presidents’

messages on the State of the Union, the Congressional Record.

departmental pamphlets. maps. regulations. and judicial de-

' Exploitation of the work of others has been aot infrequent in

England and the United states. See Dickens v. Hawksley, [1935] 1 Ch.

267. 267: Macmillan & Co. vy. Dent, [L907] 1 Ch. 107: Holmes v.

Hurst, 174 US. $2: Mifflin sv. Ro H. White Co. 190 ULS. 260: Mifin

+. Dutton, 190 LLS. 265.

i 417 USC. $ 12.

17 USC. § 4: “The works for which copyright may be secured

inder this title shall include all the writings of an author.”

Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424. 430: Nutt v. National Institute.

Inc. U1 F. 2d 236 (2d Cir. 1929).

'* This provision appeared as < 7 of the 1909 Copyright Act, 35

stat. L077.

cisions to forras for the moving of admission to the bars of the

various courts. Apparently the language of the provision orig-

inated in the Act for Public Printing, 28 Stat. 601, $ 52."

It is designed to achieve in a democracy that depends upon

accurate public Knowledge the broadest publicity for matters of

vovernment. No clarification of the meaning of “publication

of the United States Government” appears in the Rules and

Regulations of the Copyright Othee."” The provision grew out

of a “confused entanglement” over the sale of the stereotype

or electrotype plates desired by Representative James D. Rich-

ardson for use ina publication “prepared. compiled and edited

by him on behalf of the Joint Committee on Printing.” "'

The language of the original statute on printing-—“No .. .

Government publication shail be copyrighted”—-seems to refer

to a publication actually produced by the Public Printer."

The Printing Office provision seems to mean, if read naturally,

“produced in that office.” '" The Copyright provision should

be read, we think, to refer to publications commissioned or

printed at the cost and direction of the United States. These

would be authorized expositions on matters of governmental

interest by governmental authority.” The second section of

See the discussion in Berger, Copyright in Government Publica-

tions. in Copyright in Certain Works. General Revision of the Copy-

right Law, Copyright Othee. Study No. 21 0 A-Ci. p. 2 0 b959),

M37 CARR. § 201.1-201.8 (1960),

'' | Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1. TL TIP (1903 ed.,

Bureau of National Literature) copyright 1897 by James D. Richardson.

See Stiefel. Piracy in High Places. in ASCAP Copyright: Symposium

No. 8. p- 3, 2 (1937).

'S See S. Rep. No. 1473, 56th Cong., Ist Sess.

S. Rep. No. 1473, supra. p. 2:

“The Committee on Printing will not undertake to discuss the legal

question here involved further than to say that the prohibition con-

tained in the printing act was intended to cover every publication

authorized by Congress in all possible forms... .

“" Tt would not seem to us that o€tasional use of a governmental

secretary for transcribing or of maitilithing machines for copies for

publicizing the speeches would fall under the statutory concept of a

publication by or at the cost of the United States.

$ & protects authors’ copyrights against governmental: use of

copyrighted material.”

Both ordinary practice ~~ and the decided cases support our

conclusion.” Before any enactment as to governmental publica-

tion, the Supreme Court declared that federal judicial opinions

as such, “published under the authority of Congress,” were not

copyrightable." The Court returned the Wheaton case to the

trial court, however, for determination of whether Mr. Wheaton

had complied with copyright as to his own notes on the cases.~*

That action recognizes the right, outside of statutory allowance

or negation, of a governmental employee to copyright com-

ments on non-copyrightable governmental publications. — In

Sherrill v. Grieves, 57 Washington Law Rep. 286, 290 (Sup.

Ct. D.C. 1929}, an author’s copyright on a pamphlet previously

published by a governmental school for officers for use in local

instruction with the author’s consent was upheld against the

contention that it was a governmental publication. The author

was a government employee but the writing of the pamphlet

was outside his employment. In Sawyer v. Crowell Pub. Co.,

160 F. Supp. 471 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1942), the court dealt with a

map produced by government employees in the course of their

duties, copyrighted by one employee and then published by the

*! “The publication or republication by the Government, either

separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright

is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment

of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copy-

right material without the consent of the copyright proprietor.”

*° See the list of fifteen senior military officers who, while on active

duty, were said to have published books relating to military experiences.

105 Cong. Ree. 15927-15928 (daily ed., Aug. 31, 1959). See 7

Decisions of Comp. Gen. 221, 223.

*8 See a thorough note on this case below, 60 Col. L. Rev. 398 (L960) :

73 Harv. L. Rev. 1219 (1960). See a discussion of cases 24 Geo. Wash.

LL. Rev. 423, 443-447 (1955-56).

** Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617. 649; Wheaton v. Peters, & Pet.

S91, 668.

** Callaghan v. Myers, supra, at 650. See Mr. Justice Story on

circuit in Gray v. Russell, 1 Story 1!, 20-21, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5728.

p. 1035. 1039 (C.C.D. Mass., 1839).

Government with notice of that copyright registration. The

court held that as the map “relates directly to the subject matter

of the plaintiffs work” and was printed and engraved by the

Government, the attempted copyright inured to the employer's

benefit. Compare Onited States v. First Trust Co. of St. Paul,

251 F.2d 686 (8th Cir, 1958). an action to quiet title, where

it was held that a book of notes of exploration kept by Col.

Clark was a private journal. He was an army ofhecer, a mem-

her of the Lewis and Clark expedition, but Lewis was the com-

mander, Lewis was instructed to keep notes by President

Jetlerson. This he did. Lewis also sent Clark’s notes for the

perusal of the President but with comments and directions that

caused the court to hold they were to be treated as private

notes rather than ofhieial, as Lewis’ were. As the Clark notes

were not shown to be kept in accordance with Clark’s duties.

the court held them not to be ihe property of the Goverament.

It cannot be properly said, as appellant asserted, that a

governmental official who speaks or writes of matters with

which he is concerned as an official is by the very fact of being

such an ofheial barred from copyright on his productions. — If

they are statements called for by his ofheial duties or explana-

tions as guides for official action, they are barred from a

delivery alone, should be sutheient to show that these addresses

were not governmental publications in that sense. The speeches

themselves bear out this statement. We hold that none of these

papers is a Governmental publication,

II.

The next question is whether Admiral Rickover has forfeited

his right to a copyright on the twenty-two addresses delivered

hefore December 1, 19585" The Copyright Act. $ 8 so far

“6 The word “forfeit” is adopted to avoid “dedication” or “abandon-

ment” which seem to suggest purposeful release to the public. The

purpose of a statutory “publication” is immaterial, National Comics

Publications v. Fawcett Publications. LOL F.2d 594, 596 (2d Cir. L951):

Nimmer, Copyright Publication, 56 Col. L. Rev, 155, note 4 (1956).

MW)

as here important. provides, “No copyright shall subsist in the

original text of any work which js in the public domain.” The

manuseript ts the private property of an author until publication

with all the attributes of ownership within the concept of per-

sonal property." This right of authorship is lost —no doubt

often inadvertently—-when the owner puts his work in’ the

public domain by publication without obtaining a copyright.

The right of authorship become a copyright with similar. in-

dividual privileges for the owner by publication and the athya-

tion of the copyright: notice.”

The only United States statutory definition concerning publi-

cation is not directly applicable. It is $ 26 and applies to

§ 24 as to duration of copyright. It does give some indication

of congressional thinking on the subject. It reads as follows:

“In the interpretation and construction of this title ‘the date

of publication’ shall in the case of a work of which copies are

reproduced for sale or distribution be held to be the earliest date

when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale.

sold. or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright

or under his authority, ...” |

“Public distribution” is the. phrase of importanes in’ this

ease. In England there is a statutory definition in the 1956

graphs, a literary, dramatic or musical work, or an edition

of such a work, or an artistic work. shall be taken to have been

published if, but only if. reproductions of the work or edition

have been issued to the publics” Copyright Aet, 19560, 4 & 3

Pliz. 2, ¢.. 1%,

An authoritative English textbook states the rule as follows:

“Prima facie a literary, dramatic or musical work, or an edi-

tion of such a work or an artistic work, is published if, but

only if, reproductions of the work have been issued to. the

publie.... 7 Copinger and Skone James, Copyright, (9th ed..

1958), p. 21. 30.

** Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424, 434: 17 U.S.C. § 2) note 9,

supra.

217 U.S.C. 3 10.

In determining whether publication forfeiting the author's

power to copyright the addresses has occurred, we must con-

sider the intent of Congress to induce publication for general

use by allowing a limited monopoly to enable authors to profit

from their writings and the congressional enactment. $8.

whieh permits a copyright only shen the writings have not been

put inte the public domain. that s-. voluntarily released te the

public by the author. The Supreme Court has said. a propos of

aosimilar situation: “Sueh forfeitures are never to be inferred

- trom doubttul language.” | Nor should they be inferred trom

doubttul actions. A Liberal attitude in’ protecting any work

in its passage from the perpetual but non-productive absolute

common law rights of an author to the limited but productive

monopoly of the copyright is enjoined upon the courts by the

purposes of the Copyright Aet. However. an authors intent

as to publication should not be viven controlling weight against

the effect of his acts”

The agreed facts stated at pages 3 and 4. supra. show a

wide distribution not only te the press but also te people

generally who desired copies through interest in’ the subjects

of the addresses. The handling of the addresses prior te

December 1. 1958. when copyrighting was first attempted.

indicates a studied.eflort not only to secure publicity for the

conten of the addresses through the channels of information.

hut to go bevond customary sources of press or broadcasting in

distributing the addresses to any interested individual. Pubsliea-

tion, for measurement of the duration of a copyright. dates from

aosale or when “publicly distributed” bw the owner of the

for*release of authorship rights seem mest consistent with

the Net.

In Americal |} isuals Corp. vr. Holland, 239 F. 2d TV (2d

Cir. 1956). Judge Frank writing. it was held that a distribution

Washingtonian Co. vy. Pearson, 306 Los. 30. 42.

“ Cf. Roberts. Publication in the Law of Copyrights. ASCAP Copy

right Law Symposium, Ne. 9% p. 121.

"17 U.S.C. $ 26. supra. p. 10

of several hundred copies of an advertising seheme to pro-

spective customers. apparently with surtable netiee of copy:

rieht elamm under S$ TQcot the Net was sutherent publication

to comply with the statutory cequirement of publication ter

-Hggestion that publication ty gam oa copy right hequi res les~

evidence of publication than pablication to lose a commen faw

property cht we have been unable to comelude that the distri

btion of almost all otf his addresses was not a dedication te

public use. This makes if unnecessary to consider whether the

oral presentation alone would or would not be a publication

unter the Copyright An. ot eet DER pe OL 5d, eae

An inaport intecase from this Crrevat, Halen ve lb nited Artists

Corp. JVB. 2d OF (19ST 1. discusses publication. “Twenty-

five hundred copies of a song were distributed ino order to

publiere ot po Obs: “ALL the record shows is that 2.500 copie-

of appetlant’. song were pronted and that seme [2.000] of them

were distributed to broadcasting stations and professional musie-

ians for “plugging” purposes. chiefly throveh Broadeast Music

Incorporated. named on the copies as a heensing agent. Not

aosingle copy was sold. No liceise or other permission was

cave to anyone to pertorm or otherwise use the song. Nothing

was said or done, bevond the described distribution. to give any

recipient of a copy the impression that he could make any use

of it withoat first obtaining the proprietors license through the

stated licensing agent.” This was held a limited publication

whieh did not vitiate the copyright. ;

The agreed statement of facts in the case under consideration

shows no effort to limit distribution of the <peeches delivered

prior to December 1. 1958. but rather a willingness to make

“Any person entitled thereto by this tithe may secure copyright

for his work by pubheation thereof with the notice of copyright required

by thie title; ...° 17 USA, = 10.

Cf. Ferris v. Frohman, 223 US. 424. bi: Nutt vy. National Insti-

tute, Ine. SEB. 2d 236 (2d Cir, 1929) > Nimmer. Cops right Publication,

% Col L. Rev. 185. TORTOT (19900: Kaplan. Pubheation in Copy-

right Laws, 105 0. Pal Lo Rew. 169, 473-479 (19551: Selvin, Should

Performance Dedieate’. 42 Califh bo Rev. Wee booty. ‘

3°

them avatlable to all who might be interested. Certainly when

all of Admiral Rickover’s acts of distribution are considered

together performance. distribution to the press, the copies

sent to individuals at the recipient's request and those sent

unsolicited. the copies sent ins batches of 50° for distribution

by the sponsors of speeches” it is ditheult to avoid the con-

clusion that these acts. in their totality. constitute publication

of the speeches and their dedication to the publie demain.

There is ne effort shown to protect the atithor’s private right

many way. no limitation upon whe might obtain copies. That

these speeches were open to the entire world could not have

heen more clearty manifested unless the author had printed

upon the copies. “All claims to copyright waived.” See White

r. Aimmell, 193 F.2d 744 (Oth Cir, 1952).

Since the distribution was net limited in any way to a

particular group. te question exists in this case as to the extent

of any limitation so as to avoid “publication” in the copy-

right sense. Anyone was welcome to a copy.

Nor do we have any problem as to limited use of the addresses

by the press for fair comment. The press was fiee to use the

~peeches in whole or in part for their news value. But such

ephemeral use is tar different from the unlimited distribution

to anyone who was interested which is manifested by the agreed

statement of facets. Tt ts the complete absence of limitation

on the use of the printed distributions ly anyone at any time

which destroyed the common law right- of the author.

Il.

Copies of the speeches delivered after December 1. 1958,

permission needed for contemporaneous press use. Above

of these speeches weie deposited in accordance with the act.

The appellant does not appear to contend that this notice does

net contain all the formal elements required by S$ 19 of the

Code. Rather. it asserts that these notices do not comply with

the act beeause. in addition to the required elements. they also

contain a conditional permission toe use the work. Appellant

contends that the terms of this condition are vague, particularly

“contemporaneous” aad “press”, and for this reason the entire

tions. The argument fails to distinguish between a valid and

sufheient notice followed by additional, periiaps questionable.

limitations and a notice which fails to comply with the specific

requirements of $ 19.) There is not much merit to appellant's

contention that the condition is vague or improper, but in any

event the existence of the admittedly valid notice preserves

all rights and the contemporaneous granting of limited per-

mission to use the work, whether valid or not. has no effeet on

the validity of the uhderlying and fully preserved right.

\ question is raised as te fair use of these later addresses in

compilations or in quotation or eriticism. This is a suit for

declaratory judgment, and appellant has not presented a copy

of the book or pamphlet it intends to publish. Nor has it

otherwise unambiguously indicated just what use it plans to

make of these later speeches. Without the planned use before

the court, it is, of course, impossible to determine whether

is fair. Appellant’s prayer for relief below indicates, however,

that it wants to be able to use these speeches “either in full or

in part, in book form or otherwise.” Insofar as that: prayer

asks for a declaration that the doctrine of fair use will justify

publication as a hook of verbatim copies of soine of these

speeches, the matter is put with sufficient definiteness to permit

an answer. The pubs lication of a work consisting in substantial

part of quotations from another copyrighted work is not per-

mitted under the theory of fair use."' Hf less than the whole text

of the speec thes is taken, the competitive effect of such a publiea-

tion by the appellant on the similar work published in compli-

ance with the Admiral’s copyright would be a relevant factor.”

The question as to the fair use of the addresses copyrighted

“* See Folsom v. Marsh, 9 Fed. Cas. No, 4901, p. 342 (C.D. Mass.

IS41): Toksvig v. Bruce Pub. Co., 181 F. 2d 664 (7th Cir. 1950):

Yankwich, What is Fair Use?, 22 U. Chi. L. Rev. 203 (1954),

” See 56 Col. L. Rev. 585, 593. 597 (1956).

after December 1, 1958, is left to the District Court on remand.

The record shows that there are some of the addresses to

which our holding may not be applicable. Copies of No. 25,

Education——-Our First Line of Defense, bore a copyright notice

that is sufheient to protect it from use by others under $ 10

of the Act. Nos. 7, Nuclear Power-——Challenge to Industry.

and 12. Christopher Columbus, are said not to have been

distributed to the public as the others were.

In these circumstances, we conclude it is better to reverse

and remand to the District Court for further hearing and

application of this opinion,

It is so ordered.

Wasnincron, Circuit Judge, dissenting: 1 would athrm the

judgment of the District Court. LT do not belicve that the dis-

semination of the 22 speeches delivered prior to December 1,

1958. was such as would defeat the author's common law

right of first public tion. They were therefore not in’ the

public domain when Admiral Rickover filed his application

for registration of the speeches in compiled form under Section

12 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 12 (1958). Consequently,

nothing in Section 8 of the Art could bar the validity of the

the individual speeches contained in it.

It is clear that Admiral Rickover intended to foster the widest

public dissemination of his words -as current news —-for the

sake of advancing his own views and progranis. But [ think

that it is equally clear that he meant to preserve, and actually

did preserve, the exclusive right to publish the speeches in

compiled form after their immediate news value had passed

away. Speeches of men incthe forefront of public life are

unique among literary products. Not only are they often

works of considerable literary merit, but they may also be

“news” of the first importance. As “news” they deserve the

widest unfettered contemporaneous dissemination. Where, as

here, an author seeks to advance this end by making copies of

his speeches available to the press and other interested persons,

he is serving the publie’s interest a+ well as his own. But insotar

as they have a commercial value as literary works after their

immediate news importance has passed, they belong appropriate-

ly te their ereator, The public interest in the news value of

the authors work may cut across or postpone his rights: but

that is not to say that it extinguishes them.’

In my judgment the rule which requires a publication to be

“limited” to avoid forfeiture of property rights in the material

published is wholly inapposite here.” There can be no limited

publication of “news”; “news” as such is everyone's property.

Compare Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Association,

275 Fed. 797, 798 (7th Cir, 1921). Bet hat remains, after

the news value of the words has passed, should belong exelu-

sively to the author, or his assignees. The people who will

buy a compilation of Admiral Rickover’s speeches, months and

even years after they have been reported in the press, will do

' Cf. Atlantic Monthly Co. ¥. Post Publishing Co.. 27 F. 2d 556

(D. Mass. 1928), dealing with a copyrighted magazine article which

was also “political ‘news’ of the most important character,” id. at 557.

Such a copyright, in my view, should be no bar to bona fide contem-

poraneous quotation by the press. whether or not express permission

to copy is given.

* This test is characteristically invoked where there has been a

prepubhication circulation of a literary or musical work for promotion

purposes. e.g.. Hirshon v. United Artists Corp.. 100 U.S) App. D.C.

217, 243 F. 2d G4) (1957): Tyin v. Avon Publications, Inc.. 144 F.

Supp. 368 (S.D.N.Y, 1956). It is sometimes said that dissemination

must be limited to some ascertained group or class, White v. Kimmell.

193 FP. 2d 744 (9th Cir, 1952), but even this requirement has been

subject to qualification. See Werckmeister y. American Lithographic

Co. 134 Fed. 321 (2d Cir. 1904). It is evident from these cases, and

others treating the same questions, that the notion of “limit” rests

upon the assumption that it is within the power of the author to

prevent any circulation of his work. When he permits some dissemina-

tion, it becomes pertinent to inquire inte his motives, to examine the

extent of the distribution, and to consider the character of the recipients.

Dissemination which is deemed too widespread is punished by forfeiture.

Such inquiries, in my view, are quite irrelevant in the ‘case of a

leading public official, whose pronouncements on public matters should

have—and are intended to have-—wide dissemination as news.

~0 because they prize the fruits of the author’. intelleetual and

literary efforts. There is nothing in the law which would compel

this court to deprive the creator of the right to reap financial

benefits from these efforts because. at the time of their creation,

they had the added virtue of being newsworthy events of

immediate public concern, Now is there anything in the law

Which compels us to attach such a consequence to acts taken by

an author to communicate to members of the public that ele-

ment in his works which is properly theirs. It is a very grave

matter for a court to pronounce the forfeiture of an author's

intellectual property. T cannot conclude that such a result is

warranted here.

The plaintiff-appellant comes to the courts without having

contributed one iota to the work it seeks to appropriate. — It

has not even gathered and compiled the speeches——-on_ the

contrary, it seeks to foree Admiral Rickover to collect) and

present to it copies of ali of them. This is a litigation which

in its every aspect deserves to fail.

Appendix B

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER TERM. 1960

No 15.463

Civil 116-59

Pobre Arras Associres, INc..

t/a Pusuic Arramms Press, Appellant

Vick Apvinat Hywan G. Rickoven. fppellee

{ppeal from the United States Distriet Court for the District

of Columbia.

Before: Mr. Justice Reed. retired, and Washington and

Danaher, Cireuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal trom

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof |t is ordered and adjudged by this

Court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from

in this cause be, and it is hereby. reversed, and that this cause

be. and it is hereby, remanded to the District Court for further

hearing and application of the opinion of this Court.

It is further ordered by the Court that appellant herein recover

from appellee its taxable costs on this appeal, and have execution

therefor.

Per Mr. Justice Reed.

Dated: October 20, 1960

Separate dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Washington.

Appendix C

PRESS RELEASE SAMPLES

NEWS RELEASE iii. a | OF DEFENSE

FORMATION

25,0 C

PLEASE NOTE DATE

FOR HELEASE AT 11:00 A.M, (FS1

THURSDAY, OC oR 27, 195,

Remarks Prepared by RAOM H. GC, Rickower, US

Chief, Naval Reactors Branch

Division of Reactor Development

U, S. Atomic Energy Commission

and

fseistant Chief of the Bureau of Ships

for Nuclear Prapuasion

Navy Vepartaent

Por Deliver7 at Luncheon Sponsored by

The San Francisco Council of the Navy League,

The Chamber of Commerce, and

The Commercial Club

Merchants Uxcharge Building

an Francisco, Califorris

October 27, 1955

—

WUCLEAR POWER AND THE BAYT

I appreciate thie opportunity to talk to you on “heodore Roosevelt's

birthday because he, more than eny other man, helped to mold our Navy into

a highly mechanized and effective instrument of nationa) policy. In

particular, he encouraged the Navy to convert from coal to cil. Although

the use of ofl as 8 fuel for our warships hed been umer consideration

since 1866, it was not until his edministration, and with hie encourage-

ment and support, that the final decision to change was made - @ change

almost as significant as the one from sail to coal,

Today our “avy is eabarked on an even grater change - from cil to

nuclesr power, I don't believe this will take as long as it took to

convert from sail to steam or from coal to oil, Unlike the earlier

changes in which serchant shipping took the lead, the change to nuclsar

power began with « naval vessel,

UNITED STATES

ATOMIC ENERGY COMM-SSION

Wasnington oy 0, 6.

Tel. ST 3-8000 FOR RELEASE AT G:00 Pim, (EDT)

Ext. 307 TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1957

Remarks Prepsred by RADM le Se Rickever, USN

Cnief, Navai Reactor: Sraach

Division of Reactor Deve looment

U. S. Atomic Ererry Comriesien

ard

Assistant Chies cf the Uureay of Ships

for Nuclear Propulsion

Néevy Neractrenr

For “elivery at 24.2 et of the

Annus. Scientific z

C4! Association

“~AnLelota

)

Ore ws we wnw on

ENERGY RESOURCES AND CUR FUTURE

I am honored to te here tonight, though it is

no easy thing, I assure you, for a layman to face up to

an audience of physicians. A Sing-e one of you, sitting

behind his desk, can be quite formidable.

My speech has no medical connotations, This may

be @ relief to you after the solid Professional fare you

ve been absorbing. TI should like to discuss a matter

which will, 7 hope, be of interes: to you as responsible

citizens: the Significance of energy resources in the

shaping of our future.

Appendix D — LIST OF RESPONDENT'S SPEECHES

Issued As Official Press Releases

Metallurgy In Atomic Power October 20, 1955

(Atomic Energy Commission

Nuclear Power and the Navy October 27, 1955

(Defense Department)

Engineering and Scientific Education November 22. 1955

(Atomie Energy Commission )

Lead Time and Military Strength January 12. 1956

(Defense Department)

Nuclear Power and the Navy Nugust 16. 1956

(Defense Departmen.)

The Education of Our Talented Children November 20. 7956

(Atomic Energy Commission )

Nuclear Power—Challenge to Industry January, 1057

(Defense Department)

The Challenge of Nuclear Power March 1, 1957

(Defense Department)

The Talented Mind March TL, 1957

(Defense Department)

Energy Resources and Our Future May 14, 195;

(Atomic Energy Commission )

The Naval Revolution September 14, 195%

(Defense Department)

Acceptance of International Communication Award

(Defense Department, announcement) October 12, 1957

The Balance Sheet on Education November 22, 1957

(Atomic Energy Commission )

(Defense Department) :

Education in the Nuclear Age December 6, 1957

(Atomic Energy Commission) |

European and American Secondary > hool- March 23, 1956

(Atomic Energy Commission,

The Truth Shall Make You Free April 19, 1956

(Atomic Energy Commission}

The Meaning of Your Profession June 14, 1958

(Atomic Energy Commission)

Investment it, Human Resources September 25, 1956

(Atomic Energy Commission)

The Meaning of the Nautilus’ Polar Voyage September 29, 1955

(Atomic Energy Commiss.on

APPENDIX D — CONTINUED

A Common Heritage October 23. L956

(Mtomie Energy Commission

Theodore Roosevelt--Modern American October 27, L958

(dtomic Energy Commission )

hducation: Our First Line of National Defense = December 11, 1958

(Press release of speech at Harvard Club of New York)

Democracy and Competence February 17, 1959

(Press release of speech at North Carolina State College)

IHIusions Cost Too Much March 16, 1959

(Press release of speech before Yale Club of Washington, D.C.)

The Shippingport Atomic Power Station:

Lessons From Its Operation May 28, 1959

(Press release of speech before American Public Power Ass'n.)

(Note: The last four speeches were issued by Admiral Rickover. )

Appendix E

tL. S. ARMY COPYRIGHTING PRACTICE

UNMTED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR_?/1

The War in the Pacific

VICTORY IN PAPUA

Samuel Miner

OFFICE OF THE CHLEF OF MILITARY HISTORY

DEPARTMENT CF THE ARMY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 1957

Title page of one of the official military histories printed by the

Government Printing Office under copyright of Army officers.

AU rights in thys book are reserved. This book or any part thereof

nay not be reproduced without wetien authorization trom: The Chief

of Miltary History, Oepartment of the Army, Washington 25. DOO

Library of Conuress Catalog Card Number 36 obeedg

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, LS Gosernment Prong Ofte

This copyright notice appears in “Victory in Papua’. R. W

Stephens was Assistant Chief of the Office of Military History.

Appendix F

OFFICIAL MILITARY HISTORIES

COPYRIGHTED BY ARMY OFFICERS

Vil ot these books were printed by the Government Printing Othe:

and are avatlable from: the Superintendent of Documents. “The othe ial

seal of the United States is imprinted on the cover of each. The Copy:

tigh claimants bad the rank of General and were Chief of the Office

of Military History at about the period of copyright registration. How.

ever. the otheral status of the copyright claimants is net indicated in

the copyright notices ‘

The Organization and Role of the Army Servier Forces. tw Joi D.

Millett. (1954, F948 pp. 84.25). Copyrighted by Albert C2 smith.

lite ball of the Philippines, by Lous Morton. (1953, 620 pp.. $9.25)

Copyruthted by Orlando Ward.

Fictory in Papua, by Samuel Milner. 1957, 100 pp. 86.000. Copy:

iighted by RoW. Stephens.

Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls. Philip Vo Growl and bdiund

G Love, (1990. EEE pp, 85.750. Copycighted by Albert €. Smith.

The Approach to the Philippines by Robert Ross smith 61953. 62%

pp. 80.2500 Copyrighted by Orlando Ward.

Northwest Africa: Seizing the Initiative in the West, by George BF. Howe.

D990. TA pp. 87.759 Copyrighted by Richard W, Stephens,

fhe Lorraine Campaign, by He Me Cole, 11950, 657 pp. ST L.004,

Copyrighted by Orlando Ward.

Copyrighted by Albert €. Smih.

Logistical Support of the Armies, Vol. 1 i May LORD September Lobb

by Roland G. Ruppenthal (1953. 616 pp. SOG. Copyrighted by

Oriovde Ward,

Logistical Support of the Armies. Vol Ul (September LOb-May LobS:

by Roland G. Rappenthal, (1959. 540. 540 pp. $4.50). Copyrighted

Ibn ROW. Stephens. one

hime Rans Out in CBI, by Charles Fo Romanus and Riley Sunderland.

(1959. 226 ppt Copyrighted by Richard W. Stephens.

Kearming the French, by Marcel Vigneras. (LOST, 444 pp. Sb25+.

Copyrighted by John Ho Stokes.

Chiet of Staff Prewar Plans and Preparations, bw Mark Skinner Wat-

son. (P9OH, SSD pp. 84.250. Copyrighted by Orland Ward.

HW oashirgton Command Post) The Operations Division, by Ray &. Cline.

(19ST. ES pp. 3.7520 Copyrighted by Orlando Ward.

rare)

Strategic Planzing tor Coalition Warfare, by Maurice Matlofl and Edwin

Mishel (105% (54d pp 83.950. Copyrighted by Orlande Ward.

Global Logistics and Strategy. by Richard M. Leighton and Robert W.

The Army and Beonomic Mobilisation, bw Re Elberton Smith, «E958.

THO pp. 85.25). Copyrighted by Richard W. Stephens.

Guadaleanal. The First Offensive. by John Miller Fr (Lode, i143 pp.

Sho). Copyrighted by Orlande Ward.

Cras.thannel Attack, by Gordon A. Uarrison, (L951, O19 pp. 86.008.

Copyrighted by Orlando Ward.

The Persian Corridor and Aid vo Russia, by V. U. Vail Motter. ¢ 1992.

S45 pp. S001. Copyrahted by Orlando Ward.

Sullwell’s Mission to China, by Chartes Fb. Romanus and Riley Sunder-

land. (1953, FED pp. 35.500. Copyrighted by Orlande Ward.

Silluell’s Command Problems, by Charles Fo Romanus and Riley Sun-

The Siena Corp.. by Dulany Perrett. +1956. 383 pp. 35.908. Copy.

The Transportation Corps Kesporstbiities Oreanication, and Opera-

tions. by Chester Wardlaw, (1951, 454 pp. 83.79). Copyrighted

hy Orlando Ward.

Three Batties, Arnacille. fitucce. and Schmidt, by Charles Bo Mae-

Donald and Sidney T. Wathews. (1952. 445 pp.. $4.50). Copy-

righted by Orlando Ward.

Lite Women’s Army Corps. bs Mattie bo Treadwell, (195d. GOEL pp.

$6.25). Copyrighted by Orlando Wad

lhe (Juartermastes Corps Oreanication, Suppiy, and Service. Nol. O,

by Erna Riseb. 1OS5, HIG pp. 84.755. Copyrighted by Orlando

Ward.

Command Decisions. Rent Roberts Greenheld. editor, Listed as an

ofheial work in “Publications of the Ofhee. Chief of Military History,

Derartinent of the Nerney Copyrighted by Hareourt, Brace and

I 1959.) Mir. Greenfield was Chief Arey Historian te [U59.

Appendix G

PUBLICATIONS OF U.S. NASAL INSTITUTE

Hou to Survive on Land and Sea, by Ofhee of Chief of Naval Opera:

tions, LoS. Navy. (Copyrighted 1943 and 1951 by the ULS. ‘aval

Institute. G66 pp. Sh.007,

fir Operations in Naval Warjare, edited by Commander Walter €.

Blattmann, USN. (1957. 192 pp. $2.00,

The Bluejacket’s Manual, U.S. Navy, by Captain J. Vo Noel, Jr. USN.

(Fifteenth edition, L957: reprinted 1959, 643 pp.. $1.95).

The Coast Guardsman’s Manual, by Captain W. C. Hogan, USCG. (Re-

vised by Lieutenant Commander M. M. Dickinson, USCG. assisted

by Loran W. Behrens. BMC, USN-FR.) (Third edition. 1958, 830

pp. SOO),

Division Officer's Guide, by Captain J. V. Noel. Jr. (Fourth edition.

1959, 304 pp. $2.25),

Elementary Seamanship, prepared by Lieutenant Commander Maurice

C. Hartle, USN. Lieutenant Charles Mo Lake, USN, Lieutenant Harry

P. Maders. USN, and J. J. Metzger. BMC. USN. (1958, 92 pp..

S200),

Elements of Applied Thermodynamics, by Captain W. A. Brockett, USN

and KR. M. Johnston, and A. BE. Bock. (Third revised edition, 1958.

196 pop. 35.00), .

Fundamentals of Construction and Stability of Naval Ships, by Thomas

(. Gilmer, Us. Naval Academy. (Second edition, 1959, 370° pp..

35.50),

International Lew for Naval Officers. ly Commander €. C. Soule. USN

and Lieutenant Commander C. MeCauley, USN. (Revised by Lieu-

tenant Commander C. J. Bright. USN. 245 pp.. $2.00),

International Law jor Seagoing Officers, by Commander Burdick H.

brittin, USN. (1956, 256 pp.. $4.50).

Logarithmic and Trigonometric Tables, by the Department of Mathe-

matics, Us. Naval Neademy. (Reprinted 1959, 93 pp., $1.65).

Vilitary Lan. compiled by Captain J. K. Taussig. Jr. USN and Com-

mander HB. Sweitzer, ESN. (Revised by Commander M. E. Wolfe.

USN. and Lieutenant Commander R. 1. Calick, USN, Reprinted 1959,

WP pp. S208,

Naval Leadership, prepared at the US. Naval Academy for instruction

of midshipmen. (1049. 324 pp. 83.004,

Naval Shiphandling, by Commander R. 8. Crenshaw, Jr. USN. aided

by officers of the Navy. Coast Cuard. Merchant Marine an’ Pilot

Servier, (1955. 390 pp. S4.50).

7 .

Appendix H

AIR FORCE COPYRIGHTING PRACTICE

THE ARMY

AIR FORCES

WORLD WAR Il

The Historical Division of the Army Air

Forces has assembled in seven volumes

the record of the AAF in World War II.

It has won world-wide acclaim as the

definitive history of American air strategy

and operations during the war years.

With the publication of this seventh and

final volume, Services around the World,

this monumental project is now complete.

Volumes in this sertes are:

I. PLANS AND EARLY OPERATIONS

‘January 1939 to August 1942)

Il. FUROPE: TORCH TO POINT-

BLANK (August 1942 to December

1943)

If. EUROPE: ARGUMENT TO V-E

DAY (January 1944 to May 1945)

IV. THE PACIFIC: GUADALCANAL

TO SAIPAN (August 1942 to July

1944)

V. THE PACIFIC: MATTERHORN

TO NAGASAKI (June 1944 to August

1945)

VI. MEN AND PLANES

VII. SERVICES AROUND THE WORLD

(Reproduction of authorized announcement. )

Appendix I

COPYRIGHTING PRACTICE IN ATOMIC ENERGY

‘By HENRY DeWOLF SMYTH

CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

GOMBULTANT, MANHATTAN DISTRICT, U.S. ENCINEERS

Written at the request of

May. Gen. L. R. Groves, usa.

PRINCETON

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

1946

—-s <—sSow or

Appendix J

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION'S

COPYRIGHTING PRACTICES

PRINCIPLES OF NUCLEAR REACTOR ENGINEERING

RADIATION PROTECTION

® Radiation Hazards and Health Physics: Biological Effects of Radiation, Radia-

tion Dose Units, Standards of Biological Protection; Protection of Personnel,

Radioactive Waste Disposal; Problems.

SHIELDING OF NUCLEAR REACTOR SYSTEMS

& Reactor Shielding Problems; Shielding Geometry; Shielding of Gamma-Ray

Sources; Design of Reactor Shields; Appendix, Problems.

THERMAL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR REACTOR SYSTEMS

> Thermal Problems in Reactor Design; Design of Cooling System; Heat Sources

in Reactor Systems; Heat Transmission by Conduction and Convection, Heat

Transmission in Systems with Internal Sources; Temperature Distribution Along

Path of Reactor Coolant; Heat Transfer Properties of Fluids; Comparison of Heat-

Transfer Properties of Coolants; Pressure Drops and Pumping Power in Coolant

Systems; Heat Transfer to Boiling Liquid; Thermal Stresses in Reactor Com-

ponents; Problems.

NUCLEAR REACTOR DESIGN VARIABLES

& Main Aspects of Reactor Design; Reactor Experiments; Research Reactors;

Production Reactors or Converters; Power Reactors; The Nuclear System; Re-

actor Components; The Heat-Removal System; Preliminary Design Calculations,

Economic Aspects of Nuclear Power, Problems.

DESCRIPTIONS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

& Introduction.

TABLES

INDEX

THE FIRST CO/APLETE REACTOR ENGINEERING R' ‘RENCE BOOK

offered by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission — contains many

fully worked examples to illustrate the application of equations and

formulas derived in the book — a substantial number of problems

allow you to test your understanding — useful conversion factors

and the physical properties of many materials required in reactor

construction are contained in the Appendix.

EXAMINE THIS BOOK FREE!

TAKE ADVANTAGE of this opportunity to see for vourself how this book can help

you in your projessional activities, what impact nuclear energy will have for you

in the future. Mail the No-Risk Order Form now and we will be glad to send you

a copy of this book on approval jor ten days’ examination — there is no more’

important book today that will have such a bearing on your career and livelihood

as this broad reference.

870 Pag.s Cloth 6x9 Mlustrated $7.95

D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY, INC.

‘ Screntific Publishers Since 1848

250 FOURTH AVENUE ~ NEW YORK 3, N. Y.

Appendix K

CONGRESSIONAL COPYRIGHTING PRACTICES

85th Congress

oo Grae aad COMMITTEE ?KINT

‘

SPACE HANDBOOK:

__ ASTRONAUTICS. AND ITS APPLICATIONS —

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.