of disintegration; they were printed on film stock with a nitrate base
that will inevitably decompose in time. The efforts of the Library of
Congress, the American Film Institute, and other organizations to rescue
and preserve this irreplaceable contribution to our cultural life are to
be applauded, and the making of duplicate copies for purposes of
archival preservation certanly falls within the scope of "fair use."

* * *

During the consideration of the revision bill in the 94th Congress it
was proposed that independent newsletters, as distinguished from house
organs and publicity or advertising publications, be given separate
treatment. It is argued that newsletters are particularly vulnerable to
mass photocopying, and that most newsletters have fairly modest
circulations. Whether the copying of portions of a newsletter is an act
of infringement or a fair use will necessarily turn on the facts of the
individual case. However, as a general principle, it seems clear that
the scope of the fair use doctrine should be considerably narrower in
the case of newsletters than in that of either mass-circulation
periodicals or scientific journals. The commercial nature of the user is
a significant factor in such cases: Copying by a profit-making user of
even a small portion of a newsletter may have a significant impact on
the commercial market for the work.

The Committee has examined the use of excerpts from copyrighted works in
the art work of calligraphers. The committee believes that a single copy
reproduction of an excerpt from a copyrighted work by a calligrapher for
a single client does not represent an infringement of copyright.
Likewise, a single reproduction of excerpts from a copyrighted work by a
student calligrapher or teacher in a learning situation would be a fair