Establishing secure connection… Loading editor… Preparing document…
Navigation

Fill and Sign the Donation Receipt Forms Nycgov Nyc

Fill and Sign the Donation Receipt Forms Nycgov Nyc

How it works

Open the document and fill out all its fields.
Apply your legally-binding eSignature.
Save and invite other recipients to sign it.

Rate template

4.8
57 votes
A N N U A L R E P O R T OF T H E L I B R A R I A N OF C O N G R E S S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 1996 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON 1997 C o r n G H T ISSUES Sevclal bills were introduced during the 104th Congress providing for major changes in the copyright statute. One iegidative measure, H.R 989, S. 483, would have added twenty years to the basic copyright term. In testimonies before the House and Senate Committees during fiscal 1995, the Register of Copyrights proposed a limited exemption during this additional period for certain nonprofit educational activities sponsored by the Library of Congress. Similarly, library and educational groups proposed expanding this exemption to allow noncommercial use of capyighted works duiing the last twenty years of the copyright term. The Register was asked to faciliate an agreement between copyright owners and libraries and educational institutions that could be added to the bill. The Copyright OfIice hosted a series of meetings between December 1995 and May 1996 to negotiate a limited exemption. The parties, however, could not agree on specific language. As a result, the Register of Copyrights forwarded independent proposals to the House and SenateJudicky Committees. In the end, neither a House nor a Senate version of an extension measwe was passed owing, in part, to linkage of the legislation to issues regarding music licensing. Major copyright legislation, affecting both copyright owners and users,was introduced in both the House (H.R 2441) and Senate (S. 1284) with the intention of adapting the copyright law to the digital, networked environment The Register testified at ajoint Senate/House hearing on the legislation in November 1995. The 104thCongress adjourned without enacting either bill. At the request of the Copyright Office, H.R 1861was introduced by Representative Carlos Moorhead (RGalif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, on June 15,1995; the proposed bii made a number of technical corrections to the copyright law, and included a provision on the Copyright m c e ' s authority to raise its fees. The bill, as passed by a voice vote in the House on June 4,1996, would allow the o t k e to r a k its SKS up to tidl cost recovery, subject to congressionalveto. However,the Senate failed to act on the bill before adjournment Several bills were introduced to restructure the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (FTO) as a government corporation. These bills would give the p m posed U.S. Intellectual Property Organization a copyright policy function, thereby eroding the Copyright Office's historical policy-making role. One such bill, the Omnibus Patent Act of 1996 (S. 1961),would have removed the Copyright Oace from the Libmy. The Librarian and the Register strongly opposed this bill in statements to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Register testified to that effect on September 16,1996. During a SenateJudiciary Committee hearing held that day, Chairman Onin G. Hatch (R-Utah) indicated that copyright provisions would not be included in any VTO legislation passed during the 104th Congress.At the end of the 104th Congress, no restructuring legidation had been enacted. The Copyright Office faced many challenges during fiscal 1996, including a proposed Senate bill which would have transferred the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress (see also The Library and the Congress). During the year, the Copyright Office undertook a major regulatory initiative involving registration of photographs, successfully defended several law suits, registered and recorded documents concerning old works restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), and oversaw the efforts of the first Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), which handled more than $550 million in cable royalties covering the years 1-92. The office delivered to Congress on March 1,1996 a major report regarding the impact of the waiver of moral rights provisions in the =sual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). During fiscal 1996, the office received more than 620,000 claims representing over 700,000 works. Some 550,000 claims were registered and more than 16,600 documents, containing over 100,000titles, were recorded. Receipts from licensing fees totaled $187,455,015. The number of requests from the public for information increased to 432,397. On November 16,1995, the Copyright Acquisitions Division, which had been transferred to Collections Senices in 1990, was returned to the Copyright Office. This division administered section 407 of the law, the mandatory deposit provisions, and monitored publishers's deposits and issued demands as necessary. COPYRIGHTOFFICEELECI'RONIC REGISTRATION, RECORDATION,AND DEPOSIT SYSTEM (CORDS) Development continued on the Copyright M c e Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System (CORDS), which permits electronic regisbation and deposit via the Internet. The Corporation for National Research Initiativn (CNRI), working with the Copyright Office and the Library's Information Technology Services (m), ran a live test at Carnegie Mellon University on February 27,19!36. Four applk cations and accompanying copyright works (unpublished computer science technical reports) were successllly transmitted over the internet and processed by the Copyright Office: certificateswere issued to the copyright hold em.Additional development work was done on CORDS prior to full production delivery late in September. Meanwhile, the office, through its own home page, continued to use the Internet and other new technologies to disseminate public information and to provide electronic access to the ofEce's registration and recordation databases. Application forms, regulations and new procedures were all made available through the Internet A new senice called faxandemand was introduced. INTERNATIONALAcxwrrm On October 1,1995, the newly appointed associate register for pdicy and international affairsjoined the staff. During fiscal 1996,she wasjoined by two policy planning advisers and an attorney adviser. As a result, the Copright m c e substantially increased its support to the United Stares Trade Representative in negotiating and monitoring bilateral and multilateral intellectual property agreements with other countries. During the year, the Copyright Officesponsored two International Copyright Institute programs. The first, for eight former Soviet republics, was cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization onjune 24-26. The program was held in both Washington and Geneva. The second program was the Commissioner of the National Copyright Administration of China and top staff and included meetings in Washington and New York City on 27 and 28. Copyright Office was active as a technical adviser to the Clinton Adminib on in all of the preparatory work for the Workl Intellectual Property tion (WIPO) Committee of Experts meetings. The meetings were on three possible new treaties-one which would update the Beme Conon, one which would provide increased protection for performers and ucers of sound recordings, and one which would provide intellectual property protection to databases that do not meet the originality test required by copyright law. The office served as the primary source of U.S. expertise in the World Trade Organization review in Geneva of the copyright laws of all developed countries, as well as on 301 (Omnibus Trade and CompetitivenessAct of 1988). The office met with more than one hundred foreign visitors from developing countries to provide a greater understanding of U.S. copyright law. Members of governmental and private sector delegations included Chinese officials responsible for copyright enforcement,judges from Thailand, government officials from the Middle East, and publishers from Egypt and Hungary. The office worked extensively with the U.S. Trade Representative's Office on reviewing other countries' copyright laws for a special 301 review to determine whether trade sanctions were appropriate. It continued to help foreign coum mes revise their copyright laws to be compatible with the Agreement on Tladc. Related Aspects of Intellectual Property and the Berne Convention. An office attorney served on the U.S. delegation to the first meeting of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)Working Group. The group is responsible for identifying and making recommendations on rra'de-related measures involving intellectual property rights, and for making specific recornmendations on the FTAA. With respect to implementation of the Uruguay Round AgreementsAct, the office started receiving both notices of intent to enforce restored copyrights and applications representing claims to copyright in such works. DOMESTIC A- Following the 125th anniversary of the Copyright Office's placement in the Library of Congress, Senator Onin G. Hatch introduced legislation that would move the Copyright Office out of the Library and into a new government corpolation called the U.S. Intellectual Property Organization. The bill, S. 1961, introduced on July 16,1996, would have joined the Copyright Office with thr Patent and Trademark Office in a corporation associated with the Departme111 of Commerce. On September 18,1996, the Register testified against S. 1961 before the Senate Committee on thejudiciary. The Librarian submitted a statement expressing concern about the proposal's &ect on the Library of Congress, especially the Library's ability to meet its acquisition ne+ through the regis tration and deposit mechanisms of the present copyright law. He Mid: 'The strength of the Libmy of Congress and its ability to serve the Congress and the nation depend on the presence of the Copyright Offlce in this institution. The effective administration and protection of our copyright laws depend on the retention of both copyright practices and policy within the Copyright OEice, within the Library of Congress, and within the legislative branch." The Register cautioned against abandoning the existing structure in favor of one that was untested and inherently flawed. She stated that her office was unaware of any request for change from any segment of the copyright community. Moreover, the Register expressed concern about the potential impact on copy right fees and the resulting damage that would be done to the existing system of registration and deposit. A substantial fee increase would render the benefits of registration unavailable to many authors and proprietors, and would result in a diminished public database of information about copyrighted works. The bill would also deprive Congress of the nonpartisan advice of the Copyright Office, whose views as part of the proposed new corporation would be driven by executive branch politics andeconomic concerns. The copyright provisions were removed !?om the bill, which died in the 104th Congress. On March 1,1996, the Register delivered a report to Congress based on the results of a five-yearstudy to assess the impact of the waiver of moral rights provisions in the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). The act grants the moral rights of attribution and integrity to authors of certain "works of visual art" as defined in the Copyright Act The authors of these works of fine art and exhibition photography have the right to claim or disclaim authorship and, in Rome cases, to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification of a work. The office studied the effect of an artist's ability under VARA to waive his or her moral rights in a signed, written agreement specifying the work and uses of h e work to which the waiver applies. The Register conduded that because VARA is in its infancy, because many artists are still unaware of moral righrs, and because federal courts haw offered little guidance on application of VARA to date, no legislative action is currently warranted to modify VARA. The Register also testified on several other important bills. On November 15, 1995, she supported the general approach of the NII legislation (the National Information Protection Act of 1995, S.1284 and H.R 2441) before a joint hearing of the Senate Committee on the judiciary and the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. The major provisions dealt with clarifying the law concerning transmissions of works over global networks and improving enforcement mechanisms by providing safeguards for the technology on which copyright owners will rely in disseminating works on the NII. The bill would have provided protection for technological solutions to copying and for protecting the integrity of information provided to facilitate identi fication and licensing of copyrighted works (that is, copyright management information).Although supporting the concept of outlawing devices or services that defeat copyright protection systems and promoting the integrity of copyright management information, the Register raised both drafting issues and concerns about the scope of the conduct deemed unlawful. The bills resulted in controvemy; much debate was centered on issues not addressed in the legislation. These included the applicability of "fair use." and specifically the legal status of what is known as "browsing," the status of the *first sale" doctrine when copies of works are distributed by transmission, and liability for on-line service providers and Internet access providers when infringing works are msmitted over their services. However, the bills died in the 104th Congress. ill addressing The Register also testified on November 9,1995, on a House b important copyright uhousekeeping"issues. H.R 1861, introduced by Chairman Carlos Moorhead of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, would have amended the Satellite Home =ewer Act of 1994 to correct a number of errors, clarified the royalty rates, restored the definitions of a jukebox and ajukebox operator to section 116, and clarified that jukebox negotiated licenses that require arbitration and rate proceedings under the public broadcasting compulsoly licenses are CARP proceedings. so addressed certain fee issues. It would have authorized the Copy ce, under section 708(b), to raise its fees in my year to cumulate the er Price Index from the last fee increase. The Register suggested that office also be allowed to invest fees from "deposit accounts" (prepaid fees t are not needed to meet current demands or services) in interesthearing ties in the United States Treasury, and to use any interest earned. g the November 9 hearing, a number of amendments were made to cluding many proposed by the Copyright OEice.They included: ) allowing the office to raise all fees up to 111 cost recovery, with Congress etaining veto power; (2) allowing the office to invest prepaid fees in interestbearing securities; (3) clarifying that distribution of phonorecords of music distributed before 1978 did not put the music in the public domain--in other words to restore the law to what it was before the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in La CtenegvlMusic Co. v. ZZ Tops,44e4.M 813 (9th Cu.) &. denied 64 U.S.L.W. 3262 (Oct 10,1995);(4) clarifying certain provisions i f the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, including the date foreign copyrights were restored and including US.copyright owners as reliance parties who are entitled to take advantage of the derivativeworks provisions, and (5) amending section 117 to ensure that independent sexvice organizations do not inadvertently become liable for copyright infringement merely because they have turned on a machine in order to service its hardware components. The bill passed the House inJune and was referred to the.SenateJudiciary Committee in July. However, no further action was taken during the 104th Congress. 37 Februay Copyright Office meiver first digital coWright application and deposit (from CamegicMellon University) using Copyright Office Elecmnic Regismtion, Recordation, and I k G t System (CORDS). 1 March Register of CopyrigQtsMarybeth Peters delivers a report to Congress on a five-year study of impact of provisions of V i s d Artists Rights Act of 1990 that allows waiver of moral rights by certain types of artists. 14. C O r Y R l G I f r R E C ~ T I O N S (number of rqkwiorn by subject mttm, fhul1996) Nondmatic literary works Monographs and computer-rrlated works 139,248 47,967 74,455 2,509 6,472 - 222,684 47,967 Works of the performing a m ,including musical works, dramatic works, choreography and pantomimes, and motion pichlres and filmships 46,892 86,738 Works of the visual arts. including hve dimensional works of fine and graphic art, sculpttual works, technical drawings and models, photographs. cartographic works, commercial prints and labels, and works of the applied arts 65,109 26,531 R e n d - - Mask work registrations GRAND TOTAL, all registrations - - - - Documents recorded - - Serials Serials (non-group) Group daily newspapen Group serials TOTAL, literary work Sound recordings TOTAL 15. COPYRIGHT BUSINESS SUMMARY (fm~ e i v dfiscal , 1996) Applications for registration Fees for ma& works Renewals TOTAL Fees for recordation of documents Fees for certifications Fees for searches Fees for expedited semces Fees for other semces TOTAL GRAND TOTAL

Useful suggestions for completing your ‘Donation Receipt Forms Nycgov Nyc’ online

Are you fed up with the inconvenience of handling paperwork? Look no further than airSlate SignNow, the premier electronic signature solution for individuals and organizations. Bid farewell to the lengthy process of printing and scanning documents. With airSlate SignNow, you can effortlessly finalize and authenticate paperwork online. Utilize the extensive features incorporated into this user-friendly and cost-effective platform and transform your method of document management. Whether you need to approve documents or gather eSignatures, airSlate SignNow manages it all seamlessly, with only a few clicks.

Adhere to this comprehensive guide:

  1. Sign in to your account or register for a complimentary trial with our service.
  2. Click +Create to upload a document from your device, cloud storage, or our template collection.
  3. Open your ‘Donation Receipt Forms Nycgov Nyc’ in the editor.
  4. Click Me (Fill Out Now) to complete the form on your end.
  5. Add and allocate fillable fields for other participants (if needed).
  6. Proceed with the Send Invite settings to request eSignatures from others.
  7. Download, print your version, or convert it into a reusable template.

No need to worry if you require collaboration with your colleagues on your Donation Receipt Forms Nycgov Nyc or need to send it for notarization—our solution offers everything you need to achieve such objectives. Sign up with airSlate SignNow today and take your document management to a new level!

Here is a list of the most common customer questions. If you can’t find an answer to your question, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us.

Need help? Contact Support
Housing works donation form pdf
Housing works donation form online
Housing Works clothing donation
Housing Works furniture donation
Housing Works donations pick-up
Housing Works services
Housing works logo
Housing Works 301 West 37th Street
Sign up and try Donation receipt forms nycgov nyc
  • Close deals faster
  • Improve productivity
  • Delight customers
  • Increase revenue
  • Save time & money
  • Reduce payment cycles