(a) The informational materials required to be filed with the Attorney General under section 4(a) of the Act shall be filed with the Registration Unit no later than 48 hours after the beginning of the transmittal of the informational materials.
(b) Whenever informational materials have been filed pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act, an agent of a foreign principal shall not be required, in the event of further dissemination of the same materials, to forward additional copies thereof to the Registration Unit.
(c) Unless specifically directed to do so by the Assistant Attorney General, a registrant is not required to file a copy of a motion picture which he disseminates on behalf of his foreign principal, so long as he files monthly reports on its dissemination. In each such case this registrant shall submit to the Registration Unit either a film strip showing the label required by section 4(b) of the Act or an affidavit certifying that the required label has been made a part of the film.
[Order No. 376-67, 32 FR 6362, Apr. 22, 1967, as amended by Order No. 523-73, 38 FR 18235, July 9, 1973; Order No. 568-74, 39 FR 18646, May 29, 1974; Order No. 2674-2003, 68 FR 33631, June 5, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1983–1987 · leading case:
Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987).
Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987).
“" 28 CFR § 5.400 (c) (1986). Dissemination reports require a description of the propaganda material, the number of copies transmitted, the dates and means of transmission, and the number of each type of recipient: libraries, public officials, newspapers, etc.”
Keene v. Smith, 569 F. Supp. 1513 (E.D. Cal. 1983).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 5.400 (c). VII From the materials submitted to the Court, the Court infers that the National Film Board of Canada does not routinely affix the § 4 label to all of the films that it distributes in the United States.”
Keene v. Meese, 619 F. Supp. 1111 (E.D. Cal. 1985).
“” See 28 C.F.R. § 5.400 (c). Shortly thereafter, the Registration Unit agreed to review its determination and to refrain from imposing the labelling requirement pending the review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.