An Orphan Works bill recently passed in the Senate. You can read a related article here. This bill would allow orphan works, works whose author or creator cannot be identified for copyright permissions, to be used, even though they are still protected under copyright. Those who wish to use the orphan works must first attempt to locate the copyright owner for permission.
This seems to be a great way for libraries to be able to digitize orphan works so that they are available to more people. It also makes it easier to archive and restore works that are currently restricted by copyright and deteriorating, waiting for the copyright to expire because the original creator cannot be located or is unknown.
One section of the bill that I think needs some clarification is the caveat requiring users to make a reasonable effort to find the copyright owner. What constitutes a reasonable effort? Who decides when enough searching has been done? How is the search to be documented? Since the copyright owner is able to make a claim to the work at a later date, it is important to know exactly what the requirements of the search are. It is also important to iron out the meaning of “negotiating in good faith for a reasonable compensation,” which is done when copyright holders identify themselves.
As the article states, libraries and other non-profit users would not be required to compensate copyright holders for use of their works. This could be an important issue for libraries, however, if the bill is stalled in the House because of unanswered questions about compensation. Satisfactorily allaying fears and answering questions will be the key to getting the bill to pass through the House, as it did through the Senate.
The Orphan Works bill seems like a fair way to get orphan works back into the mainstream and allow copyright holders to receive compensation when they identify themselves. As long as the reasonable effort for searching for copyright holders is clearly defined and not abused, this bill seems to protect them as well.
For some information on the opposing viewpoint, see the end of this Library Journal article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My father has an old studio portrait of his grandfather taken sometime in the 1940’s. He took it to Walmart to make a copy for me and several of our relatives since photographs of my great-grandfather are so rare. They refused to do so because the photograph was copyrighted by the photography studio. Since the studio was a local one in Flint my father had a memory of it and recalled that it had went out of business sometime in the early 1960’s. Being one to never bow to outrage my father made himself a criminal by eventually getting the copies.
I think this bill goes a long way to fixing this type of problem that I am sure many people have experienced. War-time letters, personal photographs of historical events, and diaries are examples of potential treasures of historical record that stand to be lost because potential caretakers of these artifacts are impeded in their efforts by copyright laws.
The Orphan Works bill is not without its critics. The president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, Ted Rall, claims the bill does nothing short of legalizing theft. He offers an analogy on his blog of a shopkeeper noticing someone stealing merchandise. She calls the police, who arrest the man. They make him pay for the merchandise, let him keep it, and then let him go. He acknowledges the bill means well but believes the term “good faith search” for the author is to ambiguous and leaves it open for all manner of thieves to move in and steal property. Rall offers an example of a publisher of a textbook using a political cartoon without permission. A typical cartoon would go for around $250 but, under existing copyright law, a publisher caught using one without permission must pay triple the amount, any lawyer fees, and a judge could order the books impounded. Rall claims that this protection is negated by the new bill because the defendant could claim that a “good faith search” was performed.
It is true that a “good faith search” is not minutely defined but a user of an orphaned work would be required to use public records from the Copyright Office and other appropriate sources. Also, the Register of Copyrights is required to create a list of recommended practices and to certify databases to assist in searches. Once completed, these measures would most certainly protect any attempts to steal non-orphaned work; including political cartoons.
A great deal of good may be done with the implementation of this bill by preserving artifacts that will someday decay beyond use. The potential threats to copyrighted material are inflated and will ultimately arrive at nothing while the rewards we reap through the preservation of artifacts will eventually enrich the lives of future generations.
I think that this is a great bill to pass because so much valuable information is being lost because of old copyrights that technically shouldn’t even be considered. However, I agree with you Susan when you suggest that the bill needs more clarification as to how and when a copyright should be discarded and what constitutes a piece of work as being considered an orphan. I’ll admit that I’m still not 100% on how exactly a copyright works, but can someone else lay claim to an old copyright if the owner is dead or missing? What I mean is, could a business partner, or even a relative, lay claim to any kind of compensation that the original creator is entitled? If this is possible, I think that the bill needs to discuss how that would be handled, especially based on the age of the work. I really hope that this bill is passed because, as Susan mentioned, it will open up so much more information to patrons. It’s such a shame that all of these documents are wasting away because of a copyright that was put into place so many years ago. I feel that if the owner is dead or missing, the copyright should be lifted and libraries should be able to use the work. Another question, what would happen if an owner identifies oneself, but only years after the work is considered available for public use? Is there a time limit for this? What is most important here is the fact that there will (hopefully) be a bill that will allow for artifacts to be publicly used that would have otherwise rotted beyond use. This will only result in furthering the goal of librarians which is to provide patrons with the most information and sources possible.
Copyright issues are still not very well defined, not only in the states but around the world. We may try as librarians to understand our country’s legislations concerning copyright issues and abide by the law. However, many people are not aware of copyright laws and legislations in their countries, especially when downloading from internet which has many anonymous authors.
In my opinion, libraries and non-profit organizations should have a separate copyright law, since they are not seeking profit. What is the difference between providing a book to the public in print or in a digital format? Although, libraries should be able to provide a digital copy of the book when it is needed (the print copy cannot be circulated ex: oversize) without copyright permission. Also, orphan works should be circulated and reproduced freely whenever the author and publisher are unknown or cannot be contacted.
Copyrights laws were found to protect the authors and give those credits and benefits for their works. However, it shouldn’t be a barrier for information dissemination and intellectual freedom. A law concerning copyright issues for libraries and non-profit organizations should be drafted in order to give libraries the right to promote intellectual freedom without harming the rights of authors.
Before this weeks reading I didn't realize how powerful copyright laws actually were. The idea that a copyright can last a lifetime plus a few decades is incredible to me. Once the inital creator has passed part of me feels that the information should be free to the public. I don't really think it is right for that persons surviving family, especially a generation or two down the line should still profit from his or her work. There is a difference between crediting one's work and profiting from one's work. The law should reflect that distinction.
So long as the original author could receive credit when/if found later (or never) this is great. So much information, photos, stories, etc. has probably been lost. I never could have imagined running into a copyright problem with an old photograph.
I’ve always wondered exactly how the royalties are paid out to books like Homer’s Odyssey, Aesop’s Fables, the Bible or Koran especially when the authors are unknown.
I think this bill may be a step in the right direction. I'm surprised at the fines levied against people in copyright cases. I wonder if this bill only covers documents, or if it could also extend to music files? We're all aware of music piracy, but there are many compositions out there that serve both a historical and entertaining purpose, and the composer is unavailable. How will this bill affect mp3s, if at all? Will users have to prove they're using them for research?
After this week's reading copyright laws and regulations seem even more unclear to me. Like someone mentioned before it blows my mind the kind of extensions that are placed on copyrights extending way past the death of the original author. Works that could be useful or expanded on or further researched if they didn't have such strict rules written all over them that are perpetually being 'protected' by these extension seems more like a hinderance to education than a help to the author (who is long deceased). But at that same time I can see the other side of the story as well. One of the articles mentioned Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse and how the copyright on him has been extended way past the original date, and how they can't see the right to that image ever not being renewed. For me, I also can't ever imagine that image not being credited toward Disney whether it was protected by law or not. This is a piece of information/imagery that is still a vital part of a company that is still very relevant in today's society and should be credited back to the person who invented it, dead or not.
With that being said, the bill concerning orphaned works is something that I can totally get behind, with some clarifications to the policy added. If there is someone out there who has authored or owns rights to a work, they are (in theory) actively sought out and credited, and also if found after the information has been dispersed they are credited as well. These orphaned works could be invaluable educational tools, and this act could provide the means for them to become that.
I’m actually strongly in favor of Copyright laws. I have absolutely no issue with the “Sonny Bono” renewal; in fact I hope that renewals for the creators and their families could be held indefinitely. However, I must admit my bias because my family and I are “some of the rare ones” mentioned in the readings this week that own Copyrights to certain works that provide income.
I have no experience in literary works, but I’m guessing that Copyright (and the process) is similar with all works. Copyright offers a great deal of needed protection to a creator/s. An Orphan Bill is a good idea; however, I feel that the companies who are the custodians of these orphaned works should be the ones who connect works to creator/s or their survivors, not the layperson. Companies should have records of whom they entered into agreements with; the works in their possession did not magically appear in the company’s vaults. Everyday the Internet provides a growing means of resources to locate proper Copyright holders. I do know that there must be more than a few instances of authors who have passed on and have no relatives. There must be something fair developed to address this issue. One idea is that proceeds from the sale of orphaned works could be placed into an “escrow” account (or perhaps in an endowment type fund) where monies could be distributed to causes related to the works created.
I had to chuckle a bit reading this week’s stuff regarding Copyright because the authors really tried to marginalize Copyright holders such as my family and I. While not a lot of money, it is money for something that was created and is our property; meager royalties from works should never be used as grounds for taking away Copyright. Perhaps the authors would like me to borrow their car for as long as I want while they pay the bill every month; I mean, it’s only a few hundred dollars a month they are out which is not really a lot of money, right?
Yes, Copyright is a real pain; however, for people who create works for a living, they need protection like this. “It” is a unique industry where logic and common sense have been thrown out the window long ago. Copyright has become more of a pain due to our friend “digital”. It is very important as information professionals that we recognize that we are witnessing the “fleshing out” process of Copyright due to digital technology. When Copyright was created, I do not believe digital was even in anyone’s wildest dreams.
I understand the frustration of the situation provided by Will. It just does not seem to make sense that someone else can “own” grandpa’s picture because … well, it’s Will’s grandpa and no one should be able to “own” grandpa. Unfortunately, places that offer services like Kinko’s has been sued so many times that the policy they must take is one of being “overly cautious”. It’s just a cost-effective business measure. Technology is changing at a rate that most people can facilitate their own duplication services in a “don’t ask, don’t tell” manner.
Another important thing to remember as information professionals is that we need to be active in shaping the 21st century application of Copyright. Just as the readings last week advocated the use of alternative distributors, information professions should be on the front lines fighting to protect the “small” creators of works from corporate goons.
This bill is heading in the right direction. However, the public access does concern me. I was on Flickr recently for the cataloguing course and we were to look at the Library of Congress Project. They have two albums of photos up and they have asked people to provide any more information they have regarding the photos and to add tags to better catalogue the items. Many of the tags that were provided were nonsensical and a lot of the comments were not helpful. This project is not exactly the same as the situations provided in the article, but after looking at it I felt that being accessible to the public wasn't necessarily helping. I agree with the post above me. I don’t think “orphaned works” should be left to the lay person.
However, I’m still kind of torn regarding the bill. I can sympathize with the creator, yet it seems like the bill does attempt to fix some of the more impractical aspects of copyright laws (like restoring old family photos).
Post a Comment