House Lets Orphan Works Legislation Die; Tons Of Content Remains Locked Up
from the the-death-of-culture dept
We've discussed in the past the importance of orphan works legislation, which would make it possible for people to use content on which the copyright holder cannot be found. The amount of "orphan" content out there, that simply cannot be used, is staggering. An orphan works bill makes a tremendous amount of sense. Unfortunately, some content creators whipped up supporters into a frenzy, at times by lying about what the bill actually included, leading to a push to block the legislation. Those folks should be happy: while the Senate did pass the legislation, the House is letting it die, at least until after the election this November. There is no rational argument that I can see for not allowing this legislation to pass. The argument that this allows companies to "steal" the works of various artists is clearly untrue. The legislation requires a full search for the creator, and if the creator later turns up, they can get paid. This is necessary legislation to actually put tons of locked up content back to good use, and it's a shame that it was killed by the misleading complaints from folks who prefer to limit our cultural heritage by lying about what the bill would do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, orphan works
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Out of curiosity
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of curiosity
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR05889:@@@L&summ2=m&
Introduced in the House by: Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6]
Sponsored by:
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21]
It passed House and moved to Senate as S.2913.
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Senate Co-sponsorship by:
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
Orrin's involvement as Co-Sponsor is interesting to the say the least.
Have fun-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02913:@@@S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Out of curiosity
www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/7/30/the-ted-stevens-indictment-is-an-earthquake-in-alas ka-politics.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing against mike or techdirt of course, I just hate hearing this kind of stuff. I'm writing my congressman...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHAME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually the bill is S.2913
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110iFbaOT:e567:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
H.R.5889
Why was this quietly killed again?
SEC. 6. STUDY ON REMEDIES FOR SMALL COPYRIGHT CLAIMS.
(a) In General- The Register of Copyrights shall conduct a study with respect to remedies for copyright infringement claims by an individual copyright owner or a related group of copyright owners seeking small amounts of monetary relief, including consideration of alternative means of resolving disputes currently heard in the United States district courts. The study shall cover the infringement claims to which section 514 of title 17, United States Code, apply, and other infringement claims under such title 17.
(b) Procedures- The Register of Copyrights shall publish notice of the study required under subsection (a), providing a period during which interested persons may submit comments on the study, and an opportunity for interested persons to participate in public roundtables on the study. The Register shall hold any such public roundtables at such times as the Register considers appropriate.
(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the study conducted under this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.
SEC. 7. STUDY ON COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS.
(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study examining the function of the deposit requirement in the copyright registration system under section 408 of title 17, United States Code, including--
(1) the historical purpose of the deposit requirement;
(2) the degree to which deposits are made available to the public currently;
(3) the feasibility of making deposits, particularly visual arts deposits, electronically searchable by the public for the purpose of locating copyright owners; and
(4) the impact any change in the deposit requirement would have on the collection of the Library of Congress.
(b) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the study conducted under this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orrin Hatch co-sponsoring this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig isn't disappointed.
http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyright_policy_orphan_works.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Narrowing available content
They cannot have it both ways.
While you're on the horn with your representative, maybe you can also get them to vote down the Pro-IP act? All of these giveaways...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Bill Is Legalized Theft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scare campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orphan Works
`(ii) DILIGENT EFFORT- For purposes of clause (i), a diligent effort--
`(I) requires, at a minimum--
`(aa) a search of the records of the Copyright Office that are available to the public through the Internet and relevant to identifying and locating copyright owners, provided there is sufficient identifying information on which to construct a search;
`(bb) a search of reasonably available sources of copyright authorship and ownership information and, where appropriate, licensor information;
`(cc) use of appropriate technology tools, printed publications, and where reasonable, internal or external expert assistance; and
`(dd) use of appropriate databases, including databases that are available to the public through the Internet; and
and unless I am reading it wrong, in order for the owner of said work(s) to be able to protect his/her work, it needs to be registered so it can be put into a database that is searchable. If not, then say a photograph that has its exif data stripped could be used since the company conducted a "reasonable search" under the afore-mentioned guidelines. Thus forcing you to register all of your work that you want protected with the registars office at a cost of course.
If I am reading this wrong, then somebody can explain, exactely what a "reasonable seach" means under these guidelines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS, BS, BS. This is a commerce and civil matter, government bureaucracy and tax payer money keep out!
We should not be spending tax payer dollars to have some newly invented (and trained by whom?) investigative police to officially declare the impossible - that a copyright owner does not exist ... according to some bureaucrat's investigation?!? What would be the exhaustive search criteria? If the copyright holder is retired to a mountaintop in Africa and returns a day after the government officially declares them unfindable? Or is a return envelope with "return to sender, no forwarding address on file" enough to disenfranchise the owner of any intellectual property, registered or not? BS, BS, BS! That is a commerce and civil mater, and not of governmental and tax payer interest.
This silly legislation would have begged for yet another examination bureaucracy like the dysfunctional Patent Office, and like the Trademark Office, creating a new Copyright Office of examiners that reviews applications for copyright use and applications (from whom? at what price?) to declare intellectual property officially "orphaned".
BS, BS, BS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Too Bad.
Peter Monahon comments that this isn't a government issue, that anyone can use "orphaned" works right now. It's up to the copyright holders to sue if they're infringed. While technically, you can reuse any content, a publisher or content creator opens themselves up to potentially major damages by doing so, making the use of orphaned works unacceptably risky in most instances. That, and the prospect of a long string of lawsuits. That just enriches the lawyers.
This bill would have given content creators and publishers ample cover for using orphaned works. The process of "due diligence" in finding a copyright holder doesn't need to be onerous and even if a copyright holder appears after the fact, the payments would be modest (and non-profits would likely owe no payment at all).
Again, not perfect, but reasonable. Because we're talking about modifying laws to protect both content creators and copyright holders, it's definitely a government matter, not just a marketplace matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are benefits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]