University Of Michigan Library Kicks Off Project To Identify All The Orphan Works In Its Collection
from the how-big-is-the-problem? dept
For years, we've seen attempts to create "orphan works" legislation to deal with a much bigger problem caused by the Copyright Act of 1976. Prior to that, when copyright required registration formalities, it was relatively easy to determine if something was covered by copyright and who likely controlled that copyright. After the 1976 Act went into effect, suddenly you had all sorts of works that were probably covered by copyright, but it wasn't always clear who had the copyright, and thus there was no real way to contact them. Many people concerned about this -- including many in the Copyright Office, who usually come down on the side of always ratcheting copyright up, rather than finding exceptions -- started pushing for an orphan works law, that would let people make use of works if they really couldn't find the original owner. Tragically, the photographer community spread a ton of misinformation about the orphan works proposals and scuttled the whole thing.Of course, there is the flipside to the argument, which is that if we made such a huge mess thanks to the 1976 Act, perhaps we should look at rolling back that Act, or at least rolling back the "automatic copyright" provisions. But, of course, our copyright masters never see the point in admitting they might have gotten something wrong. So, the best interim issue is an orphan works law. Of course, to get that actually through, one of the big questions is how big of an impact do orphan works really have. Along those lines, the University of Michigan Library is kicking off a new project to identify all the orphan works it has in its collection, which sounds like it could take quite some time. However, it would be nice to see some data on just how many works today are technically under copyright, but whose copyright holder is unknown or can't be found. Having some actual data might help shift the debate forward, rather than trekking over the same myths yet again.
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, library, orphan works, university of michigan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
95+ year copy protection lengths exist for perfectly legitimate reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I somewhat agree with the photographer community
I like the idea on the surface but I can see the orphan works act being abused just like the copyright act. You come across a photo, remove the EXIF info and then claim you can't find the owner so it must be orphaned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I somewhat agree with the photographer community
Okay next problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I somewhat agree with the photographer community
The debate is kind of silly because most photographers (who sell images for a living) these days actually *do* register their photos with the Copyright Office (it's trivially easy to upload hundreds of photos through their web site). Now whether the CO will actually find your image if someone comes asking them about it is another story - I don't know how good they are at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I somewhat agree with the photographer community
The technology exists, it's just a question of whether or not the Copyright Office uses it.
* And I'm in no way affiliated them. I could probably have dug up a paper on Arxiv detailing a similar algo, but I'm frankly too tired and this way you can verify it does what it says on the tin without reimplementing it from a paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I somewhat agree with the photographer community
The technology exists, it's just a question of whether or not the Copyright Office uses it.
* And I'm in no way affiliated them. I could probably have dug up a paper on Arxiv detailing a similar algo, but I'm frankly too tired and this way you can verify it does what it says on the tin without reimplementing it from a paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]