Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
from the same-old-same-old dept
The UK's new orphan works legislation allows works to be classed as orphans only after a "diligent search" has been conducted to find the owner. The fear expressed by some is that this "diligent" search won't be very diligent, allowing publishers to use materials that aren't orphans. That's actually wrong for a number of reasons, as Techdirt explained recently, but the continuing furor from photographers in particular has been such that the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) felt compelled to issue a document entitled "The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you" (pdf) explaining how the system would work, and why the fears were unjustified.
However, that document still does not answer the central question of what "diligent" will mean. A post on Out-Law.com provides some information about how this will be addressed:
"The 'diligent search' requirement will be defined through a working group so that it can reflect current best practice across all sectors," a spokesperson for the IPO told Out-Law.com. "This will make sure that any requirements are practical and manageable. The working group will include representation from creators, including the photography sectors, and users such as museums and archives."
Reading that made me wonder who exactly was on this working group, so I contacted the IPO's press office asking for details. Here's the list of organizations they kindly sent me:
Society of London Theatre and Theatrical Management Association
There are two things that struck me about that list. One is the appearance of Stop 43, probably the most vociferous of the photographer groups that have been complaining about the new orphan works law. Let's hope that its presence here, and thus its ability to contribute to the definition of "diligent", means that it drops the rhetoric about how the UK government has "reversed the normal workings of copyright," when that's simply not the case.
BBC Publishers Content Forum
JISC
National Museum Directors' Council (NMDC)
Copyright Licensing Agency
Musicians' Union
Creators Rights Alliance
British Association of Picture Libraries & Archives
British Equity Collecting Society
Focal
Authors Licensing & Collecting Society
The National Archives
Stop 43
Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance
The Association of Photographers
British Screen Advisory Council
Publishers Licensing Society
The Association of Illustrators
Society of Authors
Directors UK
Producers Alliance for Cinema & Television
UK Music
Association of Authors Agents
The other thing is that in contrast to the two groups representing photographers, there is not a single advocate for the somewhat more populous general public. Of course, that's absolutely par for the course: the public is routinely overlooked whenever it comes to asking "stakeholders" what they think about proposed changes to copyright. The UK's welcome move to liberate hostage works at last would have been the perfect opportunity to break yet more new ground by engaging directly with groups representing the 60 million people whose views are never properly considered. Sadly, that seems not to be happening.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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, diligent search, orphan works, photographers, public, public interest, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But you forget, sir...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you forget, sir...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you forget, sir...
UK 2010 general election: 65% voter turnout, Conservative vote: 36%, LibDem vote: 23%
Unless my maths is faulty, that means that only around 39% of the population voted for anyone in government at all and even if you make the staggeringly false mental leap as to assume that a vote means you are "represented" and agree with what is done in your name, only a maximum of 24% of "the public" are actually "represented" on any given issue.
Me, I think calling that "representing the public" is stretching reality more than perhaps a little... but then that's what politicians do best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you forget, sir...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you forget, sir...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you forget, sir...
And you forget , sir that your argument has been made before on this forum and roundly debunked on amny occasions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But you forget, sir...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can walk outside and yell hey creator of whatever have you orphaned your project? If they do not respond I can steal their work.
I just have two questions, does it matter that I live in the country? Also how loud do I need to yell for it to be considered a diligent attempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the creator puts his or her details up online with the photo there is no excuse not to contact and ask him or her. A Google Image search will quickly help to find who the image was originally posted or created by, so there's no excuse that you can't find the creator UNLESS he or she has not put his or her details up anywhere.
That said, there are plenty of Creative Commons/licence-free images available and I usually use those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You forget that - in this proposed law- you still have to PAY for the work so that if the rightsholder turns up later they will get the money.
This is only concerned with preventing the copyright system from blocking the creation of derivative works by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using a screwdriver to bang in a nail
The big publishers will make sure they can grab as much orphan works as possible, whilst diligently protecting their own (remixed from orphan) works - it's like putting the fox in charge of the chickens!
A better way of doing this would have been to have an open registry where anyone who finds an orphan work and wants to use it must register publicly and it should be available for, say 30 days, for someone to claim ownership. That way any member of the public can be involved.
There should also be a requirement for all publishers to provide a source (author/orphan), by law, on any work they use - which I gather is the main fear for photographers.
Ultimately, though, it would be easier if we just go back to registration for copyrights. In a world where millions of photos exist of the Eiffel Tower, how could anyone claim (prove) their copyright on a specific photo (unless they put something unique in it).
Technology has provided the means for making your work very easy to replicate, but it has also taken an audience that was once local and made it global. It has also made your work very easy to produce in the first place.
In the 1983 you had to pay upfront expense for a gallery, rely on advertising and local word of mouth; maybe have 1 or 2 people forge your work and 10,000 people may buy it.
In 2013 you zero costs for a gallery, can be seen worldwide, and 1 or 2 million people may copy your work but 100,000 people may buy it - there is no loss, just increase in piracy from people who would never have seen or bought anyway.
Should copyright even exist on things that can be created, copied and distributed worldwide within minutes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using a screwdriver to bang in a nail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a thought:
Make copyright NOT automatic. Make people register their copyright, if they so wish.
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True, if you don't read the first line of the document !!!
"The 'diligent search' requirement will be defined through a working group so that it can reflect current best practice across all sectors,"
So "diligent" will be what is defined though a working group.
Seems pretty clear to me.. to Masnick not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, that is useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, you can't even correctly identify the author he's attacking, so no surprise that you're unable to understand the actual problem being discussed. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's about time you learnt what a 'stakeholder' is
General public are consumers, stakeholders are stakeholders, in that they have a stake in the holding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's about time you learnt what a 'stakeholder' is
(noun)
1. A person or group owning a significant percentage of a company's shares
2. A person or group not owning shares in an enterprise but affected by or having an interest in its operations, such as the employees, customers, local community, etc
Yup, looks like you're right, the public couldn't possible have any interest in proceedings like this, as they aren't stakeholders. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's about time you learnt what a 'stakeholder' is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking
How about instead we have them do a door to door tour, making sure they consult with all of the public. You know, each and every one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
BTW: I'm taking your orphan horse, if you have a problem with that then unless you're a member of the "working group", tough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocking
Can you tell me again how much copyright material the EFF produces, or how many artists it has working in their system, or how many billions of dollars they have sold under the copyright system? Oh yeah, none.
EFF would be useless at the table, and they would likely work like jury nullification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
Well, I think they tend to put their content in very loose copyright terms (creative commons or public domain) but you have to be very dishonest to ignore all the articles, papers, videos (the mean-spirited pie being just published here in TD) and many other examples. You don`t know the EFF much do you? Also, refrain from using the term copyright material. Copyright is not needed for creativity to work.
EFF would be useless at the table, and they would likely work like jury nullification.
Yeah, right. Why not let the big chemical companies have their say in environmental issues then? After all they know what they are doing right, unlike environmental protection groups, right? Surely you don`t mind some mercury running through your veins... See how absurd your assumption is? I think you don`t but others will see it ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
Oh you mean like the "stakeholders" such as the RIAA, MPAA, collection societies, lobbyists, and bought-and-paid-for politicians? After all, they are such large producers of copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
Did you have as much difficulty maintaining a straight face when you wrote this as I had when reading it?
Politicians and those they appoint are definitely not representing the public. They are representing their donors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
So, according to you, rightsholders and the people that run their organisations like MAFIAA etc don't have a vote. LAst time I looked they still did so I conclude that they are also represented by the politicians and so shouldn't get another voice around the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(My answer: Not as far as I can tell.)
I'm less sure where The National Archives and the National Museum Directors' Council fall on that spectrum, but speaking as a librarian, I'd usually consider those allied professions and assume a similar pro-public-access-to-information ethic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tory way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Tory way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These people are obliged to pay taxes but they don't contribute financially with an extra to the pockets of the politicians so why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the copyright holder didn;t renew the work was made free and open for all to archive, derive from and distribute
Sadly the maximists broke the system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]