Strange: Vote Against Freeing Up Orphan Works Achieves 113% Turnout In EU Committee

from the are-they-sure? dept

One of the unresolved problems of copyright is how to deal with huge numbers of orphan works -- creations still in copyright, but whose owners can't be traced to give permissions that may be necessary for re-use. The European Parliament's JURI committee met recently to vote on a new report on possible permitted uses of orphan works, prepared by the Polish Member of the European Parliament, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg.

As Rick Falkvinge writes, things didn't go too well for those hoping to free up orphan works for modern use:

the copyright industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure with 14 votes against reform and 12 in favor of it, according to the just-published protocol.

End of story, you might think. But Geringer de Oedenberg noted something strange with the voting:

During the vote I was making precise notes as to the balance of votes in favour and against to my crucial amendments.

It came to me as a surprise that for my Compromise Amendments 20 check vote announced by the Chair was 14 to 12 which gives us 26 Members!

Considering that we only have 24 Members in Juri Committee and according to the protocol only 23 were present this result is confusing and calls for clarification.

Similar situation appears on Amendment 71 (Ms. Gallo and Mr. Borys) which pass with the result announced 13 to 12 what gives as 25 Members and my Amendment 32 which fall 13 to 11 -24 Members.

So the question has to be asked: did the copyright industry lobby really win, or was there some miscounting along the line? To avoid the impression of anything improper going on here, it's vital that those votes be taken again. After all, as Falkvinge points out:

The final kicker here is that the 113-per-cent voter turnout happened in the Legal Affairs committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in Europe.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: eu, orphan works, voting

Unfortunate: Novelist Joins Lawsuit Against Libraries; Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity

from the short-sighted dept

After the Authors Guild decided to prove that it's really against education by suing University Libraries, it also began a disappointing game of "gotcha". Specifically, the Guild found J.R. Salamanca, an author who the HathiTrust had been unable to find. The HathiTrust had listed a novel by Salamanca in its list of potential orphan works. The list actually worked as intended -- providing time for any such authors to identify themselves and to stop the orphaned work from becoming available as a scanned work.

Still, this made HathiTrust look bad, and it put the project on hold. The best response, though, was from Duke University's Scholarly Communications Officer, Kevin Smith, who wrote an open letter to Salamanca urging him not to join the lawsuit:

It is not a comfortable position to be a pawn in a game of “gotcha,” especially when it involves litigation. What I want to say to you is the same thing I say to faculty authors at the institution where I work: “Consider carefully where your own best interests lie, and manage your copyright to serve those interests.”

[....]

I am sure I do not have to tell you that libraries, including those that intend to participate in the Hathi Orphan Works project, are not your enemies. We are in the business of helping authors find readers, which hardly seems like it should be an objectionable activity. So let’s think for a minute about The Lost Country and what might be best for it and for you.

The sad fact is that The Lost Country has become a pretty obscure work. Amazon.com shows only two used copies available for sale. In the Duke Libraries, the last transaction record we have for your novel is in 2004, when our copy was sent to high-density storage. It has not left the facility once since then, and our system shows no circulations in the prior decade, either. One of the famous “laws” of librarianship is that every book should have its readers, and the current system, I am afraid, is failing to connect your book to new readers.

It has to be said that the Authors Guild is not going to help you in this regard. They are not going to publish a new edition of The Lost Country for you, nor will they pay you any royalties on the out-of-print edition. The Authors Guild simply does not have the ability to create a new market for your book. Even if they were to succeed in a grand strategy to impose a licensing scheme for orphan works in general, there is no reason to believe that you would profit from it. With such an obscure work, potential users who had to pay a fee would probably just skip the planned use.

Where you can find help for this problem is with the HathiTrust. Their goal, and the goal of the libraries that plan to participate in the orphan works project, is to make it easier for readers to find works like your novel, which might otherwise languish on shelves or in large warehouses of books. Digital access to low-use titles through our catalogs will encourage users to discover resources, for study and for entertainment, that they might not have bothered with before.

It appears that the rhetoric from the Authors Guild won out, and J.R. Salamanca has gone in the other direction, joining the lawsuit against the universities and the HathiTrust. What a sad legacy Salamanca is adding to his career. Rather than embracing greater access to his obscure and out of print works, he's chosen to attack learning institutions who sought to make his works more accessible. As a professor himself, he ought to be ashamed.

Filed Under: copyright, j.r. salamanca, libraries, orphan works
Companies: authors guild, hathitrust

Rather Than Fixing The Problem Of Orphaned Works, The Authors Guild Wants To Play 'Gotcha'

from the you're-not-helping dept

With the Authors Guild's recent move to sue a bunch of university libraries for daring to make certain works digitally available to students as "orphaned works," the latest move by the guild is to engage in a massive game of "gotcha." It started by going through the list of books that were proposed as orphaned works -- and finding one of the authors, followed by an effort that potentially found a few more.

There's no doubt that, as James Grimmelman pointed out, this makes the HathiTrust effort look bad. This was their first effort to show how an orphan works program might work, and the fact that their process was shown to be less-than-perfect (especially their "first" showcase effort) is definitely going to set back any orphan works project in the future -- because any time such an effort is brought up, people will point to this example.

Of course, others might reasonably argue that the system worked. After all, none of these books had been released digitally yet. The process involved the HathiTrust first trying to track down the authors, then the authors/works being put in a public list, which could be scrutinized by the public to see if any of them could show that the works weren't orphans. And that's exactly what happened. Even if you could have hoped that the original investigation was a bit better, it's hard to argue that the system didn't work here. It did.

Either way, the University of Michigan did exactly what it had to do from a PR standpoint, and suspended the program until it can refine the process to make it more effective in only releasing truly orphaned works.

However, the bigger issue to me is just how gleeful the Authors Guild seems to be that it's sticking it to universities and their libraries. The Authors Guild should be supporting the efforts of these libraries to legitimately make otherwise unavailable works available again. The Authors Guild should be partnering with these libraries to make sure the works truly are orphaned. Instead, they're jumping up and down and gloating over the fact that such works won't be accessible any more. It's really quite disgusting.

I think the best response to all of this came from Duke's Scholarly Communications Officer, Kevin Smith, who wrote an open letter to J.R. Salamanca, who was the first name on the list who was "found" by the Authors Guild, asking him to recognize that the libraries are not his enemy, as the Authors Guild is trying to claim:

I am sure I do not have to tell you that libraries, including those that intend to participate in the Hathi Orphan Works project, are not your enemies.  We are in the business of helping authors find readers, which hardly seems like it should be an objectionable activity.  So let’s think for a minute about The Lost Country and what might be best for it and for you.

The sad fact is that The Lost Country has become a pretty obscure work.  Amazon.com shows only two used copies available for sale.  In the Duke Libraries, the last transaction record we have for your novel is in 2004, when our copy was sent to high-density storage.  It has not left the facility once since then, and our system shows no circulations in the prior decade, either.   One of the famous “laws” of librarianship is that every book should have its readers, and the current system, I am afraid, is failing to connect your book to new readers.

It has to be said that the Authors Guild is not going to help you in this regard.  They are not going to publish a new edition of The Lost Country for you, nor will they pay you any royalties on the out-of-print edition.  The Authors Guild simply does not have the ability to create a new market for your book.  Even if they were to succeed in a grand strategy to impose a licensing scheme for orphan works in general, there is no reason to believe that you would profit from it. With such an obscure work, potential users who had to pay a fee would probably just skip the planned use.

Where you can find help for this problem is with the HathiTrust.  Their goal, and the goal of the libraries that plan to participate in the orphan works project, is to make it easier for readers to find works like your novel, which might otherwise languish on shelves or in large warehouses of books.  Digital access to low-use titles through our catalogs will encourage users to discover resources, for study and for entertainment, that they might not have bothered with before.

It seems unlikely that the Authors Guild will understand this. But watching Scott Turow (whose books I was a fan of until all this began) and the other top brass at the Authors Guild act this way, it's hard not to be flat-out disgusted by the way the group is so gleeful about locking up knowledge.

Filed Under: books, copyright, orphan works
Companies: authors guild, hathitrust

Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works

from the shame-on-authors dept

It appears that Scott Turow is really trying to cement in place the reputation of the Authors Guild as a luddite, anti-education, anti-learning organization. What a shame. A decade ago, the Authors Guild stunningly told its authors not to link to Amazon, because Amazon dared to also show used books alongside new ones. It also freaked out when Amazon allowed people to search full text of books. Over the intervening decade, the Authors Guild has consistently come out against progress, such as when it freaked out about the text-to-speech feature on the Kindle, bizarrely claiming that this feature was infringing (it's not).

For many years, the Authors Guild has been involved in a legal dispute with Google over the Google Books scanning project. And while the two sides came to a highly questionable settlement that was thankfully rejected by the court, it appears that the Authors Guild is doubling down on a new lawsuit -- this time suing five universities for daring to try to provide access to digital scans of orphan works -- those works for which no copyright holder can be identified.

You may have heard a few months ago that the University of Michigan's libraries, sick of waiting for Congress to get its act in order and deal with the orphan works problem, said it was just going to start making such works available. Last month, some other universities joined the University of Michigan to create a consortium of universities who decided to provide access to scanned orphan works. These libraries had to know they were daring the Authors Guild to sue, and now it's happened.

The University of Michigan, the University of California, the University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and Cornell University, along with the overall consortium group, called the HathiTrust, has been sued. Oddly, there are a few other universities who stated they were going to take part in this effort -- including the University of Florida, Duke, Emory and Johns Hopkins. I'm not sure how they avoided being lumped in to the lawsuit.

This is related to the Google book scanning project, because these university libraries shared their collections with Google to scan, and it's just that now they've decided that they're going to make orphan works available. The universities are claiming that fair use lets them share these works. The Authors Guild, obviously, disagrees. On top of that, the universities and the HathiTrust makes it pretty clear that they're bending over backwards to make sure that these works truly are orphan works where copyright holders cannot be found:

The story starts with Google’s scanning agreements with the libraries: each time Google scans a book, it returns both the physical book and a digital copy to the library that gave it the book. The libraries then gave their scans to the HathiTrust, which functions like a digital version of a shared off-site storage warehouse. HathiTrust makes multiple copies of each file, storing versions on hard drives and tape backups at both Michigan and Indiana. It offers the public bibliographic information about the books, and provides a full-text search engine. Unlike Google Books, however, which shows “snippets” from the books as search results, HathiTrust will only tell users the page numbers where the search terms occur. If a book is in the public domain, HathiTrust turns on full view, letting users read it online. (If you’re affiliated with one the member institutions, you can also download the book as a PDF.)

This spring, HathiTrust announced the “Orphan Works Project,” which aimed to investigate the rights status of the books still in copyright. It would investigate the author and publisher information available about the book; if they could not be located and the book was unavailable, it would be flagged as a possible orphan and put on a list of candidates. If at any time a copyright owner is identified and located (e.g. because they step forward), the book is removed from the list.

In other words, the only way a book gets displayed through this system is if no copyright holder is found after a fairly extensive process. And if the copyright holder ever shows up, the work is immediately removed. All of this makes me wonder if the Authors Guild can really prove it has standing in this case. If the actual copyright holders cannot be identified, how can the Authors Guild claim standing over these works?

Either way, this is yet another in this long line of disputes in which the Authors Guild is coming out on the wrong side. It's not helping authors, it's doing the exact opposite, by acting like a massive luddite, attacking any form of innovation or any system that encourages the reading of books and the sharing of knowledge. Shame on the Authors Guild, who seems to only be living up to the reputation of guilds from the Middle Ages, which were focused on economically-suicidal protectionism, rather than innovation.

Filed Under: books, copyright, education, libraries, orphan works, scanning
Companies: authors guild

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.

Filed Under: copyright, library, orphan works, university of michigan

NY Times Comes Out In Favor Of Fixing Small Parts Of Copyright Law

from the missing-the-forest-for-the-trees dept

A bit of a surprise, but the NY Times editorial board has come out in favor of making two specific changes to copyright law, in response to two separate issues recently discussed here. Both are in response to the recent NY Times story (that we discussed) concerning the treasure trove of jazz music that the National Jazz Museum has, but cannot make available due to copyright laws. The first problem is that, thanks to quirks in copyright law (including Congress' strong belief in 1909 that sound recordings could not be covered by copyright, as per the Constitution), sound recordings from before 1972 are locked up for much longer due to state laws. The second issue, discussed over and over again, is the concept of "orphan works." The NY Times figures that if we fixed both of those issues by (1) bringing those older sound recordings under federal law and (2) passing a slightly revised orphan works act, it would allow those jazz classics to be heard again.

While it's nice to see the NY Times editorial board concerned about this, it seems like if they were really serious about fixing copyright law, they wouldn't just focus on this one situation, but the overall issues associated with current copyright law. But, of course, since the newspaper mistakenly thinks it needs strong copyright laws to survive, that seems unlikely.

Filed Under: copyright, federal law, jazz, orphan works

How Big An Issue Are Orphan Works?

from the longing-for-a-public-domain dept

For a few years now, there's been an effort underway to pass "orphan works" legislation that would help deal with the massive number of works that are clearly covered by copyright, but for which no copyright holder can be found at all. Even the US Copyright Office, who normally only believes that copyright law should go in one direction (i.e., more), has come out in favor of orphan works legislation. Of course, as copyright experts like William Patry have long pointed out, the "problem" of orphan works is a self-created problem. Prior to taking away the requirement for registering to get a copyright, there really wasn't an orphan works problem, because (1) the copyright holders were registered and (2) most other works fell into the public domain, as they were either not registered, or the registration was not renewed. So, a better fix would be to go back to requiring such "formalities" (even if it goes against the sadly out of date Berne Convention rules).

In the meantime, though, since that doesn't seem likely, many are pushing for such orphan works laws. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of blatant misinformation spread around against orphan works legislation, who insist that it's really a way for companies to use works without paying for them. Of course, the various proposals for orphan works laws make it clear this is not the case. They all require the potential user to conduct a very real and very serious search for the copyright holder. You can't just declare the the copyright holder can't be found.

Of course, another complaint against orphan works legislation is that orphan works really aren't much of a problem, as they're somewhat "rare." How rare are they? Well, Michael Scott points us to a report trying to quantify the number of orphan works in Europe alone. The numbers are pretty impressive:

• 3 million orphan books
• 129,000 orphan films (potentially up to 225,000)
• 17 million photographs

The report also mentions that 95% of newspapers from before 1912 are orphans, which seemed odd to me, since it seemed like anything published in 1912 should be in the public domain. The report notes that this is actually part of the problem, since copyright status depends on a variety of factors, and even works from pre-1912 may still be under copyright in Europe. As it notes "only material from as far as pre-1870 may relatively safely be assumed to be in the public domain."

Filed Under: copyright, orphan works

New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries

from the doesn't-really-change-much dept

Late (very late) Friday, Google and groups representing publishers and authors squeaked in just under the deadline and put forth a revised Book Scanning settlement agreement, designed to address at least some of the concerns and complaints raised by people over the last one. If you want a good breakdown over the changes, check out Danny Sullivan's analysis or James Grimmelmann's. Not surprisingly, the Open Book Alliance is not happy, but seeing as it's a bunch of Google competitors, they were never going to be happy in the first place (and you know that press release was probably 95% written before the actual new terms were released).

In my mind, the biggest news is the new restrictions on countries from which it will scan books. From now on, the book scanning project will only scan books that have registered copyrights in the US, UK, Australia or Canada. This was mainly to address ridiculous concerns by some in Europe that this project -- to help make all books more accessible -- was somehow a threat to European culture. I was in Europe on Friday (well, Saturday there) when the announcement was made, and it actually pissed off the folks I talked to about it -- who felt that their politicians were doing serious harm to European books by having them excluded from such a useful resource.

Separately, a lot of the focus on this new agreement, as with the old agreement, is over how Google treats orphan works. Again, I have to admit that I think most people are making a much bigger deal of this than it warrants. The orphan works stuff really covers a very small number of works. And giving rightsholders ten years to claim their rights seems more than adequate to me. I just don't see what the big deal is here. The real issue is that we have orphan works at all. Under the old (more sensible) copyright regime, you actually had to proactively declare your copyright interest. The only reason we have orphan works at all is that we got rid of such a system in the ongoing effort of copyright maximalists to wipe out the public domain.

Anyway, I think this is all something of a sideshow. I still stand by my original feeling towards the settlement, which is that I'm upset anyone felt it was necessary at all. Google had a strong fair use claim that I would have liked to have seen taken all the way through the courts. And, of course, this settlement really has nothing at all to do with the main issue of the lawsuit (that fair use question) and is really a debate over a separate issue: how to take the books Google scans and trying to turn them into a "book store" rather than more of a "library." And, in doing so, the important fair use question gets completely buried -- which I find unfortunate.

Filed Under: authors, book scanning, book search, copyright, fair use, orphan works, publishers, settlement
Companies: google

The Real Problem With The Google Book Settlement Isn't The Settlement, But Copyright Law Itself

from the fix-that-and-there's-no-problem dept

In Congressional hearings on Thursday about the Google book settlement, most of the news reports focused on two particular things: (1) the fact that Marybeth Peters, head of the US Copyright Office, spoke out against the settlement, claiming that it violates copyright law and (2) Google's "concession" in letting other booksellers offer up the "orphan works" that Google would scan. Both are interesting, if not particularly surprising developments. Indeed, the controversy over the question of orphan works in the Google books settlement is a big one. But the real issue isn't the settlement, but copyright law itself. The whole problem of "orphan works" is solely a result of the continual and ridiculous level of copyright expansion over the years that has created these so-called "orphan works." It seems that the only person who actually seemed willing to discuss that was Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who actually used the occasion to call for a repeal to the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, noting that it was a large part of the problem. While that has almost no shot of actually happening, it's great to see at least one person in Congress recognizing that the problem was created by Congress (at the demand -- and funding -- of the entertainment industry).

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, orphan works
Companies: google

Europe Pushing For An Orphan Works Law Also

from the will-it-get-done? dept

Many in the US have been pushing for an "orphan works" law for quite some time -- which would create an exception for copyright infringement if the owner of a work simply can't be found. It's difficult to find any serious reason why an orphan works exception shouldn't be included in copyright law as written, but there are always some who pop up as being against it -- usually because they don't understand what it is (there are some who seem to be purposely spreading misinformation about orphan works bills). Thus, it continually fails to move forward in the US -- even as politicians insist it's necessary. It looks like Europe may be going down the same route these days, as it's now looking at creating an orphan works law as well. Now we'll see if it faces the same misguided opposition.

Still, as William Patry notes in his book, the real shame is that the whole reason we need an orphan works bill in the first place is due to how screwed up copyright law has become since switching from a "formalities" approach to one where everything is automatically covered by copyright. Under the old system (pre-1976 Act in the US), in order to get a copyright, you had to register, and then at certain points, re-register it, to have and keep it covered by copyright. Thus, any such "orphan" works fell into the public domain after a short period of time -- and it worked fine. There was no "orphan works" problem, because those works that no longer that weren't being used for commercial purposes went into the public domain in a relatively short period of time. The most amazing thing, though, is that very few of those supporting orphan works legislation seem to recognize that the whole "problem" is one they made themselves by extending insanely long copyrights to pretty much everything.

Filed Under: copyright, europe, orphan works