Congress reportedly will try to pass orphan works legislation again this session, introducing a bill as early as this week. After its March 13 hearing, at which 6 interested parties presented testimony (including the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, and representatives of the 2006 bill's most vehement opponents, free-lance photographers), the stage appears set for another try.
Molly Kleinman's take is positive; Tom Richmond's is hostile. Reportedly, the photographers have gotten concessions and are supposedly onboard, but Tom's blog post certainly doesn't suggest that it's a done deal.
I read Marybeth Peters' testimony (see link above) and she talks about some of the changes from the last bill. One that concerns me the most is the idea that the industries will define a reasonable search. I reviewed one such proposed definition, and found it daunting. It was clearly designed with other publishers in mind, given their corporate resources, and their likely intent to profit from the use of the work contributing to their willingness to spend considerable time and money chasing down every rabbit track. This does not seem like a good idea for nonprofit entities making nonprofit uses. As I commented at the time, the proposal suggested that all the rigor of adopting real human orphans should be applied to making even nonprofit uses of abandoned copyrighted works.
Well, let's prepare ourselves. It's either going to work or it's not, but if it doesn't, the problem of orphan works is not going away.
Comments (1)
To whom it may concern The copyright protection is no problem for those who create works, which is the very reason for its existence. The only people who have an issue are those who wish to copy, plagiarize or in other ways obtain works easily and freely to build their on-line archives, some even for profit. The argument that some common good is served by accumulating works in archives that are in the public domain may be true, but the common good confiscation of property has always included a legitimate compensation to the owner. THIS CONCEPT OF OBLITERATING OWNERSHIP WITHOUT COMPENSATION IS UNACCEPTABLE IN USA VISION OF WORLD ORDER. The debate of some common good to be served is interesting but not convincing in our republic. The onslaught of the internet companies to get more works into the public domain is a bold self interest move. These companies feel content needs for works be free so they can carry on their business of collecting data bases to use to sell advertising and other reasons. There is a move to desecrate and diminish ownership backed by many leftest organizations and liberal organizations such as universities. This anti-ownership movement is a strong attack on our social order. As a creator of original works I strongly oppose any legislation that will diminish my protection under the law. Domninic J. Melfi Wisconsin http://www.artwanted.com/dmelfi HOW CAN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE SUPPORT CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH THE ILLUSION THAT PUBLIC GOOD IS JUSTIFICATION?
Posted by Dominic J. Melfi | April 24, 2008 12:07 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 12:07