Comments on: Orphan Works bill introduced in US http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/ Photography is for everyone. Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:38:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Warren http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-119743 Warren Tue, 27 May 2008 20:32:59 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-119743 John, After looking over section 77 of the Canadian Copyright law, I can see a lot of differences. I'm not sure if the Canadian version is better, but it seems like it might be. For one thing, in the Canadian law the copyright board has to issue a license, whereas in the new US bill, the user just conducts their search, documents the process and keeps the documentation on record. Only in the case of a dispute does any official entity get involved. The commercial databases are supposed to verify the search steps the user went through in the event of a dispute. This is probably why the Canadian law has seen so little action, because there is a central board you have to license through. The US copyright board has expressed that they "don't feel they have the expertise" to handle licensing orphaned works. They've also mentioned that the board has already undergone an extensive technology overhaul and to do it again would be wasteful. That's all in the statement made by Marybeth Peters at this link: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html This sounds like a lame excuse to me. You don't write a certain process permanently into law simply because a more just process would be inconvenient at that particular moment in time. It also differs because in Canada the search can be conducted by any means and doesn't have to go through commercial databases. This means artists don't have to register their work to be searchable for these purposes. That's a big thing because the high cost of registering works is part of what people are so mad about. Thanks, John for showing me where to find the Canadian law. I had been looking all over for that. John,

After looking over section 77 of the Canadian Copyright law, I can see a lot of differences. I’m not sure if the Canadian version is better, but it seems like it might be.

For one thing, in the Canadian law the copyright board has to issue a license, whereas in the new US bill, the user just conducts their search, documents the process and keeps the documentation on record. Only in the case of a dispute does any official entity get involved. The commercial databases are supposed to verify the search steps the user went through in the event of a dispute.

This is probably why the Canadian law has seen so little action, because there is a central board you have to license through. The US copyright board has expressed that they “don’t feel they have the expertise” to handle licensing orphaned works. They’ve also mentioned that the board has already undergone an extensive technology overhaul and to do it again would be wasteful. That’s all in the statement made by Marybeth Peters at this link: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

This sounds like a lame excuse to me. You don’t write a certain process permanently into law simply because a more just process would be inconvenient at that particular moment in time.

It also differs because in Canada the search can be conducted by any means and doesn’t have to go through commercial databases. This means artists don’t have to register their work to be searchable for these purposes. That’s a big thing because the high cost of registering works is part of what people are so mad about.

Thanks, John for showing me where to find the Canadian law. I had been looking all over for that.

]]> By: Warren http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-119350 Warren Fri, 23 May 2008 22:55:53 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-119350 I'm not exactly sure how the Canadian orphan rights law differs from this one, but I do know that it doesn't involve commercial databases like this one does. Theirs involves a government-run database. That's a big difference because even if an artist registers with five or six commercial databases there may still be hundreds more where they can't be found. 222 orphaned works in Canada since 1990? Sure it doesn't sound like a "blatant rights grab", (provided this American model REALLY IS similar in practice to the Canadian law, which I doubt) but it doesn't sound like it would really be "a huge boon to the public" either. Erica, you said: I’m glad I stumbled upon someone who actually took their time to research it themselves rather than just keep bitching about rumors. Actually, This article has not been very thoroughly researched. Most of it was taken from a news report that I came across earlier today. The rest was quotes from the same three politicians I've been reading about the whole time this bill has been in the works. The "six misconceptions" article drastically twists and under-addresses the concerns people have and misquotes the IPA. The article addresses a case for orphaned works, but not the orphaned works bill. Keep in mind that most opponents of the bill are not against orphaned works. They are against this bill's failure to properly address the issue. Also, sure, there's a lot of random uninformed whining going on, but the valid points against this bill are certainly strong ones to consider. For some well informed info about the other side of this coin, go to the website for the Illustrator's Partnership of America. www.illustratorspartnership.org. I’m not exactly sure how the Canadian orphan rights law differs from this one, but I do know that it doesn’t involve commercial databases like this one does. Theirs involves a government-run database. That’s a big difference because even if an artist registers with five or six commercial databases there may still be hundreds more where they can’t be found.

222 orphaned works in Canada since 1990? Sure it doesn’t sound like a “blatant rights grab”, (provided this American model REALLY IS similar in practice to the Canadian law, which I doubt) but it doesn’t sound like it would really be “a huge boon to the public” either.

Erica, you said:

I’m glad I stumbled upon someone who actually took their time to research it themselves rather than just keep bitching about rumors.

Actually, This article has not been very thoroughly researched. Most of it was taken from a news report that I came across earlier today. The rest was quotes from the same three politicians I’ve been reading about the whole time this bill has been in the works. The “six misconceptions” article drastically twists and under-addresses the concerns people have and misquotes the IPA.

The article addresses a case for orphaned works, but not the orphaned works bill. Keep in mind that most opponents of the bill are not against orphaned works. They are against this bill’s failure to properly address the issue.

Also, sure, there’s a lot of random uninformed whining going on, but the valid points against this bill are certainly strong ones to consider.

For some well informed info about the other side of this coin, go to the website for the Illustrator’s Partnership of America. http://www.illustratorspartnership.org.

]]> By: John Watson http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-117279 John Watson Wed, 14 May 2008 14:01:35 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-117279 I'm no attorney but the Canadian law looks awfully familiar. It's <a href="http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33751" rel="nofollow">section 77 of the copyright act</a> and like the proposed US bill it requires "reasonable efforts to locate the owner of the copyright" and the owner only has five years to come forward and collect royalties and if the licensee does not pay royalties the photographer can then sue in court---just like the proposed US bill. (And the orphan works protection does not apply if a court rules in your favor that the search was not reasonable in which case all normal copyright infringement rules apply.) Maybe there is something else about the Canadian law that I am missing. Can you show me the differences? I’m no attorney but the Canadian law looks awfully familiar. It’s section 77 of the copyright act and like the proposed US bill it requires “reasonable efforts to locate the owner of the copyright” and the owner only has five years to come forward and collect royalties and if the licensee does not pay royalties the photographer can then sue in court—just like the proposed US bill. (And the orphan works protection does not apply if a court rules in your favor that the search was not reasonable in which case all normal copyright infringement rules apply.)

Maybe there is something else about the Canadian law that I am missing. Can you show me the differences?

]]> By: Jerry http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-117163 Jerry Wed, 14 May 2008 08:22:47 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-117163 Just about every single member supported artist association in the U.S. is against this bill, Time Warner, Google, the RIA, Rupert Murdoch, and every other billion dollar media corporation is for it. Follow the money people! The bill uses vague terms like "good faith" and "diligent search" so that the rights grabbers will have loop holes in court, if any artists can even afford to take them to court, for even if the artist wins, THEY CAN'T COLLECT ANY DAMAGES OR ATTORNEYS FEES! And no, this bill is nothing even remotely like the Canadian law. The fact that Mr. Watson tries to pass it off as if it is, casts his intentions in ill light. Just about every single member supported artist association in the U.S. is against this bill, Time Warner, Google, the RIA, Rupert Murdoch, and every other billion dollar media corporation is for it. Follow the money people!
The bill uses vague terms like “good faith” and “diligent search” so that the rights grabbers will have loop holes in court, if any artists can even afford to take them to court, for even if the artist wins, THEY CAN’T COLLECT ANY DAMAGES OR ATTORNEYS FEES!
And no, this bill is nothing even remotely like the Canadian law. The fact that Mr. Watson tries to pass it off as if it is, casts his intentions in ill light.

]]> By: Gary L http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-116332 Gary L Sun, 11 May 2008 20:49:57 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-116332 Well great! If we assume that the examples provided above(222 apps in Canada, so a Vermonter can restore family photos from three generations past, etc) are typical of the type of circumstances the Orphan Works bill is meant to address it seems like their might be an easier solution than a radical shifting of the status quo. Why not have all those interested in using images of unknown origin set up a site where the images in question and any available information can be viewed publicly by potential rights holders? Well great!
If we assume that the examples provided above(222 apps in Canada, so a Vermonter can restore family photos from three generations past, etc) are typical of the type of circumstances the Orphan Works bill is meant to address it seems like their might be an easier solution than a radical shifting of the status quo.
Why not have all those interested in using images of unknown origin set up a site where the images in question and any available information can be viewed publicly by potential rights holders?

]]> By: Angela Callanan http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-115147 Angela Callanan Thu, 08 May 2008 11:44:09 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-115147 Thanks John for publishing a sensible, matter of fact, well informed, intelligent, non-scare-mongering article about this subject. I heard about this on a forum and it frightened the hell out of me until I 'Googled' it and found your excellent article. Thanks John for publishing a sensible, matter of fact, well informed, intelligent, non-scare-mongering article about this subject.

I heard about this on a forum and it frightened the hell out of me until I ‘Googled’ it and found your excellent article.

]]> By: John Watson http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-112521 John Watson Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:48:30 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-112521 Most photographs you get from professional portrait photographers, school photos, wedding photographs ARE commercial works and you are most likely breaking the law if you make unauthorized copies. It's how the business-model works: those photographers make money by selling prints. If you bring in one of those prints to most labs, they will not reproduce it for you. Most photographs you get from professional portrait photographers, school photos, wedding photographs ARE commercial works and you are most likely breaking the law if you make unauthorized copies. It’s how the business-model works: those photographers make money by selling prints. If you bring in one of those prints to most labs, they will not reproduce it for you.

]]> By: Frank http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-112517 Frank Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:30:13 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-112517 Do people really not make copies of their family photos because the photog cannot be located? Screw that. You paid for them.. they're yours to do with as you wish. Now.. for commercial works.. that's different. Do people really not make copies of their family photos because the photog cannot be located? Screw that. You paid for them.. they’re yours to do with as you wish.

Now.. for commercial works.. that’s different.

]]> By: Erica http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/#comment-111781 Erica Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:58:57 +0000 http://photodoto.com/?p=842#comment-111781 Wow, thanks. All I've heard about this new bill has been outrageous outbursts of how it violated everyone's copyright. I'm glad I stumbled upon someone who actually took their time to research it themselves rather than just keep bitching about rumors. (He, no comment of why I haven't done any research myself, okay?) Wow, thanks. All I’ve heard about this new bill has been outrageous outbursts of how it violated everyone’s copyright. I’m glad I stumbled upon someone who actually took their time to research it themselves rather than just keep bitching about rumors.
(He, no comment of why I haven’t done any research myself, okay?)

]]>