April 25, 2008
Legislation to Ease Problem of Orphan Works Is Introduced in Congress
Congress is revisiting the longstanding problem of orphan works. These are books, films, photographs, music, and other creative works that cannot be reused by scholars and archivists because they are unable to find the works’ owners. Those who make use of the material risk incurring penalties for copyright infringement. Experts estimate that as much as 22 percent of an academic library’s books are orphaned. (See full coverage in The Chronicle).
Lawmakers who lead committees on intellectual-property issues on Thursday introduced legislation that would exempt scholars and others from facing excessive copyright-infringement penalties for using orphan works. They would need to first diligently try to locate the works’ owners. Should the owners surface after a work has been reused they would receive some compensation, but could not stop the derivative creation from being distributed.
The bills, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, in the Senate; and the Orphan Works Act of 2008, H.R. 5889, in the U.S. House of Representatives, are supported by the Association of Research Libraries, the Internet Archive, and the Recording Industry Association of America, among other groups. Lawmakers introduced similar legislation two years ago after the U.S. Copyright Office offered its own solution. But the bills stalled, largely because of opposition from groups representing photographers, illustrators, and textile designers. They said the bills failed to adequately compensate copyright owners. The recent bills have tried to address their concerns but it’s unclear whether the groups will find them acceptable. —Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Friday April 25, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Technology Is Key to Zombie-Themed Game of Tag
Next: Games Interfering With Your Studies? There's a Facebook Group for That
It sounds like a license to steal creative work. The creative person would be left to defend themselves in court against entities possible much more able to manipulate the legal system. This country loses its integrity every day. Artists can find their work printed on coffee cups and
would have to afford a legal team to match the rip off company’s. Who does American law support? By under valuing the creative person we lose our new ideas to efforts to steal what ever
is already out there. Why should an illustrator take the time and training necessary to develop new and unique designs if he won’t get paid for it and may see his work making money for rip offs? Think invention and integrity.
— Laudine Borges Apr 28, 05:42 PM #
Exactly – every students work posted on internet becomes public domain – every art piece that people don’t have resources to register becomes everybody’s pray. I will start selling DVDs of compilations of animated shortfilms. No cost for me – and the animators will surely love the publicity – except I will not need even post their names.
Crazy – companies can patent and “own” spieces and DNA but individuals’ work can be stolen outright.
— animatorX Apr 30, 12:44 AM #
If I understand the language of HR5889 properly, it’s not a license to steal so much as a forced settlement.
The bill requires that a orphan work be searched and documented before it’s used. In addition, an intent to use must be filed with the Register of Copyrights. Should a the owner of a copyrighted work appear after this process and publication of the derivative work, then the bill would require that compensation be negotiated and paid.
I grant that this is not an easy area of law or ethics. However, should progress be stifled because we cannot properly remunerate our intellectual sources?
If there is an ethical dilemma, it’s in the realm of the “victimless crime;” victimless in this case because the proper owner of the copyright cannot be found after a diligent and good faith search for him/her or his/her heirs.
— Steve Michaels Apr 30, 08:16 AM #
Read the complete article from July 29, 2005 and then decide if we’re talking about theft here. It someone’s creative output is important to them, they have a responsibility to make sure that scholars who may need to cite their work know who owns the copyright.
— Adrian May 6, 05:24 PM #
It’s victimless only because its not YOUR property being stolen. If I cannot stop someone from using my art, I cannot sell a legitmate buyer an exclusive right to use anything I create.
This will only stifle creativity and force artists into seclusion in an effort to maintain their ownership of their art. Why should anyone have the right to use my artwork without permission? Only the creator of the artwork should be able to authorize usage…If you park your car downtown, and somehow your license plate gets taken off and “lost”, should someone be able to use your car until you personally locate it (there won’t be law enforcement to help out until you do) – if it’s even possible to locate it now… Imagine now that there’s a huge multi billion dollar used car company( with a vested interest because they get to sell ads next to the database your car is listed on ) waiting to resell your car as soon as its “lost”…. and big enough to drag you thru court for enternity to do it.
Bottom line, if an artist doesn’t want their art used, …its just tough luck? that doesn’t sound very American to me.
— Valorie May 19, 05:38 PM #