May 6, 2008
Library Group Favors Senate Over House Bill on Orphan Works
The American Library Association is urging its membership to contact their senators and representatives in the U.S. Congress and press them to support the Senate version of a bill, S 2913, that would make it easier for people to exploit 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.
A comparable bill in the House of Representatives, HR 5889, is flawed, the library group states, because it includes a “dark archive” provision that would require people to notify the U.S. Copyright Office of their intention to use an orphan work. That provision would be onerous for scholars, who may be forced to confer with university lawyers before filing a notice with the copyright office, the library group states.
A House panel with jurisdiction over intellectual property issues is scheduled to discuss and vote on the bill Wednesday.—Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Tuesday May 6, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Using Technology to 'Hack' College Life: an Interview With a Student Blogger
Next: You Say It's Your Birthday
Unbelievable. ALA is promoting the theft of creative works under cover of misleading, heart-rending terminology, “orphan works”. The proper term for these works is “Private Property”. Shame on ALA.
— Brian Hubbard May 6, 03:38 PM #
At a certain point, abandoned property becomes the property of either the state or the finder, depending on applicable law. We define “abandoned” property as property belonging to someone who cannot be identified, or reached, after a reasonable period of time. We do not leave abandoned private property where it is, or hold onto it forever “just in case” the owner shows up. Imagine the storage requirements for lost wallets and abandoned automobiles. It’s not in the best interest of the public. Instead, abandoned property is reclaimed by the state and either disposed of or put back into circulation via auctions or somesuch. A similar principle should be applied to copyrights. There should be a protocol to follow to attempt to locate the copyright holder, and a generous amount of time for the copyright holder to respond and claim their rights. But ultimately, abandoned copyrights should be claimed by the state and distributed in a way consistent with the public good. Good for the ALA.
— Debbie Carraway May 6, 05:16 PM #
Scholars who cite copyright protected work have a responsibility to play by the rules, but doesn’t the copyright holder have a responsibility as well. If their “private property” is that important to them, then they should do what is necessary to protect as long as copyright is in force. Ms. Carraway’s analogy to “abandoned property” is a good one.
— Adrian May 6, 05:28 PM #
This is nothing more than legalized theft. The vague terminology in the bill needs to be expanded and clarified so that Big Business cannot take advantage of this. And they will.
— Diane May 6, 06:23 PM #
63021
— abdulmonem aldali May 7, 01:23 AM #
So here are the issues for me:
The user must make “reasonable” efforts to locate the copyright owner. We pretty much know what that means reagarding abandoned cars but what does it means regarding copyright? Is there a central “clearing house”?
Second, are those efforts documented and filed with a central agency both as a matter of “reasonableness” and to prevent theft. (Your car was unlocked and “abondoned” on the street in front of your house. I rang the bell but nobody way home so I couldn’t locate you.)
Absurd, I know, but there will need to be rules about how this should “reasonably” work for the public’s and copyright owners’ good.
— Rob May 7, 08:35 AM #
So here are the issues for me:
The user must make “reasonable” efforts to locate the copyright owner. We pretty much know what that means reagarding abandoned cars but what does it means regarding copyright? Is there a central “clearing house”?
Second, are those efforts documented and filed with a central agency both as a matter of “reasonableness” and to prevent theft. (Your car was unlocked and “abondoned” on the street in front of your house. I rang the bell but nobody was home so I couldn’t locate you.)
Absurd, I know, but there will need to be rules about how this should “reasonably” work for the public’s and copyright owners’ good.
— Rob May 7, 08:37 AM #
Please, artists, get a grip. This bill is geared toward situations such as those in special collections, where entire holdings of commerical and “private” photographs cannot be used by scholars because the company went out of business 50 years ago, NO owners exist, but libraries are afraid that one might pop up and protest! This bill is NOT designed to “rob” artists or their heirs out of their legitimate earnings.
— Erika May 7, 05:08 PM #
The works belong to someone. If they are truly in the public domain, then there won’t be a problem in using works. But don’t take away private/intellectual property rights away and force artists to jump through hoops to secure there copyrights. Librarians can research, make phone calls and inquire if they’re not certain whether they should use something. Big companies have legal departments that would make this not very problematic for them, but there are too many freelance writers, artist, etc. who work as small businesses; that this would create an additional overhead for.
— Bob May 7, 10:44 PM #
This sounds like it could be OK in the situations cited — but all the writers etc. would say is, “OK, go ahead and do it, but ALSO DO write those protections in.”
For instance, if the bill is not designed to do X, write it so that it won’t. I know it won’t be foolproof — the law of unintended consequences! — but do it as bulletproof as possible.
Someone else mentioned how such a law could be exploited, and that needs to be addressed before it’s a law.
For instance, the sinisterly named “dark archive” is on its way out of the bill? The duty of trying to notify an owner does not seem onerous, and would not prevent a work from being legitimately used.
— Paul Hughes May 8, 02:04 PM #