We are going to lose copyrights!

[hydroment]

I mentioned in an earlier post that I asked my congressional rep. the following is the reply.

Hydroment

-------------------------------------------

April 29, 2008







Dear Mike,



Thank you for contacting my office about orphan works. Hearing from you is both important and helpful because it provides me with insight into your thoughts and concerns on the major issues we face today as a nation, and especially as residents of our state.

As you are probably already aware, an orphan work is a copyrighted work where it is difficult or impossible to contact the copyright holder. A work can become orphaned for many reasons. For example, the author could have never been publicly known because the work was published anonymously or the work may have never been traditionally published at all. More likely, the identity of the author could have been once known but the information lost over time.

In response to requests by Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office agreed to examine issues surrounding orphan works. In January 2005, the Copyright Office issued a request for public comment on the subject. In January 2006, it issued its Report on Orphan Works, which includes proposed legislative language to address the problem.

As a result of this report, there have been several Congressional hearings on the topic. The most recent held by the House of Representatives was on March 13, 2008. You can view the hearing by visiting the website of the House Committee on the Judiciary (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427).

On April 24, 2008, several Members of Congress introduced bi-partisan, bi-cameral legislation to allow orphan works to be viewed. In the House of Representatives, Representative Berman introduced the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889). The legislation would allow orphan works to be exhibited only if the copyright owners are unable to be located after a thorough and well documented search. The legislation outlines the criteria for such a search and provides for court review to determine if a search has been adequate and done in good faith. If the copyright owner is found later, the user must pay reasonable compensation to the owner.

Proponents of this legislation argue that it will allow the general public to view works that would otherwise be lost and wasted because of copyright problems. Senator Leahy, who introduced the Orphan Works Act in the Senate, said, "With this bill, we can preserve important parts of our personal and national heritage, without giving a free license to infringe on established copyright protections."

Opponents argue that orphan works legislation may have a greater affect on artists from foreign countries, as it will be more difficult to locate them, no matter how thorough the search.

The Orphan Works Act is not currently scheduled for a vote. You can follow its progress at thomas.loc.gov. At present, I have not taken a stance on this bill and am still listening to the thoughts and concerns of my constituents. Should it come to a vote, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me and please don't hesitate to be in touch in the future.

Sincerely,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress

[tuxcomputers]

Originally Posted by Major_Small

The aim is not to destroy legitimate copyrights. It's to free up works once their copyright has expired. The problem is, without any way to know whether a certain copyright is expired or not, some works could essentially stay copyrighted forever.

... and the problem with that is?

Only lazy uncreative greedy corporations want this to pass.

[Major_Small]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Copyrights aren't perpetual, and there's already a provision for orphaned works. New legislation isn't necessary.

I know they're not supposed to be perpetual. But what if you have an image that you know is over a century old, but have no solid proof of said fact? Everybody with any attachment to the photo is dead. How can you get yourself into the legal green now?

On the other hand, if you have your photo taken by a studio, and the studio goes under when the owner dies. You can now not legally ever get a copy of that shot in your lifetime. How would you correct this?

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Major_Small

I know they're not supposed to be perpetual. But what if you have an image that you know is over a century old, but have no solid proof of said fact? Everybody with any attachment to the photo is dead. How can you get yourself into the legal green now?

On the other hand, if you have your photo taken by a studio, and the studio goes under when the owner dies. You can now not legally ever get a copy of that shot in your lifetime. How would you correct this?

In the first instance, it's probably already considered orphan.

In the second, copyrights generally go to the estate or heirs, and can be willed. Although, depending on the arrangements, the copyrights may not be the property of the studio or owner anyway.