I touched on this subject a few weeks ago (see this post) and, at the time, it seemed the hysteria was unfounded. There is now actually legislation before Congress (S 2913, HR 5889) that some support, but many creative types - singers, authors, artists - don’t. There are countless blog entries on this topic, and I cannot add more to the many erudite postings, other than to point you to a few -
Example favorable comment on the bills: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1537
Example unfavorable comments (of which there are many):
- http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html
- http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyright_policy_orphan_works.html
- http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?billid=11320236
I’ll be honest: the summaries I’ve read, both pro and con, leave me more than a little nervous about the potential unfavorable impact on us artists, who are almost universally self-employed, sole proprietors, or otherwise individuals trying to make a go with our creativity. As often seems to be the case with well-intentioned legislation, the bill is overly broad, VERY important details (such as what defines “a reasonably diligent search”, or how “visual registries” will be set up and run) are left mostly to the imagination, and the overall effect is far too mushy to be anything other than attorney grist.
If you want to take action on the bills, here’s a quick link to do so - http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
Tags: legislation
Entries (RSS)
May 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Wow. they don not even define even define what they claim to deal with ( “Orphan works’). The definition is effectively left up to the potential infringer! — defined by whether the “good faith” search for the copyright holder turned up anything! (and nowhere in the bill is “good faith” defined” either)
That is a recipe for trouble, in my opinion.
If the user can show that they
then they can not be held accountable for the regular 150,000 infringement fee though they might still be responsible to pay the copyright holder a “reasonable compensation” for use of the work.
but even that is not clearcut:
is that what they meant by “good faith search”?
Apparently if someone can show that they used the work for a Church (of White Supremicists for Jesus?), they are off the hook fas far as infringement is concerned. Actually, as far as i am concerned, if some church or “charitable organization” wants to use a work of mine, they need to get my written permission — period.
This bill is very poorly written in my opinion and leaves a lot open to “interpretation” - -and to potential abuse.
It is a can of worms, IMHO.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-5889