Great article on the Orphan Works copyright bill

[layla]

I really meant to post this at the start of the month, but have been bouncing around from one thing to another and keep forgetting to do it. There's been a lot of free-floating anxiety and paranoia around graphic design blogs and message boards relating to the so-called Orphan Works bills pending in Congress. ellenmillion has a well-researched and refreshingly non-alarmist article on the subject at emg_zine this month. (Links to the full text of the bills throughout their various incarnations is available in the article.)

This is particularly noteworthy:

The bill does not say anyone can just use your work for free by saying 'orphan work!' and then not pay you. In fact, it says they have to pay you, it only limits how much you could sue them for.

The bill does not require all artwork to be registered, by the government or otherwise, to be afforded protection by the law.

What is most worth reiterating: in no way does this bill strip an artist of their copyright, and in fact, it spells out that orphan works are explicitly protected and that using a piece as an orphan work does not mean the loss of copyright in the future. What it primarily does is protect a well-meaning user (one who thoroughly documents their attempt to find a copyright owner first and pays them fairly when they show up, as well as respects their wishes for further use), from punitive law suits that could be so devastating that the mere possibility keeps them from sharing, preserving or enjoying creative work.

Comments

[naye]

This has making me headdesk for WEEKS. For once my thesis actually comes in handy - I wrote about the history of copyright, and read a lot on the subject just in general. And orphan works is one of those things were we WANT to be able to use them! Because the "orphan works" are the ones where authors are long dead or gone, where no clear heir to the rights can be found, and where a beautiful old book or interesting photograph will stay in a drawer, collecting dust, because sharing them would be a copyright crime. The way things are today, we all lose. Because if there was a clear heir to the right, they could allow (or disallow) publishing, and then get the revenue while the rest of us got to enjoy the work itself.

I... I really haven't read anything at all about this, because I do feel like I'm probably a little rusty on some of the issues, and I don't have any of my books to do fact-checking with, but I have no clue where the idea originated that this possible act to make orphaned works more accessible meant "we're coming to steal your art!!". It's so confusing to me. And like I said. Headdesking. Is something I want to avoid, and thus your post is the first on the subject I've read all of (um - good thing it was short?).

Anyway~. Voice of reason is always appreciated. Thanks for posting!

[naye]

Hey, did you see the piece of spam that went here as a reply to my comment? The one where they're totally missing the point? I thought it was kind of interesting to see where the other side is coming from, and if you want to, I could c&p it in a new comment. Of course, since it isn't here anymore, I'm guessing it's because it was annoyingly spammy, and then it should stay gone! *g*

[laylalawlor.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did see it. Sorry about that. (I have my blog set to screen anonymous comments, incidentally, so it's actually still there ... I hadn't decided whether to delete it or ban their IP or what.) What Anonymous seems to have done is copied and pasted a press release from these CAPIC people. (http://kendubrowski.blogspot.com/2008/05/capic-joins-opposition-to-orphan-works.html) And there's nothing that's going to make me less sympathetic to someone's cause than trolling my friends (and me) with c&p'd press releases. XD

[laylalawlor.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. I don't know as much about copyright as you do, but my very first thought when I heard about this is that it sounds like a wonderful thing for libraries and archives and schools.

I think there are a lot of people in the creative arts that see any attempt at copyright reform, regardless of what they're trying to accomplish, as "Stealing our art! Get the pitchforks and torches!" On the one hand, I can't really blame them for panicking since they make a living from it (just like someone who owns a farm might freak out about GMO corn with no evidence against it). People are touchy about the things that directly affect them, and understandably so. But it *is* a relief to see a sensible and well-researched article for a change.