|
A Proposal to Solve the "Orphan Works" Problem |
|
Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST
|
The Copyright Office has been holding hearings on access to "orphan" works. These aren't movies about kids who have lost their parents -- Little Orphan Annie, say. They are works which are still under copyright but have no copyright holder (or no locatable copyright holder.) It might sound esoteric, maybe even boring, But it isn't. Here's why I think it matters. "Orphan works" probably comprise the majority of the record of 20th century culture, and their orphan status means we have practically no access to them.
In all likelihood no copyright owner would show up to object if one digitized an old book, restored an orphan film, or used an obscure musical score. But who can afford to take the risk? The normal response of archivists, libraries, film restorers, artists, scholars, educators, publishers, and others is generally to give up -- it is just not worth the hassle and risk. The result? Needlessly disintegrating films, prohibitive costs for libraries, incomplete and spotted histories, thwarted scholarship, digital libraries put on hold, delays to publication. And all of this waste is entirely unnecessary.
Is there any solution? Duke's Center for the Study for the Public Domain has produced a report to the Copyright Office that offers one.
They interviewed artists and librarians and filmmakers about their problems, and they offer a proposal on how to fix the system so it works. Actually, they've offered two proposals, one for Orphan Works and one for Orphan Films, both pdfs. The conclusion of the Orphan Works proposal reads, in part, like this: The orphan works problem is so tragic because it denies access without producing incentives. It undercuts the constitutional goals of the copyright scheme, hurts libraries and archives, presents the new generation of authors and innovators with obstacles rather than solutions, and condemns large swathes of culture to literal physical destruction. Yet it does all this harm while actually serving authors very poorly. We believe our analysis of the orphan works problem indicates its magnitude and severity, and we are grateful to have been accorded the opportunity to put forward a proposal to solve it. They list 7 features that they believe any solution to the problem must include: Clear Guidelines, Low Levels of Required Search (Perhaps Specified According to a Few Context Sensitive Classes), Broad coverage, Efficient Administration, Notice, Safe Harbor, and Protection of Value-Added Restorers and Reusers. The last point, having a search and notice process, is elaborated on like this: Many users will be satisfied with a solution that allows them to use orphan works securely after a defined search and notice period. If a copyright owner subsequently appears, immunity based on a cessation of the challenged use will suffice. But for those users who plan to invest substantial hours or dollars in restoring, changing or adapting an orphan work for the future, this solution will not be adequate. It is small comfort, after thousands of hours or dollars have been spent digitizing a fragile film, to be told that if one stops and hands over one’s work, no action will be brought. Indeed, such a system would encourage “submarine orphan works” –- copyright owners who lurk and wait until value has been added by a second-comer, before announcing themselves. In order to give improvers the security they need, a second option must be provided – one that allows continued use on payment of a specified, low royalty. It's a rational, well thought-through proposal, with the intent of providing fairly for all parties, and I hope you have a moment to read it. You may have other ideas of your own to amplify or tweak the proposal.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:49 AM EST |
Require periodic registration of the copyright say every ten years for a minimal
fee. Failure to maintain registration voids the copyright and puts the work in
public domain. The ten year period is long enough that voiding GPL works would
have little or no effect.
George Wood[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:49 AM EST |
OT Here Please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Some orphan movies - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST
- "SCO Employs 190 people - 1 Feb 2005" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST
- 10K - Is SCO bankrupt? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST
- OT: Writer of Retracted Technology Review Stories Faces Review by Other Publications - Authored by: GelW on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:49 PM EST
- Microsoft tells Europeans they are just consumers - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 03:10 PM EST
- Sony has a linux kit for playstation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:01 PM EST
- Trying again to put a clickable link to playstation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:03 PM EST
- The page SCO doesn't want you to see - Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:21 PM EST
- "IE 'Unsafe' 98 Percent Of 2004, Says ScanIT" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 12:35 AM EST
|
Authored by: cjovalle on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:55 AM EST |
Unfortunately, the public comment period has passed, but these websites have
more information:
http://eldred.cc
Orphan Works
Public Knowledge"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LarryVance on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:56 AM EST |
Corecktions pleze!
---
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR INFLUENCE!
Larry Vance[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:58 AM EST |
Coherent was a UNIX like OS made by the Mark-Williams companies. Twelve years
ago, it was very similar to SCO UNIX.
Except Coherent was affordable, only $99. It only took 10MB of HDD space, and it
ran fast on a 386SX. It was a cinche to setup and use. Coherent came on ten
floppies, no cdrom needed. Coherent came with a massive and well organized
manual.
Coherent lacked a TCP/IP stack, and X-Windows. It seems Coherent couldn't
compete with Linux; and the project was abandonded. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:19 AM EST |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST |
There is already a problem with orphan computer programs.
Often in the early days of micro computers programs were distributed very
informally on often fragile media. Now people seeking to use and preserve the
early days of micro computers face all kinds of hurdles making archive copies of
programs to preserve and them. Sometimes the copyright owners cannot be located
or the ownership has passed through so many hands the actual ownership cannot be
determined. Sometimes the owners for whatever reason refuse to give permission
long after there is any valid economic reason.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:38 PM EST |
This obviously doesn't do anything about (for example)
giant
multi-national corporations that will likely exist
for centuries, churning
out many works (many based on
public-domain material or otherwise
derivative) and
keeping the material locked up for the duration of the
US's incrementally eternal copyright restrictions. It's
obvious there's no
way we're likely to see this change any
time soon, but I keep wondering if
it might be possible to
reduce the impact someone and encourage corporations
to
allow some of their work to mature into public domain
material.
I've seen numerous people suggest a recurring copyright
renewal fee to
identify works that a copyright holder no
longer cares about. I would
suggest going one step
further as some have suggested, and have the recurring
fee
increase every time. That way works that are STILL "being
used" by
the copyright holder [i.e. still in commercial
release] can retain their
copyright restrictions, while
companies are discouraged (but not outright
prohibited)
from simply locking up material forever so that nobody can
see
it again - e.g. Disney's politically-incorrect "Song
of the South"[1]. An
earlier poster in this story
suggested the initialf 10 years be free of
charge and
automatic, after which the fees would start. Sounds good
to
me...
The other suggestion is to allow corporations to treat
the
release of materials into the public domain as
"charitable contributions".
Is this already possible, or
is it currently too difficult to estimate the
value of
such a contribution to make it an attractive option for
corporations and other copyright holders?
[1] - it LOOKS as though
"Song of the South" is
actually available outside of the US, but not in
"region
1". I can't tell if the "converted" disks that appear to
be
available via the internet are even legal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST |
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050322_043001.html
Great artical PJ
One question: Is the qouted 5,000,000 hits a day correct!
If so Wow!
Oh and any one know SCO's numbers?
"While PJ is modest about the popularity of the site, current estimates
show Groklaw getting nearly five million hits a day."
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: THG Interviews: 5,000,000 hits? - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST
- OT: THG Interviews: 2,500,000 hits - a WEEK - Authored by: stevem on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:04 PM EST
- OT: THG Interviews: 5,000,000 hits? - Authored by: Minsk on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:56 PM EST
- 5,000,000 / day is correctly quoted - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 06:51 AM EST
|
Authored by: HenryMelton on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:47 PM EST |
Here is the proposal that I like the best, put together by people
passionate
about protecting their own work and about letting older works get back out
into th public eye.
http://
www.sfwa.org/contracts/o
rphan.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST |
one of the things I've been trying to do, is bring back some of the old computer
games from the 1970s.
copyright is long gone, so are the people, most of them have died. and nobody
knows what happened to the rest.
I spent decades trying to track down people, some cases I have the code, and
there is no notices on it, so what to do?
in most cases after doing so much work, I've given up and gone ahead and
recreated the code and even posted it publically. I figure after decades, and
leaving my postings for another decade or more after that, if someone is going
to complain they should have by now.
but the biggest problem i've come across is apathy by people in the community.
no one seems to care that all this stuff is being lost, old technologies and
such.
people just dont give a damn. and its sad really.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: HenryMelton on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:29 PM EST |
Having read the proposal, and especially comparing it to the SFWA's proposal,
it is clear that the Duke proposal is entirely one-sided on the subject of
protections. The new user is given every advantage, and even protection
greater than the original copyright owner.
In addition, the only protections in the proposal appear to be safeguards
against copyright owners 'gaming' the system.
Compare the SFWA's proposal of multiple five year grants vs. the Duke's
proposal to grant the new user unlimited use. Also notice Duke's
suggestion of a set percentage of profits as a default usage fee, opening the
door to wholesale dumping by free re-publishers, gutting any possible value
of the work for all time.
Here is a real fear: Shortly, I am going on a road trip lasting about two
months, during which I will do research and more writing. Under the Duke
proposal, I could return home to find out that someone had claimed my old
stories from the 70's and 80's orphaned, waited the required 30 days, and
thus be protected from me, the legal owner, from that time onward.
Presumably, the author registries proposed from several sources are the
proper safeguards, but it is going to take a lot of time to populate these
address books. No matter what is finally adopted, there are large numbers of
authors that will have to be made aware of the new registry, and given time to
update it with their works and their current contact information. The body of
work of a lifetime author, possibly producing small rewards over time, could
be put instantly at risk.
Additionally, if administrative charges aren't watched carefully, a poor author
could find himself unable to afford to pay the database update charges
necessary to protect his works. The people who need the protections of
copyright the most could be the ones left out in the cold.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:09 PM EST |
You should only have to pay a royalty if you're using the orphan work to make
money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gdeinsta on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:14 PM EST |
The worst situation for orphan works is films and recordings that are
deteriorating. I really hope US copyright law is soon fixed to make it legal to
salvage these works in the US. In the meantime, under Canadian law archives and
museums are permitted to make copies, so if a recording is deteriorating really
badly you could donate it to a Canadian archive or museum. York University and
the University of Saskatchewan both have computer museums. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 05:28 PM EST |
Suppose a travel writer in his youth published under a psuedonym a very poor
account of a trip up the Amazon. Since writing this his writing and travelling
styles have both changed and he feels no need to see his old materials
republished. Clearly he is not going to make any great effort to publicise the
fact that he and the psuedonym are the same person since to do so negates his
intent. With a 30 day period he could not go on a new trip to write a better
account without fear of someone publishing the old one. A more realistic period
would be a year and even a longer period is unlikely to harm anyone, the UK's 50
years is rather over egging the pudding.Surely it cannot be urgent to republish
a work? Nothing in the document suggests such a period as short as 30 days is
necessary.
I would also like to see other indices created. for instance one to allow a
creator to state that he does not wish to be contacted, that he does not wish
any of his works to be used and to provide a sample of each work in such a way
that it can be searched but not simply read as a way of identifying the work as
private.
Overall I have rather mixed feelings about the whole idea. If the purpose of
copyright is to give the original creator control over his work, and that
appears to be the thrust of the last few hundred years legislation in the area.
Then the general presumption should be that copyright materials should stay as
they are. Fora such as this one could include boilerplate about republication
rights, and the laws could be reworked so as to clearly allow for such things.
More formally published materials could be encouraged to include general rights
and waivers. maybe a list of typical uses and fees could be maintained by
national copyright libraries, eg UK v1 could be The publishers and author of
this work reserve all rights, in the event that at some future date they cannot
be contacted they give permission for the contents to be used against the
standard copyright fee in the UK.
These fees would be paid into an escrow account and held until the copyright can
be deemed to have expired or they are claimed.
I further see no reason for any legislation to include a particular capping
figure. It is relatively easy to construct circumstances where close to 100% of
the value of a new work would derive from the creation of the old and other
circumstances where the old work is purely incidental. There should be a system
created to allow a copyright owner to request a specific level and if that is
not agreed with the new user an arbitration should be held.
On top of all these it should clearly be possible to attach a statement to any
work that under no circumstances should this work be treated as orphaned however
well intentioned a future potential user is.
As for the costs of restoring material so that it is not lost to posterity, this
is part of the role of national copyright libraries, these bodies should always
be allowed to make copies for preservation purposes but they do not need to
recover the costs of doing so from copyright works, if they are allowed to do
that there is a strong disincentive to anyone obeying the rules and depositing
the work with them. If society things literary and other creative works are
worth preserving then society has to fund that preservation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 04:54 AM EST |
The normal response of archivists, libraries, film restorers, artists,
scholars, educators, publishers, and others is generally to give up
I
have a copy of a book called "I Sailed with Chinese Pirates", by Aleko B.
Lilius, reprinted by Oxford University Press in 1991. The copyright page
includes the following:
"First published by J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd. 1930.
All attempts to trace the copyright holder have proved unsuccessful."
And
yet, the book was reprinted, and used copies are available from
Amazon.
(By the way, it's a fascinating book, for those of you who still
read books.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 07:22 AM EST |
You read the copyright notice in the frontispiece, for
example, in Jack
Purdum's "C Programmer's Toolkit",
published by Que Corporation,
ISBN 0-88022-457-6:
All rights reserved. Printed in
the United
States of America. No part of this book may be used or
reproduced in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or
retrieval system, withinout prior written
permission of the publisher
except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical articles and
reviews.
Making copies of any part of this book for any purpose
other
than your personal use is a violation of United
States copyright laws. For
information, address Que
Corporation, 11711 N. College Ave, Carmel, IN
46032.
There it is in a nutshell - the central
paradox of the
Technical Computer Book market. To sell books in it, you
need to appeal to the working programmer; and some twit
from Legal goes
and slaps on some stupid statement like
that? You the Technical Writer
and Programmer,
have put
time and effort into writing some software
intended to be
useful to other working programmers - again, to briefly
quote from this specific book's
Introduction [...] The goals of This
Book
This book's primary goal is to provide you with C
functions that will be
useful in your programming
activities. although a number of commercially
available
libraries offer functions similar to many presented here,
there are several advantages to using this book. First,
the book explains
how each function works, giving you a
broader understanding of each
function and how the C
language is used with your system. Second, this
book/disk
set provides the source code for each function. Having
both
the source code and an understanding of how things
work will make it easier
for you to modify or extend the
functions. Having the source code also
means that you can
move most of the functions to other invironments if
necessary.
As you can see, the goal of the book
is in
diametrical
opposition to the laws invoked to protect it. If
I
make
any use of the functions written in the book, I violate
the
Que Corporation's copyright; if I go find some other
way to do the work and
leave the book to get remaindered,
the Que Corporation goes out of
business.
And since the book's goals and the laws invoked to
protect it, as in such diametrical opposition, I am not
inclined to
respect the laws - in this case, the laws
invoked, are invoked with the
end effect of bringing
them
into disrepute, even if that was not the
intended
purpose
thereof.
I think it would be good if
the publishers and writers
of such books could agree on something
intelligent for
once - the placing of all such code snippets, functions
and so on and so forth, under a BSD license - unless the
writer
specifically dictates some other such F/LOSS
copyright
license, so that
such books don't bring copyright laws
into disrepute.
As
it is, if I make use of any of those functions in
any code I write, I run
the risk of getting sued for
violating the US copyright law - in
diametrical opposition
to the declared goals of the book. So I think I'll
pass. --- finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific
torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on
one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|