Balkinization: Orphan Works

Orphan Works

Neil Netanel

In a New York Times op-ed last week, Larry Lessig denounced a pending major reform of copyright intended to solve the problem of "orphan works." Yet Public Knowledge, a leading public interest advocacy group normally aligned with Lessig on such issues, welcomes the proposed legislation (with a couple tweaks). What's this all about?

"Orphan works" are works whose copyright owner cannot be found without expending prohibitive search costs. Orphan works have become a serious impediment to a broad range of expression. As the U.S. Copyright Office points out:

Scholars cannot use the important letters, images and manuscripts they search out in archives or private homes.... Publishers cannot recirculate works or publish obscure materials that have been all but lost to the world. Museums are stymied in their creation of exhibitions, books, websites and other educational programs, particularly when the project would include the use of multiple works. Archives cannot make rare footage available to wider audiences. Documentary filmmakers must exclude certain manuscripts, images, sound recordings and other important source material from their films.

The inability to locate copyright owners also prevents book archive projects like Google Book Search and the Open Library from displaying the full text of all but a fraction of in-copyright books.

The orphan works problem is due largely to sweeping changes in copyright law in the past 30 years. Copyright used to be an opt-in system. Authors had to claim copyright by affixing a copyright notice on copies of published works and were required to register for copyright with the Copyright Office. In addition, copyright lasted for only 28 years from publication unless the copyright owner filed for renewal for a second 28-year term. The vast majority of works were not renewed: A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of registered copyrights were renewed, and for books the figure was only 7%.

Today, no copyright notice, registration, or renewal is required, and copyrights last for the author's life plus 70 years. Moroever, unlike property rights in land, copyright transfers need not be recorded. As a result, there is no central registry for searching copyright title. Finally, copyrights are now infinitely divisible. A novelist can assign the North American trade book rights to A, the North American paperback rights to B, the North American electronic distribution rights to C, the North American sequel rights to D, the North American serial rights to E, the North American motion pictures to F, the rights in other countries to other entities, and so on. So it is not enough to know “who owns the copyright.” Rather a user must know who owns the particular right that the user needs to license.

The legislation working its way through the House and Senate proposes to address the orphan works problem by providing that a copyright infringer who undertakes a “diligent,” but unsuccessful effort to locate the copyright owner must only pay “reasonable compensation” if the copyright owner shows up. To determine whether the infringer has met the test of “diligent effort,” a court must consider a number of factors, including whether the infringer’s search was “reasonable and appropriate” under the circumstances and whether “the infringer employed the applicable best practices maintained by the Registrar of Copyrights.” Libraries, museums, nonprofit educational institutions, and other specified entities need not pay any compensation so long as they make the requisite diligent effort to find the copyright owner. No infringer may continue to distribute the work without permission after the copyright owner appears. However, users who have recast, transformed, adapted, or integrated the infringed work with “a significant amount of the infringer’s original expression," such as incorporating a short clip into a documentary film, may continue to use the work upon payment of reasonable compensation for that use and proper attribution of the copyright owner.

Larry Lessig rightly points out the diligent effort requirement imposes a significant and costly burden on many potential users of orphan works. Indeed, given the nebulous, multifactor, case-by-case test for determining whether a search meets the diligent effort test, many would-be users, ranging from documentary film makers to digital archives, will simply desist from incorporating or copying orphan works rather than face the risk of infringement damages and injunction. Lessig thus proposes that, with a couple exceptions, copyright owners be required to register their work after 14 years to continue to receive copyright protection. By putting the onus on copyright owners to register, users can easily look to central registries to find who, if anyone, owns the copyright they need to license. Lessig, in essence, proposes a step back in the direction of the opt-in copyright that prevailed until the 1976 Copyright Act.

Lessig’s proposal makes eminent sense, although even it does not solve a problem that lies adjacent to orphan works: the frequent inability under current law to discern whether old copyright transfers and license agreements assign the rights to exploit the work in a new media unknown at the time of the transfer and thus whether the transferor or transferee has the authority to grant a license to a third party to use the work in such a new media. For example, for millions of books it is unclear whether the author or publisher holds the electronic distribution and display rights. Accordingly, Google can’t clear those rights to display the text in Google Book Search absent agreement of both the author and publisher, or their successors, or a judicial determination.

Public Knowledge’s embrace of the proposed legislation strikes me as a position more in touch with the grim reality that Lessig’s proposal stands little chance of enactment and that the proposed legislation might be better than leaving the orphan works problem as it is today. Yet to my mind the proposed legislation would not be much an improvement – and, if enacted, will cut off possibilities for further reform – unless it is modified to reduce the uncertainty of the diligent effort test and the burden imposed on those who must search for copyright owners. The proposed legislative framework should require that copyright owners bear some responsibility for making themselves readily locatable. At the very least, the legislation should providing that copyright owners who fail to register their copyrights and record copyright transfers on a publicly available, searchable digital registry bear the burden of proving that the infringer failed to make the requisite diligent effort.

Posted 11:23 AM by Neil Netanel [link]

Comments:

Neil Netanel said,
>>>>>> The proposed legislative framework should require that copyright owners bear some responsibility for making themselves readily locatable. At the very least, the legislation should providing that copyright owners who fail to register their copyrights and record copyright transfers on a publicly available, searchable digital registry bear the burden of proving that the infringer failed to make the requisite diligent effort. <<<<<<

IMO the solution is to establish a searchable digital registry where notices of intent to use copyrighted works may be posted. This is the same as the idea of posting legal notices in newspapers and the Federal Register. It would then be the responsibility of the copyright holders to either (1) frequently check the registry for notices of intent to use their works or (2) sign up for automatic notification of intent to use their works. If no copyright holder responds to a notice within a reasonable time, then the intended use would be allowed. A copyright holder's failure to respond to a notice would not result in forfeiture of copyright protection for other uses. Fair-use principles would continue to apply.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 7:45 PM

Larry,
The House version of the orphan works legislation contains just such a notice of intent regime, as you might know. One of the problems with it, IMO, is that it is less efficient than requiring or giving incentives for copyright owners to register their works and rights. Under your proposal, every user must register and copyright owners must be continually on guard, checking the notice of intent registry regularly and/or responding to automatic intent notices. Under the copyright registry regime, the copyright owner need register once (although copyright transfer would need to be recorded too), and anyone who wants to know who is the copyright owner can check. There is also an issue posed by copyright's divisibility into multiple sub-rights, which might be owned by different parties. I think that it is easier to succintly describe and to make easily searchable the license of a given type of right (e.g., motion picture rights or electronic distribution rights) than intended uses.

There's also a fundamental philosophical issue of whether copyright is something that should be affirmatively claimed or whether it should simply arise automatically for all creative expression. US Copyright law used to adhere to the former. It now largely follows the latter (because the US needs to conform to the Berne Convention), but still contains vestiges of the former (e.g., owners of US copyrights must register their works prior to bringing a copyright infringement claim).

# posted by

Neil Netanel : 11:51 AM

>>>>>> The House version of the orphan works legislation contains just such a notice of intent regime, as you might know. <<<<<<

Neil,
Well, if it is not in the Senate version, it could be eliminated when the two versions are reconciled.

I am also against the idea of requiring the borrowers of copyrighted works to make a "diligent search" for copyright holders. This requirement is a big burden and the term "diligent search" is vague. The copyright holders are, after all, the beneficiaries of copyright protection, so why should they sit on their duffs while the borrowers do all the work of helping to provide copyright protection?

>>>>>> Under your proposal, every user must register and copyright owners must be continually on guard, checking the notice of intent registry regularly and/or responding to automatic intent notices. <<<<<<

People are expected to check the Federal Register for notices about things that could affect them. How would this be any different?

>>>>> Under the copyright registry regime, the copyright owner need register once (although copyright transfer would need to be recorded too), and anyone who wants to know who is the copyright owner can check. <<<<<<

Can't copyright owners do this now? Why is new legislation needed?

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 12:09 PM

1. Lloyd Shugart - May 30, 2008

There are many issues with the law as proposed…mainly it just further creates hardship and litigation…….the only reason it won’t overwhelm the Fed Court system is that it will not be financially feasible to pursue protection of the copyrights, because the bill guts any damages and the attorney fees. As it stands now it will promote USE FIRST, and ONLY AK FOR PERMISSION if you get caught.

The only true way to slow the creation of Orphans issue is MANDATORY ATTRIBUTION, since our laws lack any moral rights, and Morals can’t be legislated to any effect. At least with Attribution, and google the living Artist will be able to be found. As Tammy indicates in her letter to congress the current proposal will only create further morass.

Lloyd Shugart
Unintended victim

Tammy,

full copy of Tammy’s letter here http://artsandcraftslaw.blogspot.com/

I read your letter on a Techdirt http://techdirt.com/articles/20080425/124144950.shtml#comments #12 posting, and I must say that of all of my readings on this issue. Your letter is on point of the real effects of this legislation, as it relates to creators, especially the visual artist.

I am the POSTER CHILD for why this is bad for the copyright creators.

I come from an experience that is real. I am in year 3 of a copyright litigation that, my legal bill now exceeds $500,000.00 USD.

US copyright laws currently lack “MORAL RIGHTS”…. before any “ORPHAN WORKS LAW” should be considered the copyright laws need to address at least “Mandatory Attribution” bc I don’t think that moral rights can be enforced by law.

My case involves thousands of images that were marked with my “CMI” embedded into each and every image, with metadata….client removed said data, and then licensed my images to hundreds of third parties who then licensed my images to thousands of additional third parties under their “Affiliate Marketing Programs”

So if you are an artist and are concerned with your artwork then you better be concerned with this proposed legislation, and the impacts it will have on your ability to sustain yourself.

As an aside, although I was the copyright owner, I was the defendant in this lawsuit. I was forced to incur $500,000.00 USD in legal fees to protect my copyrights. As a result I now have thousands of images being used by thousands of people whom are all using my images to make money….they have not paid one red cent for these assets…I can not pursue each and every one of them….and those that I do can claim as a defense that the work is either in public domain or an orphaned work, or that it was an innocent infringement.

How many readers have the kind of USD it take to protect your copyrights, even under the laws as they now stand? If the orphan works law passes as now proposed it will cost more to protect your rights both in real dollars and in your personal time, and emotions.

Propet USA v. Lloyd Shugart WD WA. Federal Court

Lloyd Shugart

# posted by

Lloyd Shugart : 1:43 PM

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
2013 Beyaz Eşya modeller
Sizlere Güvenlik Sistemleri ayarliyoruz
Arayin Hırdavat bulun
Samsung Nokia İphone Cep telefonu alin.
Super Led Tv keyfi

# posted by

Osman Atarci : 11:45 AM