Orphan Works Bills Introduced

Senate LogoYesterday, both the U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate introduced versions of the orphan works bill. Both the Senate version, S.2913, and the House version, H.R.5889 are very similar in nature and closely mirror the Orphan Works Act of 2006, which failed to pass.

According to attorney Joe Keeley, the two bills are very similar to the 2006 one. Both focus heavily on the performing of a “Reasonably Diligent Search” for the copyright holder, which is now called a “Qualifying Search” in the new legislation, and both bills allow the user to avoid paying statutory damages or attorney fees if they use the work after performing such a search and are unable to locate the copyright holder.

However, the bills are not exact carbon copies of the 2006 leglislation, both offer some differences that need to be looked at and weighed.

Differences in Senate Version

The Senate version of the bill is by far the most similar to the original. It offers only two major changes when compared to its 2006 counterpart.

  • A study of the current copyright registration system, to be completed within two years.
  • A requirement that uses of orphan works be identified with a symbol, to be created by the Copyright Office.

The “meat” of the bill, the limitation of damages if the copyright holder can not be found after a resonable search, remains very much in tact. Though the bill, like its 2006 counterpart, puts a higher burden on commercial use, it does make the works available for such purposes.

Differences in the House Version

The House version of the bill is the more different of the two offering, several differences from both the 2006 legislation and the Senate version. The differences between it and the 2006 version are as follows:

  • A delayed effective date for visual works. Would start either in 2013 or after the databases or after two searchable databases are available to the public for visual works.
  • A study of the current copyright registration system, to be completed within two years.
  • Those seeking to use an orphan work must first file a “Notice of Use” with the Copyright Office.
  • A requirement that uses of orphan works be identified with a symbol, to be created by the Copyright Office.
  • In cases where a copyright comes forward after an orphan work is used and the work was previously registered, courts can take into account the registration and may value the work higher, awarding more money.

It is clear that the House version is designed to placate the fears and worries of visual artists, who were primarily responsible for the failure of the first bill. It delays the effective data for visual works, adds extra burdens on those seeking to use an orphan work and can award greater damages if the work is properly registered with the USCO.

However, as with the house version, the overall effect is still the same. Though visual artists will likely find this bill preferable, I doubt that many will consider it an adequate effort to address the issues raised.

Some General Thoughts

House of Representatives LogoThough I plan to talk more about this bill over the next few weeks, my initial thoughts are that the bill’s chances of passage are slimmer than many think.

Not only does the bill have strong opposition among visual artists, it also has very little support from copyright reformists, such as Professor Lessig, who deal heavily with the orphan works issue. The bill has no real champion among the people and even the RIAA has remained quiet on the issue since filing a comment (PDF) on the proposed legislation back in 2005.

While it is worrisome that they are attempting to “fast track” this bill, the first one died an inglorious death and this one seems likely to follow suit, with campaigns against it already mounted.

But while I do not think the nightmare scenarios that many visual artists are presenting are likely to happen, nor do I think much of the panic is justified, I agree that this legislation does create new headaches for copyright holders without providing much benefit to those that would seek to use orphan works.

Simply put, what this legislation does is provide little more than an affirmative defense against a suit for copyright infringement. Much like with fair use, the person making use of the work would have to prove that their copying was not an infringement. This will, inevitably, lead to a lot of legal gray area that will scare most people off from using orphan works.

It would likely be decades before this law was adequately tested in the courts to provide any certainty to those wanting to take advantage of it. Between then and the passage of the law, should it happen, there would be a long period of turmoil, for both copyright holders and those wanting to use/protect orphan works.

Conclusions

The orphan works problem is very real and it was created by a combination of ever-extending copyright protection periods, a registration system that doesn’t effectively register anything and media that can’t outlast the copyright term.

These issues have to be addressed if we’re going to get a real solution to these problems.

But as bad as this legislation is in many ways, it is actually among the best copyright legislation we’ve seen in the past 20 years. At the very least, we have to give the USCO and our Congress credit for not simply bowing down before big copyright holders and for addressing a real issue, albeit in a very imperfect way.

In short, copyright law is currently so messed up and beyond repair that it may be time to consider a full reboot, one that can actually address these issues and dozens of other problems with the current system.

In the meantime, I sincerely hope that we can do better than this particular orphan works legislation.

32 Responses to Orphan Works Bills Introduced

  1. Sandi Baker says:

    Thank you Jonathan!!!

    Most visual Artists that I know are deeply concerned about this bill resurfacing. Thanks for keeping us up to date. Great article!!

    It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to create an 'orphaned works registry' than try to register or reregister everything that is copyrighted….

  2. Sandi Baker says:

    Thank you Jonathan!!!Most visual Artists that I know are deeply concerned about this bill resurfacing. Thanks for keeping us up to date. Great article!! It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to create an 'orphaned works registry' than try to register or reregister everything that is copyrighted….

  3. Sandi Baker says:

    Thank you Jonathan!!!Most visual Artists that I know are deeply concerned about this bill resurfacing. Thanks for keeping us up to date. Great article!! It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to create an 'orphaned works registry' than try to register or reregister everything that is copyrighted….

  4. [...] History. Thanks! If you’re looking for a good place to keep up with the issue, I recommend Plagiarism Today as the guy who blogs there does an excellent job at keeping up on these [...]

  5. [...] one in the House and one in the Senate. These bills, should either of them pass, could have a drastic impact on copyright holders both within and outside of the United [...]

  6. Sandi: I’ll definitely try to keep everyone as up to date as I can. It’s very hard to track these bills as they move through Congress these days. This is one area technology can not help. So please, if you hear anything that I miss, let me know!

  7. Sandi: I’ll definitely try to keep everyone as up to date as I can. It’s very hard to track these bills as they move through Congress these days. This is one area technology can not help. So please, if you hear anything that I miss, let me know!

  8. [...] Today includes an another article by Jonathan Bailey called Orphan Bills Introduced which includes a summary of the differences between the Senate and House bills. It is the House [...]

  9. Alan says:

    The other item I don’t see addressed in this discussion is the fact that (as of now) every work is copyrighted the moment it is created. You don’t need to register the work in order for copyright protection to be in force. This makes _any_ search for copyright holders to be extremely hard, since one can’t simply check the registry. While I am in favor of something being done about true orphan works, I fear this proposed legislation simply makes theft of unregistered, but still nonetheless copyrighted works, easier.

  10. Alan says:

    The other item I don’t see addressed in this discussion is the fact that (as of now) every work is copyrighted the moment it is created. You don’t need to register the work in order for copyright protection to be in force. This makes _any_ search for copyright holders to be extremely hard, since one can’t simply check the registry. While I am in favor of something being done about true orphan works, I fear this proposed legislation simply makes theft of unregistered, but still nonetheless copyrighted works, easier.

  11. Alan: While that is true to an extent, text works have a much, much easier time being searched for than other works. With Google book search and search engines for the rest of the Web, there is increasingly very little textual content, especially newer content, not indexed somewhere in databases and easily searched for.

    Could any work be affected, yes, but one would think that any reasonable search would involve putting a quote into Google. That would be enough to locate most modern text works.

    Still, I do prefer Prof. Lessig's ideas on the bill to the one that was presented. It seems to address the problem better and saves copyright holders a great deal of headache…

  12. Alan: While that is true to an extent, text works have a much, much easier time being searched for than other works. With Google book search and search engines for the rest of the Web, there is increasingly very little textual content, especially newer content, not indexed somewhere in databases and easily searched for. Could any work be affected, yes, but one would think that any reasonable search would involve putting a quote into Google. That would be enough to locate most modern text works. Still, I do prefer Prof. Lessig's ideas on the bill to the one that was presented. It seems to address the problem better and saves copyright holders a great deal of headache…

  13. Alan: While that is true to an extent, text works have a much, much easier time being searched for than other works. With Google book search and search engines for the rest of the Web, there is increasingly very little textual content, especially newer content, not indexed somewhere in databases and easily searched for. Could any work be affected, yes, but one would think that any reasonable search would involve putting a quote into Google. That would be enough to locate most modern text works. Still, I do prefer Prof. Lessig's ideas on the bill to the one that was presented. It seems to address the problem better and saves copyright holders a great deal of headache…

  14. [...] since the orphan works bill was introduced, artists have been very busy blogging about the bill, passing around petitions and organizing [...]

  15. You said:

    "At the very least, we have to give the USCO and our Congress credit for not simply bowing down before big copyright holders and for addressing a real issue, albeit in a very imperfect way."The USCO and our Congress are bowing down before BIG corporate giants Google and Corbis (owned by Bill Gates of Microsoft). They are the ones with the power here. Artists- often the rightsholders- are the little guys in this matter who are being brushed under the carpet.According to a recent NY Times article:

    <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/arts/12nea.html?ex=1213934400&en=a1d9864e3340242a&ei=5070&emc=eta1
    “>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/arts/12nea.html

    "In 2005 nearly two million Americans said their primary employment was in jobs that the census defines as artists’ occupations — including architects, interior designers and window dressers. Their combined income was about $70 billion, a median of $34,800 each."…

    "Overall, the median income that artists reported in 2005 was $34,800 — $42,000 for men and $27,300 for women. The median income of the 55 percent of artists who said they had worked full-time for a full year was $45,200."…

    "They are more highly educated but earn less than other professionals with the same level of schooling. They are likelier to be self-employed (about one in three and growing) and less likely to work full-time, year-round."…

    "About 13 percent of people who say their primary occupation is artist also hold a second job — about twice the rate that other people in the labor force work two jobs."Artists are not unionized or organized in any way. We are the "David" in this David vs. Goliath story.Not only would the Orphan Works Act be too costly in time and money for small businesses to futilely attempt to protect their works in the visual databases but there should be no infringement safe harbor for nonprofits. Nonprofits are a $2 trillion industry in the US. If they were a country, they'd have the seventh largest economy in the world.I am a medical illustrator. I take the complicated and technical subjects of science and medicine and translate them into visualizations that communicate these concepts in ways people can easily understand. Nonprofits are our clients. If enacted, the Orphan Works Act would devastate my profession and have a grave trickle down impact on the future of American healthcare, patient education and the development of breakthroughs in science and technology.These acts will devastate the livelihoods of ORIGINAL content creators, collapsing the US's hopes as a future world leader in intellectual property growth. Thank you for posting my opinions.

  16. You said:
    “At the very least, we have to give the USCO and our Congress credit for not simply bowing down before big copyright holders and for addressing a real issue, albeit in a very imperfect way.”

    The USCO and our Congress are bowing down before BIG corporate giants Google and Corbis (owned by Bill Gates of Microsoft). They are the ones with the power here.

    Artists- often the rightsholders- are the little guys in this matter who are being brushed under the carpet.

    According to a recent NY Times article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/arts/12nea.html?ex=1213934400&en=a1d9864e3340242a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

    “In 2005 nearly two million Americans said their primary employment was in jobs that the census defines as artists’ occupations — including architects, interior designers and window dressers. Their combined income was about $70 billion, a median of $34,800 each.”…
    “Overall, the median income that artists reported in 2005 was $34,800 — $42,000 for men and $27,300 for women. The median income of the 55 percent of artists who said they had worked full-time for a full year was $45,200.”…
    “They are more highly educated but earn less than other professionals with the same level of schooling. They are likelier to be self-employed (about one in three and growing) and less likely to work full-time, year-round.”…
    “About 13 percent of people who say their primary occupation is artist also hold a second job — about twice the rate that other people in the labor force work two jobs.”

    Artists are not unionized or organized in any way. We are the “David” in this David vs. Goliath story.

    Not only would the Orphan Works Act be too costly in time and money for small businesses to futilely attempt to protect their works in the visual databases but there should be no infringement safe harbor for nonprofits. Nonprofits are a $2 trillion industry in the US. If they were a country, they’d have the seventh largest economy in the world.

    I am a medical illustrator. I take the complicated and technical subjects of science and medicine and translate them into visualizations that communicate these concepts in ways people can easily understand. Nonprofits are our clients. If enacted, the Orphan Works Act would devastate my profession and have a grave trickle down impact on the future of American healthcare, patient education and the development of breakthroughs in science and technology.

    These acts will devastate the livelihoods of ORIGINAL content creators, collapsing the US’s hopes as a future world leader in intellectual property growth.

    Thank you for posting my opinions.

    • @Dena Matthews
      I agree that there are some big corporate giants that might "win" but there are others that will lose including those in the mainstream media. The orphan works problem is a very real one and was caused by the ever-extending copyright term. The problem has to be solved or else the term "public domain" is effectively meaningless. I do not like this solution, I think it is the wrong answer to a very real problem, but a solution is going to have to be found and many are pushing for a sharp reduction in the term for copyright.

      With organizations such as the American Society of Media Photographers supporting this bill, it seems like that it will pass and that, if it doesn't an even worse one could later.

      While I don't agree with that logic either, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how to resolve the orphan works issue. I'm open to new ideas on this topic and am genuinely interested to hear how you would propose it be resolved. Would you prefer a shortened copyright term to the current bill?

      I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

      Thank you for your time.

  17. You said:
    “At the very least, we have to give the USCO and our Congress credit for not simply bowing down before big copyright holders and for addressing a real issue, albeit in a very imperfect way.”

    The USCO and our Congress are bowing down before BIG corporate giants Google and Corbis (owned by Bill Gates of Microsoft). They are the ones with the power here.

    Artists- often the rightsholders- are the little guys in this matter who are being brushed under the carpet.

    According to a recent NY Times article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/arts/12nea.ht

    “In 2005 nearly two million Americans said their primary employment was in jobs that the census defines as artists’ occupations — including architects, interior designers and window dressers. Their combined income was about $70 billion, a median of $34,800 each.”…
    “Overall, the median income that artists reported in 2005 was $34,800 — $42,000 for men and $27,300 for women. The median income of the 55 percent of artists who said they had worked full-time for a full year was $45,200.”…
    “They are more highly educated but earn less than other professionals with the same level of schooling. They are likelier to be self-employed (about one in three and growing) and less likely to work full-time, year-round.”…
    “About 13 percent of people who say their primary occupation is artist also hold a second job — about twice the rate that other people in the labor force work two jobs.”

    Artists are not unionized or organized in any way. We are the “David” in this David vs. Goliath story.

    Not only would the Orphan Works Act be too costly in time and money for small businesses to futilely attempt to protect their works in the visual databases but there should be no infringement safe harbor for nonprofits. Nonprofits are a $2 trillion industry in the US. If they were a country, they’d have the seventh largest economy in the world.

    I am a medical illustrator. I take the complicated and technical subjects of science and medicine and translate them into visualizations that communicate these concepts in ways people can easily understand. Nonprofits are our clients. If enacted, the Orphan Works Act would devastate my profession and have a grave trickle down impact on the future of American healthcare, patient education and the development of breakthroughs in science and technology.

    These acts will devastate the livelihoods of ORIGINAL content creators, collapsing the US’s hopes as a future world leader in intellectual property growth.

    Thank you for posting my opinions.

  18. @Dena Matthews
    I agree that there are some big corporate giants that might "win" but there are others that will lose including those in the mainstream media. The orphan works problem is a very real one and was caused by the ever-extending copyright term. The problem has to be solved or else the term "public domain" is effectively meaningless. I do not like this solution, I think it is the wrong answer to a very real problem, but a solution is going to have to be found and many are pushing for a sharp reduction in the term for copyright.

    With organizations such as the American Society of Media Photographers supporting this bill, it seems like that it will pass and that, if it doesn't an even worse one could later.

    While I don't agree with that logic either, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how to resolve the orphan works issue. I'm open to new ideas on this topic and am genuinely interested to hear how you would propose it be resolved. Would you prefer a shortened copyright term to the current bill?

    I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

    Thank you for your time.

  19. @Dena Matthews -
    I agree that there are some big corporate giants that might “win” but there are others that will lose including those in the mainstream media. The orphan works problem is a very real one and was caused by the ever-extending copyright term. The problem has to be solved or else the term “public domain” is effectively meaningless. I do not like this solution, I think it is the wrong answer to a very real problem, but a solution is going to have to be found and many are pushing for a sharp reduction in the term for copyright.

    With organizations such as the American Society of Media Photographers supporting this bill, it seems like that it will pass and that, if it doesn’t an even worse one could later.

    While I don’t agree with that logic either, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how to resolve the orphan works issue. I’m open to new ideas on this topic and am genuinely interested to hear how you would propose it be resolved. Would you prefer a shortened copyright term to the current bill?

    I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

    Thank you for your time.

  20. @Jonathan Bailey – Dear Jonathan, Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective (and that of thousands of rightsholders).I am not sure who you are referring to in the "mainstream media" or how they will "lose".Rightsholders take no issue with certified archives, libraries and museums (the ones that hold dusty old books, prints, sculptures, photos, etc. that have been vetted in their collection and not procured by the black market) to make works available for public display for the purpose of cultural heritage preservation.Sending a clear message to the US, on June 4, 2008, members of the European Union signed a Memorandum of Understanding (basically a law, for all intents and purposes) that is a true Orphan Works legislation.

    <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/hleg/hleg_meetings/index_en.htm
    “>http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activitie
    "It will help cultural institutions to digitise books, films and music whose authors are unknown, making them available to the public online."The bills before Congress are a bait and switch. They claim to be helping dusty, old, esteemed places- you know, the ones with the tall, white pillars- but what they really do is crack open the genie's bottle so those who've already snapped up the domain names for orphan works and vacuumed the internet for every image that every existed there can package it up and make a buck.Artists' rights groups that I am associated with have been working on suggested amendments though they are not publicly disclosed at this time. Once they are made public, I would be happy to share that with your readers.There is no impetus to rush a massive piece of copyright reform stealthily through Congress. This must be slowed down and carefully studied. The Copyright Office never performed a market impact study on those who manage their copyrights. What about the victims of Katrina? Many will never be able to participate in the registries- they have lost their works, their studios, their homes and sadly, many lost their lives. Many victims are unlocatable. Is that any reason to victimize them all over again? People in Congress are taking note!It is not inevitable that this bill will pass this session. Rightsholders are making an impact and garnering support for our views. You are right though, that this problem is not going away. The giant corporations (the digital libraries, archives and museums of the 21st century) want to get us pesky copyright holders out of the way so they can digitize our collections (if they haven't already) and offer them up for a buck.I hope I have shed some more light on the hidden problems that were crafted into The [Shawn Bentley] Orphan Works Act of 2008.I highly recommend you

    1. Read the bills and the archives at

    <a href="http://www.illustratorspartnership.org
    “>http://www.illustratorspartnership.org

    2. Sign the petition "A Million People Against the Orphan Works Bill"

    <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/Stop2913/petition.html
    “>http://www.petitiononline.com/Stop2913/petition.h

    3. Call the capitol hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121

    tell your members of Congress why you oppose the bills as written4. Personalize and send faxes and emails to your members of Congress

    the best letters are at: <a href="http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
    “>http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

    We CAN make a difference against huge corporations spending countless dollars on this matter. The politicians will listen if enough constituents make some noise. So, please, I urge you all to act now.Best regards,

    Dena Matthews

  21. @Jonathan Bailey

    Dear Jonathan,

    Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective (and that of thousands of rightsholders).

    I am not sure who you are referring to in the “mainstream media” or how they will “lose”.

    Rightsholders take no issue with certified archives, libraries and museums (the ones that hold dusty old books, prints, sculptures, photos, etc. that have been vetted in their collection and not procured by the black market) to make works available for public display for the purpose of cultural heritage preservation.

    Sending a clear message to the US, on June 4, 2008, members of the European Union signed a Memorandum of Understanding (basically a law, for all intents and purposes) that is a true Orphan Works legislation.
    http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/hleg/hleg_meetings/index_en.htm
    “It will help cultural institutions to digitise books, films and music whose authors are unknown, making them available to the public online.”

    The bills before Congress are a bait and switch. They claim to be helping dusty, old, esteemed places- you know, the ones with the tall, white pillars- but what they really do is crack open the genie’s bottle so those who’ve already snapped up the domain names for orphan works and vacuumed the internet for every image that every existed there can package it up and make a buck.

    Artists’ rights groups that I am associated with have been working on suggested amendments though they are not publicly disclosed at this time. Once they are made public, I would be happy to share that with your readers.

    There is no impetus to rush a massive piece of copyright reform stealthily through Congress. This must be slowed down and carefully studied. The Copyright Office never performed a market impact study on those who manage their copyrights. What about the victims of Katrina? Many will never be able to participate in the registries- they have lost their works, their studios, their homes and sadly, many lost their lives. Many victims are unlocatable. Is that any reason to victimize them all over again?

    People in Congress are taking note!

    It is not inevitable that this bill will pass this session. Rightsholders are making an impact and garnering support for our views. You are right though, that this problem is not going away. The giant corporations (the digital libraries, archives and museums of the 21st century) want to get us pesky copyright holders out of the way so they can digitize our collections (if they haven’t already) and offer them up for a buck.

    I hope I have shed some more light on the hidden problems that were crafted into The [Shawn Bentley] Orphan Works Act of 2008.

    I highly recommend you
    1. Read the bills and the archives at
    http://www.illustratorspartnership.org

    2. Sign the petition “A Million People Against the Orphan Works Bill”
    http://www.petitiononline.com/Stop2913/petition.html

    3. Call the capitol hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121
    tell your members of Congress why you oppose the bills as written

    4. Personalize and send faxes and emails to your members of Congress
    the best letters are at: http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

    We CAN make a difference against huge corporations spending countless dollars on this matter. The politicians will listen if enough constituents make some noise. So, please, I urge you all to act now.

    Best regards,
    Dena Matthews

  22. @Jonathan Bailey

    Dear Jonathan,

    Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective (and that of thousands of rightsholders).

    I am not sure who you are referring to in the “mainstream media” or how they will “lose”.

    Rightsholders take no issue with certified archives, libraries and museums (the ones that hold dusty old books, prints, sculptures, photos, etc. that have been vetted in their collection and not procured by the black market) to make works available for public display for the purpose of cultural heritage preservation.

    Sending a clear message to the US, on June 4, 2008, members of the European Union signed a Memorandum of Understanding (basically a law, for all intents and purposes) that is a true Orphan Works legislation.
    http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activit
    “It will help cultural institutions to digitise books, films and music whose authors are unknown, making them available to the public online.”

    The bills before Congress are a bait and switch. They claim to be helping dusty, old, esteemed places- you know, the ones with the tall, white pillars- but what they really do is crack open the genie’s bottle so those who’ve already snapped up the domain names for orphan works and vacuumed the internet for every image that every existed there can package it up and make a buck.

    Artists’ rights groups that I am associated with have been working on suggested amendments though they are not publicly disclosed at this time. Once they are made public, I would be happy to share that with your readers.

    There is no impetus to rush a massive piece of copyright reform stealthily through Congress. This must be slowed down and carefully studied. The Copyright Office never performed a market impact study on those who manage their copyrights. What about the victims of Katrina? Many will never be able to participate in the registries- they have lost their works, their studios, their homes and sadly, many lost their lives. Many victims are unlocatable. Is that any reason to victimize them all over again?

    People in Congress are taking note!

    It is not inevitable that this bill will pass this session. Rightsholders are making an impact and garnering support for our views. You are right though, that this problem is not going away. The giant corporations (the digital libraries, archives and museums of the 21st century) want to get us pesky copyright holders out of the way so they can digitize our collections (if they haven’t already) and offer them up for a buck.

    I hope I have shed some more light on the hidden problems that were crafted into The [Shawn Bentley] Orphan Works Act of 2008.

    I highly recommend you
    1. Read the bills and the archives at
    http://www.illustratorspartnership.org

    2. Sign the petition “A Million People Against the Orphan Works Bill”
    http://www.petitiononline.com/Stop2913/petition

    3. Call the capitol hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121
    tell your members of Congress why you oppose the bills as written

    4. Personalize and send faxes and emails to your members of Congress
    the best letters are at: http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

    We CAN make a difference against huge corporations spending countless dollars on this matter. The politicians will listen if enough constituents make some noise. So, please, I urge you all to act now.

    Best regards,
    Dena Matthews

  23. CheekyM says:

    Do you think Obama is for the Orphan Works bill? I read a post about Shepard Fairey that hinted at the possibility. I put the link in the website space if you want to take a look. Shepard has violated current copyright law and Obama must have been aware of that when making him the official artist for his camp.

  24. The honest answer is that I do not know. I have not heard what any of the candidates have said on this issue yet as it has not been a major issue on the trail and I don't think either have been involved directly up to this point. Please, if anyone knows, correct me.

  25. Walter says:

    I have to say that copyright infringers like Shepard Fairey will glow if this bill is passed. The man already steals from political artists who are no known widely in the US. If this bill passes he could steal from anyone and not have to worry about paying much if anything in royalties. I wish more people again the orphan works bill would have the courage to speak out again artists like Shepard Fairey and even Damien Hirst in order to make it clear that we will not support artists who violate the copyright of fellow artists or other individuals. I just don't understand it. If a kid on Facebook alters the work of someone else the kid will be given the third degree by other artists but if a popular artist does the same it is acceptable. You can't say that you stand against the orphan works bill while allowing these popular artists to walk all over everything we believe in.

  26. BaLaM says:

    А интересно, сам автор читает комментарии к этому сообщению. Или мы тут сами для себя пишем? :)

  27. RT <a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/plagiarismtoday">@plagiarismtoday versions of just introduced orphan works (copyright) legislation http://bit.ly/TdsE – chances of passage are [slim]

  28. Tom Byrne says:

    Perhaps we can do something to stop the Orphan works bill through the courts. Hopefully so but money and lobbying are very powerful and a lot of large companies have a strong vested interest in the version being proposed.There is a need for a version of the orphan works bill and Google among others are big supporters of the proposal. However everyone agrees they are going too far in their demands.They aren't listening to the creators objections and the extent of the bill being proposed plus Googles recent grabbing of things that are not theirs (tied down), makes me think that we might be partly to blame again. By using their search engine we are giving them power.So for the hell of it, if you are using Firefox as a browser, you can delete Google as a search engine (which will be noticed). It's like voting.Bing is owned by Microsoft who are also pushing the bill through. There are a list of search engines that you can install listed here: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:4/cat:all?sort=name|leo://plh/https%3A*3*3addons%2Emozilla%2Eorg*3en-US*3firefox*3browse*3type%3A4*3cat%3Aall%3Fsort%3Dname/AW N5?_t=tracking_disc ]It's possible to delete both Google and Bing from your search engine selection which would definitely get google etc, to sit up and pay attention.Goodsearch is a nice alternativehttp://www.goodsearch.com/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/…..This is a passively dynamic way of sending a message. It doesn't cost anything, the search engines are easy to install and a change is as good as a rest. I've been using Good search for a week and it's fine.CheersTomFeel free to pass this on.

  29. Tom Byrne says:

    Perhaps we can do something to stop the Orphan works bill through the courts. Hopefully so but money and lobbying are very powerful and a lot of large companies have a strong vested interest in the version being proposed.

    There is a need for a version of the orphan works bill and Google among others are big supporters of the proposal. However everyone agrees they are going too far in their demands.

    They aren’t listening to the creators objections and the extent of the bill being proposed plus Googles recent grabbing of things that are not theirs (tied down), makes me think that we might be partly to blame again. By using their search engine we are giving them power.

    So for the hell of it, if you are using Firefox as a browser, you can delete Google as a search engine (which will be noticed). It’s like voting.

    Bing is owned by Microsoft who are also pushing the bill through. There are a list of search engines that you can install listed here:

    [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:4/cat:all?sort=name|leo://plh/https%3A*3*3addons%2Emozilla%2Eorg*3en-US*3firefox*3browse*3type%3A4*3cat%3Aall%3Fsort%3Dname/AW N5?_t=tracking_disc ]

    It’s possible to delete both Google and Bing from your search engine selection which would definitely get google etc, to sit up and pay attention.

    Goodsearch is a nice alternative
    http://www.goodsearch.com/

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9674

    This is a passively dynamic way of sending a message. It doesn’t cost anything, the search engines are easy to install and a change is as good as a rest. I’ve been using Good search for a week and it’s fine.

    Cheers
    Tom

    Feel free to pass this on.

  30. […] the debate and discussion around an earlier orphan works bill (works where the copyright holder is unknown), Congress had heard a great deal about the […]

Leave a Reply

STAY CONNECTED