Comments on: A Realistic Look at Orphan Works http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:59:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-121268 Jonathan Bailey Wed, 21 May 2008 01:03:43 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-121268 Confused: I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but I will give it a shot. In the non-profit realm, the biggest worry isn't so much about any actual use but preservation. The problem is that there is a lot of copyrighted material stored in media that will deteriorate and be destroyed before the copyright on the work expires. Film and photos are especially vulnerable to this as many of the oldest film media have relatively short shelf lives but very long copyrights.This creates both a problem with historical preservation, saving historic images and footage, and cultural one, because by the time these works are in the public domain, they will no longer be useful.As for commercial use. That is something I don't personally agree with and I really don't see how commercial use will be widespread. I don't see it as necessary for the legislation to solve the problem before us and I don't see what is gained, especially since the vague terminology will only make it nearly impossible for commercial use to take place.I'll leave it to someone wiser than I to explain that portion of the bill.I hope that helps! Confused: I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but I will give it a shot. In the non-profit realm, the biggest worry isn't so much about any actual use but preservation. The problem is that there is a lot of copyrighted material stored in media that will deteriorate and be destroyed before the copyright on the work expires. Film and photos are especially vulnerable to this as many of the oldest film media have relatively short shelf lives but very long copyrights.This creates both a problem with historical preservation, saving historic images and footage, and cultural one, because by the time these works are in the public domain, they will no longer be useful.As for commercial use. That is something I don't personally agree with and I really don't see how commercial use will be widespread. I don't see it as necessary for the legislation to solve the problem before us and I don't see what is gained, especially since the vague terminology will only make it nearly impossible for commercial use to take place.I'll leave it to someone wiser than I to explain that portion of the bill.I hope that helps!

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-133028 Jonathan Bailey Wed, 21 May 2008 01:03:43 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-133028 Confused: I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but I will give it a shot. In the non-profit realm, the biggest worry isn't so much about any actual use but preservation. The problem is that there is a lot of copyrighted material stored in media that will deteriorate and be destroyed before the copyright on the work expires. Film and photos are especially vulnerable to this as many of the oldest film media have relatively short shelf lives but very long copyrights.This creates both a problem with historical preservation, saving historic images and footage, and cultural one, because by the time these works are in the public domain, they will no longer be useful.As for commercial use. That is something I don't personally agree with and I really don't see how commercial use will be widespread. I don't see it as necessary for the legislation to solve the problem before us and I don't see what is gained, especially since the vague terminology will only make it nearly impossible for commercial use to take place.I'll leave it to someone wiser than I to explain that portion of the bill.I hope that helps! Confused: I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but I will give it a shot. In the non-profit realm, the biggest worry isn't so much about any actual use but preservation. The problem is that there is a lot of copyrighted material stored in media that will deteriorate and be destroyed before the copyright on the work expires. Film and photos are especially vulnerable to this as many of the oldest film media have relatively short shelf lives but very long copyrights.This creates both a problem with historical preservation, saving historic images and footage, and cultural one, because by the time these works are in the public domain, they will no longer be useful.As for commercial use. That is something I don't personally agree with and I really don't see how commercial use will be widespread. I don't see it as necessary for the legislation to solve the problem before us and I don't see what is gained, especially since the vague terminology will only make it nearly impossible for commercial use to take place.I'll leave it to someone wiser than I to explain that portion of the bill.I hope that helps!

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-102846 Jonathan Bailey Tue, 20 May 2008 23:03:43 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-102846 Confused: I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but I will give it a shot. In the non-profit realm, the biggest worry isn't so much about any actual use but preservation. The problem is that there is a lot of copyrighted material stored in media that will deteriorate and be destroyed before the copyright on the work expires. Film and photos are especially vulnerable to this as many of the oldest film media have relatively short shelf lives but very long copyrights. This creates both a problem with historical preservation, saving historic images and footage, and cultural one, because by the time these works are in the public domain, they will no longer be useful. As for commercial use. That is something I don't personally agree with and I really don't see how commercial use will be widespread. I don't see it as necessary for the legislation to solve the problem before us and I don't see what is gained, especially since the vague terminology will only make it nearly impossible for commercial use to take place. I'll leave it to someone wiser than I to explain that portion of the bill. I hope that helps! Confused: I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but I will give it a shot.

In the non-profit realm, the biggest worry isn't so much about any actual use but preservation. The problem is that there is a lot of copyrighted material stored in media that will deteriorate and be destroyed before the copyright on the work expires. Film and photos are especially vulnerable to this as many of the oldest film media have relatively short shelf lives but very long copyrights.

This creates both a problem with historical preservation, saving historic images and footage, and cultural one, because by the time these works are in the public domain, they will no longer be useful.

As for commercial use. That is something I don't personally agree with and I really don't see how commercial use will be widespread. I don't see it as necessary for the legislation to solve the problem before us and I don't see what is gained, especially since the vague terminology will only make it nearly impossible for commercial use to take place.

I'll leave it to someone wiser than I to explain that portion of the bill.

I hope that helps!

]]> By: confused http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-121267 confused Tue, 20 May 2008 22:04:06 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-121267 I'm confused about the need for this legislation. So help me here. I keep reading in reference to this legislation, about how it's needed for old ladies who want old family photos restored without fear of copyright litigation. Now, I've worked recently with a bunch of old people, and their biggest concerns were medical care and insurance and Social Security payments, not Orphans Works legislation.Then I keep reading about how there is an army of documentary filmmakers who can't make films without this legislation being passed, and knowing some guerilla filmmakers, they haven't been troubled with the old copyright law. I mean, has Michael Moore been withering on the vine because of Orphan works???So can people list how an image, whose owner isn't known, might be used? In the non-profit realm? And what about the commercial realm, which is what I suspect the meat of this issue is really about. I'm confused about the need for this legislation. So help me here. I keep reading in reference to this legislation, about how it's needed for old ladies who want old family photos restored without fear of copyright litigation. Now, I've worked recently with a bunch of old people, and their biggest concerns were medical care and insurance and Social Security payments, not Orphans Works legislation.Then I keep reading about how there is an army of documentary filmmakers who can't make films without this legislation being passed, and knowing some guerilla filmmakers, they haven't been troubled with the old copyright law. I mean, has Michael Moore been withering on the vine because of Orphan works???So can people list how an image, whose owner isn't known, might be used? In the non-profit realm? And what about the commercial realm, which is what I suspect the meat of this issue is really about.

]]> By: confused http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-132910 confused Tue, 20 May 2008 22:04:06 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-132910 I'm confused about the need for this legislation. So help me here. I keep reading in reference to this legislation, about how it's needed for old ladies who want old family photos restored without fear of copyright litigation. Now, I've worked recently with a bunch of old people, and their biggest concerns were medical care and insurance and Social Security payments, not Orphans Works legislation.Then I keep reading about how there is an army of documentary filmmakers who can't make films without this legislation being passed, and knowing some guerilla filmmakers, they haven't been troubled with the old copyright law. I mean, has Michael Moore been withering on the vine because of Orphan works???So can people list how an image, whose owner isn't known, might be used? In the non-profit realm? And what about the commercial realm, which is what I suspect the meat of this issue is really about. I'm confused about the need for this legislation. So help me here. I keep reading in reference to this legislation, about how it's needed for old ladies who want old family photos restored without fear of copyright litigation. Now, I've worked recently with a bunch of old people, and their biggest concerns were medical care and insurance and Social Security payments, not Orphans Works legislation.Then I keep reading about how there is an army of documentary filmmakers who can't make films without this legislation being passed, and knowing some guerilla filmmakers, they haven't been troubled with the old copyright law. I mean, has Michael Moore been withering on the vine because of Orphan works???So can people list how an image, whose owner isn't known, might be used? In the non-profit realm? And what about the commercial realm, which is what I suspect the meat of this issue is really about.

]]> By: confused http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-102785 confused Tue, 20 May 2008 20:04:06 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-102785 I'm confused about the need for this legislation. So help me here. I keep reading in reference to this legislation, about how it's needed for old ladies who want old family photos restored without fear of copyright litigation. Now, I've worked recently with a bunch of old people, and their biggest concerns were medical care and insurance and Social Security payments, not Orphans Works legislation. Then I keep reading about how there is an army of documentary filmmakers who can't make films without this legislation being passed, and knowing some guerilla filmmakers, they haven't been troubled with the old copyright law. I mean, has Michael Moore been withering on the vine because of Orphan works??? So can people list how an image, whose owner isn't known, might be used? In the non-profit realm? And what about the commercial realm, which is what I suspect the meat of this issue is really about. I'm confused about the need for this legislation. So help me here. I keep reading in reference to this legislation, about how it's needed for old ladies who want old family photos restored without fear of copyright litigation. Now, I've worked recently with a bunch of old people, and their biggest concerns were medical care and insurance and Social Security payments, not Orphans Works legislation.

Then I keep reading about how there is an army of documentary filmmakers who can't make films without this legislation being passed, and knowing some guerilla filmmakers, they haven't been troubled with the old copyright law. I mean, has Michael Moore been withering on the vine because of Orphan works???

So can people list how an image, whose owner isn't known, might be used? In the non-profit realm? And what about the commercial realm, which is what I suspect the meat of this issue is really about.

]]> By: Ben R R http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-121266 Ben R R Fri, 09 May 2008 23:37:33 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-121266 Linked:[...a blog that has done its research and presents a clear headed view of these controversial new bills.] Linked:[...a blog that has done its research and presents a clear headed view of these controversial new bills.]

]]> By: Ben R R http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-100252 Ben R R Fri, 09 May 2008 21:37:33 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-100252 Linked: [...a blog that has done its research and presents a clear headed view of these controversial new bills.] Linked:

[...a blog that has done its research and presents a clear headed view of these controversial new bills.]

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-121265 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 05 May 2008 14:39:45 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-121265 Diane: The derivative works issue is one that I did not touch on but probably should have. It's an interesting element of the bill.Whenever I read the bill initially, I focused on that area briefly but noticed this line, in your quote above."work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's original expression"The language there is familiar to me and to most who study copyright. It is ripped almost straight from fair use and fair use rulings.To take advantage of this, the infringer would have to take the orphan work and meld it with a "significant" amount of their own work. How much is significant? If fair us is any indication the answer is quite a great deal.We're not talking about simply running a Photoshop filter over the image and calling it a day, this is using a poem in a novel, a picture in a collage, etc. Fair use is a likely argument in many of these cases completely apart from the orphan works situation.The cases where a someone is allowed to use a work in a manner that is not covered remotely by fair use but is by the orphan works law will be very rare. Furthermore, these are not the commercial disasters that wholesale non-transformative copying are. This exemption, while worth noting, is very narrow and the language works to make it as such. Would I rather it not be there? Sure. Would I rather the bill go away again? Sure. But the sky isn't falling here either.Your rights are far more limited, in a practical sense, by the registration requirements than this. That doesn't make it right, but there isn't much need for panic either. Diane: The derivative works issue is one that I did not touch on but probably should have. It's an interesting element of the bill.Whenever I read the bill initially, I focused on that area briefly but noticed this line, in your quote above."work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's original expression"The language there is familiar to me and to most who study copyright. It is ripped almost straight from fair use and fair use rulings.To take advantage of this, the infringer would have to take the orphan work and meld it with a "significant" amount of their own work. How much is significant? If fair us is any indication the answer is quite a great deal.We're not talking about simply running a Photoshop filter over the image and calling it a day, this is using a poem in a novel, a picture in a collage, etc. Fair use is a likely argument in many of these cases completely apart from the orphan works situation.The cases where a someone is allowed to use a work in a manner that is not covered remotely by fair use but is by the orphan works law will be very rare. Furthermore, these are not the commercial disasters that wholesale non-transformative copying are. This exemption, while worth noting, is very narrow and the language works to make it as such. Would I rather it not be there? Sure. Would I rather the bill go away again? Sure. But the sky isn't falling here either.Your rights are far more limited, in a practical sense, by the registration requirements than this. That doesn't make it right, but there isn't much need for panic either.

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/05/01/a-realistic-look-at-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-133045 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 05 May 2008 14:39:45 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1003#comment-133045 Diane: The derivative works issue is one that I did not touch on but probably should have. It's an interesting element of the bill.Whenever I read the bill initially, I focused on that area briefly but noticed this line, in your quote above."work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's original expression"The language there is familiar to me and to most who study copyright. It is ripped almost straight from fair use and fair use rulings.To take advantage of this, the infringer would have to take the orphan work and meld it with a "significant" amount of their own work. How much is significant? If fair us is any indication the answer is quite a great deal.We're not talking about simply running a Photoshop filter over the image and calling it a day, this is using a poem in a novel, a picture in a collage, etc. Fair use is a likely argument in many of these cases completely apart from the orphan works situation.The cases where a someone is allowed to use a work in a manner that is not covered remotely by fair use but is by the orphan works law will be very rare. Furthermore, these are not the commercial disasters that wholesale non-transformative copying are. This exemption, while worth noting, is very narrow and the language works to make it as such. Would I rather it not be there? Sure. Would I rather the bill go away again? Sure. But the sky isn't falling here either.Your rights are far more limited, in a practical sense, by the registration requirements than this. That doesn't make it right, but there isn't much need for panic either. Diane: The derivative works issue is one that I did not touch on but probably should have. It's an interesting element of the bill.Whenever I read the bill initially, I focused on that area briefly but noticed this line, in your quote above."work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's original expression"The language there is familiar to me and to most who study copyright. It is ripped almost straight from fair use and fair use rulings.To take advantage of this, the infringer would have to take the orphan work and meld it with a "significant" amount of their own work. How much is significant? If fair us is any indication the answer is quite a great deal.We're not talking about simply running a Photoshop filter over the image and calling it a day, this is using a poem in a novel, a picture in a collage, etc. Fair use is a likely argument in many of these cases completely apart from the orphan works situation.The cases where a someone is allowed to use a work in a manner that is not covered remotely by fair use but is by the orphan works law will be very rare. Furthermore, these are not the commercial disasters that wholesale non-transformative copying are. This exemption, while worth noting, is very narrow and the language works to make it as such. Would I rather it not be there? Sure. Would I rather the bill go away again? Sure. But the sky isn't falling here either.Your rights are far more limited, in a practical sense, by the registration requirements than this. That doesn't make it right, but there isn't much need for panic either.

]]>