Jesse (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jesselowe) wrote,@ 2008-05-08 16:59:00 |
|
Ah, copyright law. One of my favorite subjects, actually. There's a kerfuffle going through internet artist communities at the moment - though it might already be dying down, we'll see - about "orphan works" and it's an interesting example of how copyright law tends to confuse people (your humble blogger included). It's also an example of (IMO) an Internet Panic.
An orphan work is a work that may be under copyright and thus use requires permission from the copyright holder BUT the copyright holder cannot be located or is unknown. The existence of orphan works is a serious problem for libraries and other archiving institutions, since archiving these works often involves work that is technically copying (such as making a digital copy of an out-of-print book from the early 20th century). If the organization can't find the copyright holders, they can't preserve the works. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, explains and the American Library Association has
An orphan work is a work that may be under copyright and thus use requires permission from the copyright holder BUT the copyright holder cannot be located or is unknown. The existence of orphan works is a serious problem for libraries and other archiving institutions, since archiving these works often involves work that is technically copying (such as making a digital copy of an out-of-print book from the early 20th century). If the organization can't find the copyright holders, they can't preserve the works. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, explains and the American Library Association has
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://mag.awn.com/?&article_no>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
Ah, copyright law. One of my favorite subjects, actually. There's a kerfuffle going through internet artist communities at the moment - though it might already be dying down, we'll see - about "orphan works" and it's an interesting example of how copyright law tends to confuse people (your humble blogger included). It's also an example of (IMO) an Internet Panic.
An orphan work is a work that may be under copyright and thus use requires permission from the copyright holder BUT the copyright holder cannot be located or is unknown. The existence of orphan works is a serious problem for libraries and other archiving institutions, since archiving these works often involves work that is technically copying (such as making a digital copy of an out-of-print book from the early 20th century). If the organization can't find the copyright holders, they can't preserve the works. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html">explains</a> and the American Library Association has <a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/copyrightb/orphanworks/orphanworks.cfm>its page</a>.
So.
In early April of this year, <a href="http://mag.awn.com/?&article_no=3605">Mark Simon writes an article</a> about legislation that will solve the orphan works problem - AND TAKE AWAY YOUR COPYRIGHT TO ALL YOUR ART!!! ZOMG! It's a bit on the high-pitched side.
This seems to set off the Internet Panic. I learned about the thing from <a href="http://www.conceptart.org">ConceptArt.org</a>, a neat message board for concept artists - browse the forums, lots of cool stuff there - which had an announcement on their front page today asking people to write to their representatives. (More anon). <a href="http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=121132">"Artists' Copyrights in jeopardy? Orphan Works Bill</a> started on April 14 in reaction to Simon's article. <a href="http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=609199">A similar thread</a> on CGTalk dates back to March 16, and <a href="http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?threadid=629108">another one</a> started yesterday.
Some people take a second look at Simon's article and have some nagging questions. <a href="http://kynn.livejournal.com/">Kynn</a> posts her look at Simon's article <a href="http://kynn.livejournal.com/799971.html">here</a>. Meredith Patterson</a> posts <a href="http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html">"Six Misconceptions About Orphaned Works"</a>, and that's just for starters.
Oh, and that legislation? Apparently didn't exist. There was an attempt in 2006 to pass a bill (<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5439">House Resolution 5439</a> and the related <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6052">H.R. 6052</a>) addressing the problem of orphan works, but it didn't pass. See point one in Patterson's post.
Late April: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h5889:">H.R.5889</a> and <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02913:">S.2913</a> are introduced in the House and Senate, respectively. Internet opposition, already revved up, kicks in again. (See the ConceptArt.org and CGtalk threads linked above in their later pages.) Alex Curtis posts <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1537">a bit of analysis on the two bills</a>, and Meredith Patterson promises to do a comparison at some point in the future. (Sadly, the ALA's page on orphan works hasn't been updated since 2006 as of this post. Shame on them.)
It's an interesting subject, and I'll be following it (probably not posting about it, though) as the bills wend their way through the legislative process. I'm on the fence about them; in general, I'm in favor of some solution to the orphan works problem, and the reaction of the artistic community seems more like shrieking monkey panic than a reasoned counter-argument - but I'm also waiting for more analysis from people better-equipped than I to tease out the ramifications of the bills. We'll see.
An orphan work is a work that may be under copyright and thus use requires permission from the copyright holder BUT the copyright holder cannot be located or is unknown. The existence of orphan works is a serious problem for libraries and other archiving institutions, since archiving these works often involves work that is technically copying (such as making a digital copy of an out-of-print book from the early 20th century). If the organization can't find the copyright holders, they can't preserve the works. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html">explains</a> and the American Library Association has <a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/copyrightb/orphanworks/orphanworks.cfm>its page</a>.
So.
In early April of this year, <a href="http://mag.awn.com/?&article_no=3605">Mark Simon writes an article</a> about legislation that will solve the orphan works problem - AND TAKE AWAY YOUR COPYRIGHT TO ALL YOUR ART!!! ZOMG! It's a bit on the high-pitched side.
This seems to set off the Internet Panic. I learned about the thing from <a href="http://www.conceptart.org">ConceptArt.org</a>, a neat message board for concept artists - browse the forums, lots of cool stuff there - which had an announcement on their front page today asking people to write to their representatives. (More anon). <a href="http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=121132">"Artists' Copyrights in jeopardy? Orphan Works Bill</a> started on April 14 in reaction to Simon's article. <a href="http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=609199">A similar thread</a> on CGTalk dates back to March 16, and <a href="http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?threadid=629108">another one</a> started yesterday.
Some people take a second look at Simon's article and have some nagging questions. <a href="http://kynn.livejournal.com/">Kynn</a> posts her look at Simon's article <a href="http://kynn.livejournal.com/799971.html">here</a>. Meredith Patterson</a> posts <a href="http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html">"Six Misconceptions About Orphaned Works"</a>, and that's just for starters.
Oh, and that legislation? Apparently didn't exist. There was an attempt in 2006 to pass a bill (<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5439">House Resolution 5439</a> and the related <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6052">H.R. 6052</a>) addressing the problem of orphan works, but it didn't pass. See point one in Patterson's post.
Late April: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h5889:">H.R.5889</a> and <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02913:">S.2913</a> are introduced in the House and Senate, respectively. Internet opposition, already revved up, kicks in again. (See the ConceptArt.org and CGtalk threads linked above in their later pages.) Alex Curtis posts <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1537">a bit of analysis on the two bills</a>, and Meredith Patterson promises to do a comparison at some point in the future. (Sadly, the ALA's page on orphan works hasn't been updated since 2006 as of this post. Shame on them.)
It's an interesting subject, and I'll be following it (probably not posting about it, though) as the bills wend their way through the legislative process. I'm on the fence about them; in general, I'm in favor of some solution to the orphan works problem, and the reaction of the artistic community seems more like shrieking monkey panic than a reasoned counter-argument - but I'm also waiting for more analysis from people better-equipped than I to tease out the ramifications of the bills. We'll see.
