Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> ©ollectanea

Intellectual Property Law

: ©ollectanea

Orphan Works and Self Control

By Georgia Harper

I need to digress. Is anyone else sharing my concern about the rhetoric surrounding the Orphan Works bills? No secret, I think the bills have serious defects and will do little or no good for the librarians and academics. That is a long story. I want to point out a calm and insightful discussion of the issue by Lawrence Lessig, published in the New York Times, May 20, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html Lessig hits on one of his recurring wishes: A system of making a recorded claim to the copyright after a period of years. That is a longer discussion, too. His discussion of the bill, however, is spot on. I have many other concerns to add to his list. I am troubled, though, by the rhetoric of some copyright owners who oppose the bill. Take a look at the "down the toilet" cartoon at this site: http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/2008/05/orphan_works.html Scroll down the list of horribles that are claimed to ensue if the bills become law. Evidently, the list was prepared by a photographer actively licensing his work to clients. I will paste the list here and add a few thoughts in response to each item: ? It would let anyone who can't find me (or who removes my name from my work and says he can't) to infringe my work. [KC says: How is that different from the current law? And removal of your name for purposes of infringement is likely a violation of the "copyright management information" statute of the DMCA.] ? Since infringements can occur anytime, anywhere in the world, [KC: And that might not be happening already?] ? My work could be stolen countless times, but I might never find out about it. [KC: Do you know right now how your work is being infringed???] ? That means that under this bill, I would never again be able to assure a client that my work hasn't been - or won't be - infringed. [KC: Surely you are not making that assurance today, are you?] ? Therefore I would never again be able to guarantee a client an exclusive right to license any of my work. [KC: Wow. A guarantee! Would that be reasonable even today? You can give a guarantee that you will not allow uses, but will you guarantee that someone is not taking your work? That is a risk we all assume, and I assumed it when I put my books and more out for readers to find.] ? This means my entire inventory - my life's work - would be devalued by at least 2/3 its potential worth from the moment this bill takes effect. [KC: Wait. This seems out of the blue. Someone could be stealing my books right now, but am I lowering the price?] OK, I just ticked off a bunch of people. Honestly, I hope that the angriest out there will be successful. I think the orphan works bills should not become law, so full speed ahead with the opposition! However, I think the arguments from many of the opponents are not at all realistic. And the conclusions that copyrights are down the toilet and will now require registration are simply misinterpretations of the bill. PS: Under today's law registration of the copyright is not required, but it is a good idea for many reasons. With or without the orphan work bills, registration is not required. With or without the bills, a photographer depending on his work for a livelihood, should probably be registering anyway. Instead of being concerned about registration, I say register, and enjoy the enormous economic benefits.

Full post as published by ©ollectanea on May 20, 2008 (boomark / email).