DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Orphan Works

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Orphan Works Report on Orphan Works A Report of the Register of Copyrights · January 2006 w Library of Congress U. S. Copyright Office 101 Independence Avenue SE Washington, DC 20559-6000 UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report is the product of several dedicated staff members of the U.S. Copyright Office. Jule Sigall, Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, managed the study and was the principal drafter of the Report. Oliver Metzger and Matt Skelton, Attorney-Advisors in the Office of Policy and International Affairs, along with Rob Kasunic, a Principal Legal Advisor in the Office of General Counsel, composed the team that performed the research and analysis for the study, and drafted many sections of the Report. David Carson, General Counsel of the Copyright Office, provided wise counsel and sound advice throughout the process. Mary Rasenberger, Policy Advisor for Special Programs, provided research and analysis in the early stages of this project. Todd Schnitzer, Sharmili Hazra and Chris Stillabower, legal interns in the Office of Policy and International Affairs, all provided valuable research assistance to the project. Jill Pelkola led the administrative support for the project by receiving and processing the over 850 comments from the public and handling logistics for the roundtable discussions. Ed Rogers and George Thuronyi provided valuable assistance in building the orphan works web page, including making the written comments available to the public within days of their receipt in the Office. Helen Hester-Ossa, Teresa McCall and Chuck Gibbons provided excellent assistance in printing and publishing the Report. Denise Prince, Sandy Jones and Cecily Patterson also provided administrative support for the study. I must provide a special thanks to Peter Menell, Robert Barr and David Grady at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology of the University of California – Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, for arranging to host the California roundtable, and to the staff of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary Committee, particularly Joe Keeley, for arranging to host the Washington roundtable discussion. Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1 B. DESCRIPTION OF ORPHAN WORKS SITUATIONS ...............................................................................................2 C. LEGAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................3 D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ..........................................................................................................5 E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................7 1. The Reasonably Diligent Search Requirement...........................................................................................8 2. The Attribution Requirement....................................................................................................................10 3. Other Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................................11 4. Limitation on Remedies............................................................................................................................11 a. Monetary Relief.................................................................................................................................................... 12 b. Injunctive Relief................................................................................................................................................... 13 5. Administrative Provisions ........................................................................................................................14 6. International Context ................................................................................................................................14 7. Application to Types of Uses ...................................................................................................................14 II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................15 A. THE ORPHAN WORKS ISSUE...........................................................................................................................15 B. THE ORPHAN WORKS STUDY.........................................................................................................................17 III. DESCRIPTION OF ORPHAN WORK SITUATIONS...........................................................................21 A. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................21 B. OBSTACLES TO IDENTIFYING AND LOCATING COPYRIGHT OWNERS ..............................................................23 1. Inadequate Information on the Work Itself...............................................................................................23 2. Changes of Ownership or in the Circumstances of the Owner .................................................................26 a. Changes of Ownership ......................................................................................................................................... 27 b. Changes in the Circumstances of the Owner ........................................................................................................ 28 3. Limitations of Existing Information Resources........................................................................................29 a. Copyright Office Resources ................................................................................................................................. 29 b. Third-Party Information Resources ...................................................................................................................... 30 c. Specific Limitations.............................................................................................................................................. 31 4. Difficulties Researching Copyright Information ......................................................................................32 5. Problems Outside the Scope of the Study.................................................................................................34 a. Copyright Owner Known, But Permission Not Obtained..................................................................................... 34 b. Problems Determining Copyright Status .............................................................................................................. 34 c. Problems Related to Pre-1972 Sound Recordings ................................................................................................ 35 C. CATEGORIES OF PROPOSED USES ...................................................................................................................36 1. Uses by Subsequent Creators ...................................................................................................................36 2. Large-Scale Access Uses..........................................................................................................................37 3. Enthusiast Uses.........................................................................................................................................38 4. Private Uses..............................................................................................................................................39 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................41 A. HISTORICAL FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE ORPHAN WORKS PROBLEM...........................................................41 B. PROVISIONS IN U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW THAT RELATE TO ORPHAN WORKS ....................................................44 1. Section 108(h) ..........................................................................................................................................45 2. Section 115(b) ..........................................................................................................................................47 3. Section 504(c)(2) Limitation on Damages................................................................................................49 4. Sections 203, 304(c), and 304(d)..............................................................................................................50 C. OTHER RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................52 1. Section 102(b) -- The Idea/Expression Dichotomy ..................................................................................53 2. Section 107 -- Fair Use.............................................................................................................................55 Page i REPORT ON ORPHAN
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8. Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First
    8 Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First: Towards a Restricted Scope of Freedom of Panorama in the Asian Pacific Region Jonathan Barrett1 1 Introduction ‘Freedom of panorama’2 permits use of certain copyright-protected works on public display; for example, anyone may publish and sell postcards of a public sculpture.3 The British heritage version of freedom of panorama, which is followed by many jurisdictions in the Asian Pacific region,4 applies 1 Copyright © 2018 Jonathan Barrett. Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington. 2 The term ‘freedom of panorama’ recently came into common usage in English. It appears to be derived from the Swiss German ‘Panoramafreiheit’, which itself has only been used since the 1990s, despite the exemption existing in German law for 170 years. See Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay and Pierre-Carl Langlais ‘Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence’ (2017) 6(1) Internet Policy Review. 3 Incidental copying of copyright works is not considered to be a feature of freedom of panorama. See Copyright Act 1994 (NZ), s 41. 4 Asian Pacific countries are those west of the International Date Line (IDL), as defined for the purposes of the Asian Pacific Copyright Association (APCA) in Brian Fitzgerald and Benedict Atkinson (eds) Copyright Future Copyright Freedom: Marking the 40 Year Anniversary of the Commencement of Australia’s Copyright Act 1968 (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2011) at 236. 229 MAkING COPyRIGHT WORk FOR THE ASIAN PACIFIC? to buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent display in a public place or premises open to the public.5 These objects may be copied in two dimensions, such as photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report
    united states copyright office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization a report of the register of copyrights june 2015 united states copyright office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization a report of the register of copyrights june 2015 U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report reflects the dedication and expertise of the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Copyright Office. Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs, managed the overall study process, including coordination of the public comments and roundtable hearings, analysis, drafting, and recommendations. I am also extremely grateful to Senior Counsel Kevin Amer and Attorney- Advisor Chris Weston (Office of the General Counsel), who served as the principal authors of the Report and made numerous important contributions throughout the study process. Senior Advisor to the Register Catie Rowland and Attorney-Advisor Frank Muller played a significant role during the early stages of the study, providing research, drafting, and coordination of the public roundtable discussions. In addition, Ms. Rowland and Maria Strong, Deputy Director of Policy and International Affairs, reviewed a draft of the Report and provided important insights. Barbara A. Ringer Fellows Michelle Choe and Donald Stevens provided helpful research and analysis for several sections of the Report. Senior Counsel Kimberley Isbell, Counsels Brad Greenberg and Aurelia Schultz, Attorney-Advisors Katie Alvarez and Aaron Watson, and Law Clerk Konstantia Katsouli contributed valuable research and citation assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the many interested parties who participated in the public roundtables and submitted written comments to the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Rights and the Realistic Limits of Artistic Control Susan Rabin
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 9 January 1984 Moral Rights and the Realistic Limits of Artistic Control Susan Rabin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Susan Rabin, Moral Rights and the Realistic Limits of Artistic Control, 14 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1984). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol14/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rabin: Moral Rights MORAL RIGHTS AND THE REALISTIC LIMITS OF ARTISTIC CONTROL Artists, musicians, and authors have a substantial need to protect their work from being presented to the public in a dis­ torted form. In addition to their insecurity in depending on the public for financial support, most artists are relatively unsophis­ ticated in the business, commercial, and legal aspects of their art. It is essential that artists understand the scope and limits of available protections - statutory, judicial, contractual, or otherwise. Protection of artistic works raises difficult issues, some of which do not lend themselves to legal analysis and solutions. Foremost is the question: When has an artistic work been al­ tered in such a way that the author/artist/composer may be damaged economically or personally?
    [Show full text]
  • Reform(Aliz)Ing Copyright
    SPRIGMAN FINAL 12/17/2004 3:36 PM REFORM(ALIZ)ING COPYRIGHT Christopher Sprigman* INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 486 I. THE TRADITIONAL CONTOURS OF “CONDITIONAL” COPYRIGHT ....................... 491 A. Formalities in the Early Copyright Statutes ................................................ 491 B. From Conditional to Unconditional Copyright ........................................... 494 1. Voluntary registration and notice............................................................. 494 2. Renewal .................................................................................................... 498 II. FORMALITIES AND THE “TRADITIONAL CONTOURS” OF CONDITIONAL COPYRIGHT .............................................................................................................................. 500 A. Recording Ownership.................................................................................. 500 1. “Signaling” .............................................................................................. 501 2. Maximizing private incentives .................................................................. 501 B. Formalities as a Copyright “Filter”............................................................ 502 1. Registration and notice............................................................................. 502 2. Renewal .................................................................................................... 519 3. Effect
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works, Mass Rights Clearance, and Online Libraries
    Ringnalda.qxd 1 Orphan Works, Mass Rights Clearance, and Allard Ringnalda Online Libraries: The Flaws of the Draft Orphan Works Directive and Extended Collective Licensing as a Solution 1. Introduction European lawmakers have recently shown a profound interest in copyright law as an obstacle to the creation of Allard Ringnalda, Project researcher, Centre for online digital libraries. Unfortunately, a new directive that is Intellectual Property Law, Molengraaff Institute soon to be proposed to remove these obstacles suggests for Private Law, Utrecht University; PhD resear- that they have focused on the wrong problem. It provides a cher, Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law solution for the problem of orphan works: the many copy- and Criminology and the Department of legal righted works whose rightsholders are unknown or unloca- theory, Utrecht University. table. These orphan works cannot be used in a manner that The author would like to thank Rebecka Zinser and requires the rightsholder’s consent.1) With a new Orphan Willem Grosheide for their comments on earlier drafts. Works Directive, the Commission aims to facilitate the ex- The usual disclaimer applies. pansion of Europeana, the non-profit online library that should disseminate the digitised collections of all European national libraries. The problem of orphan works obviously stands in the way of a successful online library: if copyrights cannot be cleared, copyrighted works cannot be digitised and made available online. However, in this article, I shall propose and defend two claims. First, that the issue of orphan works is not the main hurdle on the way to a successful Europeana. Instead, the orphan works problem is only a symptom of a much larger issue: the inability to clear copyrights for the mass digitization and online dissemination of entire library collections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenges of Copyright in the EU
    Briefing June 2015 The challenges of copyright in the EU SUMMARY Despite over a century of international harmonisation, copyright law remains essentially national law, even though some fundamental copyright norms are gradually converging. Today, copyright is regulated at international level mainly through the Bern Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, and a series of other treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. At present, national copyright laws are grounded in a handful of universal rules and principles. Exclusive rights are granted to creators for 'original' works which range from art (music, paintings) to information products (maps, databases). The rights conceded under copyright vary with national laws and legal traditions (civil law in continental Europe and common law in Anglo-American countries). However, as a minimum, exclusive rights encompass the rights to reproduce, distribute, rent, lend, or communicate a work to the public. All these rights can be transferred and/or collectively managed by specialist intermediaries (notably for music works). Most national laws also grant moral rights to protect the author's name and reputation. Other provisions – such as the term of copyright protection – differ widely on a global scale. To maintain a fair balance between the interests of users and rights-holders, legislators have foreseen a number of exceptions, allowing for limited free use of certain works. The main European Union instrument providing a legal framework for copyright is the 2001 Copyright Directive. In May 2015, the European Commission unveiled its plans to create a Digital Single Market, aiming in this respect to present legislative proposals reducing the differences between national copyright regimes and allowing for wider online access, including through further harmonisation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Seeds in Europe and the Protection of the Right to Seeds in Europe the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
    THE RIGHT TO SEEDS IN EUROPE THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF PEASANTS AND OTHER PEOPLE WORKING IN RURAL AREAS AND THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO SEEDS IN EUROPE THE RIGHT TO SEEDS IN EUROPE 3 IN EUROPE SEEDS THE RIGHT TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Academy Briefing was researched and written by Dr Christophe Golay, Senior Research Fellow and Strategic Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva Academy), and by Dr Adriana Bessa, Senior Research Fellow at the Geneva Academy. With thanks to Fulya Batur, Claudio Brenni, José Esquinas-Alcázar, Guy Kastler, and Pauline Verrière, who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft, and to Munizha Ahmad-Cooke for her meticulous copy-editing. The Geneva Academy would like to thank Fondation Salvia for the support it has given to the Geneva Academy’s research on this issue. DISCLAIMER This Briefing is the work of the authors. The views expressed in it do not necessar- ily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on drafts. The designation of states or territories does not imply any judgement by the Geneva Academy or Fondation Salvia regarding the legal status of such states or territories, their authorities and institutions, the delimitation of their boundaries or the status of any states or territories that border them. April 2019 ISBN: 9782970125310 © The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights CONTENTS CONTENTS 5 CONTENTS D. STATES’ OBLIGATIONS 37 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 THE RIGHT TO SEEDS IN EUROPE 4 IN EUROPE SEEDS THE RIGHT TO 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Software Derivative Works: the Calm Before the Storm
    COMPUTER SOFTWARE DERIVATIVE WORKS: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM Natalie Heineman* Cite as 8 J. HIGH TECH. L. 235 (2008) I. Introduction Every generation believes they live in the most exciting times of continued social and technological advancement. Since the advent of computers and the internet, however, the present is a time in which progress seems unrivaled. While the law races to catch up with technology, the area of law requiring the fastest runners may be that of computer software derivative works under current copyright law. An author’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works is particularly challenged in the software environment where innovation often involves references to and incorporation of other preexisting works. Without definitive cases on point or specifically tailored legislation to guide the analysis, however, the scope of this note is simply to help define the issues presented, thereby drawing attention to what looks to be the calm before the impending storm. This note considers the challenge posed by computer software derivative works. The note first discusses the definition of derivative works under the current Copyright Act, and analyzes how the courts have interpreted derivative works in analogous contexts. Because defining a derivative work necessarily considers whether it has infringed the underlying work, the note then discusses how the courts make infringement analyses. The infringement analysis focuses primarily on the abstraction-filtration method as it has developed in computer software cases. Finally, the note considers trends in cases and legislation that suggest an increasingly broad interpretation of derivative rights. This section emphasizes the Open Source movement which will no doubt have a significant impact on the future of computer software derivative works.
    [Show full text]
  • Module Ii Copyright and Related Rights
    MODULE II COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS Introduction General Part II of the TRIPS Agreement sets out the substantive standards for the protection of IP that WTO members should follow. This module outlines the provisions of Section 1 of Part II (running from Article 9 to Article 14), which sets out the protection that members must make available in the area of copyright and related rights – specifically, for literary and artistic works, performances, phonograms (or sound recordings) and broadcasts. This Section has to be read, like all other sections in Part II, together with the relevant provisions of certain pre-existing treaties in the area of international IP law that are incorporated by reference into the TRIPS Agreement. In the case of copyright, the relevant treaty is the Berne Convention; and on related rights, there are certain references to the Rome Convention. The relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and these Conventions is explained in section A3 below. As in the other areas of IP covered by the TRIPS Agreement, the provisions of Section 1 stipulate the minimum level of protection that members have to provide to nationals of other members. In other words, they determine the obligations that such members have towards each other. Given the long history of international cooperation on copyright matters, the national laws in this area are often fairly similar. However, to answer any question the reader may have on how the law applies in any practical situation, the applicable domestic law will have to be consulted. What are copyright and related rights? The term ‘copyright’ in its narrow sense usually refers to the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works.
    [Show full text]
  • Wipo Intellectual Property Handbook Wipo Publication
    WIPO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HANDBOOK WIPO PUBLICATION No. 489 (E) ISBN 978-92-805-1291-5 WIPO 2004 Second Edition Reprinted 2008 Detailed Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction The Concept of Intellectual Property 3 The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 4 History 4 Mission and Activities 5 Structure 7 Administration 8 Membership 9 Constitutional Reform 9 Wider Consultation and Outreach 12 Chapter 2 Fields of Intellectual Property Protection Patents 17 Introduction 17 Conditions of Patentability 17 Drafting and Filing a Patent Application 22 Examination of a Patent Application 24 Infringement 27 Exploitation of the Patented Invention 33 Compulsory Licenses 34 Utility Models 40 ii WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use Copyright and Related Rights 40 Introduction 40 Copyright Protection 41 Subject Matter of Copyright Protection 42 Rights Comprised in Copyright 43 Related Rights 46 Ownership of Copyright 49 Limitations on Copyright Protection 50 Piracy and Infringement 51 Remedies 52 Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions 56 Trends and Experiences in the Protection of TCEs 64 Conceptual and Policy Questions 66 Recent and Possible Future Developments 67 Trademarks 67 Introduction 67 Definitions 68 Signs Which May Serve as Trademarks 70 Criteria of Protectability 71 Protection of Trademark Rights 77 Use Requirements 77 Trademark Registration 79 Removal of the Trademark from the Register 82 Trademark Piracy, Counterfeiting and Imitation of Labels and Packaging 90 Change of Ownership 92 Trademark
    [Show full text]
  • 'Orphan Works'? Law360, New York (September 29, 2015, 8:06 PM ET) -- on Sept
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] What Shall We Do About 'Orphan Works'? Law360, New York (September 29, 2015, 8:06 PM ET) -- On Sept. 22, a California federal judge ruled that Warner/Chappell Music Inc. does not own a valid copyright on "Happy Birthday To You," thereby adding one of the most recognizable English language songs to the millions of "orphan works." What should be done to more fairly enable the use of orphan works? Naomi Jane Gray, Harvey Siskind LLP The orphan works problem plagues many would-be users of works who cannot identify or locate the owners of works they may wish to license. This introduces uncertainty and risk into the creative process and can chill expression. There have been many calls for a legislative fix of this problem, including creation of a small-claims-type tribunal, excepting orphan works from liability for infringement if the user has conducted a diligent search, government-based licensing and collective licensing. Others argue that the existing fair use defense should be sufficient to protect users’ interests. The Copyright Office has endorsed a “notice and use” proposal, whereby users would be eligible for limitations on remedies for infringement if they file a notice with the Copyright Office of their intent to use works and conduct a “good faith diligent search” for the owner. Remedies for infringement would then be limited to “reasonable compensation,” envisioned to be comparable to a reasonable license fee.
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works in the United States and Copyright Issues
    1 Orphan Works In The United States And Copyright Issues Dear Karyn Temple Claggett/Catherine Rowland This is the research work of Perry4Law1 in which we are sharing our views about the orphan work related problems in US. The crux of our discussion is that there should be a balance between copyright protection of orphan works and their suitable publications. For any further informatin or clarification, kindly contact us at [email protected]. I. The Background-Orphan Works Copyright protection is made available the moment a copyrightable work is brought into force. There is no statutory requirement to get a copyrighted work registered at the copyright office of the respective Nation, including United States. This is also the main reason that copyright protection shares an invese relationship with copyright infringement. Despite much copyright awareness campaigns, many copyright infringers still believe that copyright protection is available only if the work is registerd with the copyright office. This is definitely a misconception and a sure receipe for facing a copyright infringement suit. However, many times a copyrighted work is published and is made available to public without it being registered. In some exceptional cases the authors of such copyrighted work do not provide relevant details about themselves. In such a situation it becomes very difficult to contact such author to do commercial negotiations about such copyrighted work. Such work becomes an orphan work in which though copyright subsists yet it becomes very difficult to contact the author to seek his/her/its permission to reproduce the work. Nevertheless, using such copyrighted work amounts to copyright violation and in many cases results in a legal suit.
    [Show full text]