Comments on: Copyright Policy: Orphan Works Reform

By: Victorina

Victorina — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:08:48 +0000

Inspiring quest there. What occurred after? Take care!

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:50:23 +0000

Mr. Collins:
I alone make thousands of sketches and doodles a month. I am to pay out $1000 dollars a month to keep my intellectual property from being ripped off?

If you haven't turned a sketch into a commercial success by the time it's time to register, you'd honestly rather the sketches languish in obscurity than be added to our cultural heritage for somebody to build on?

By: Mr.Collins

Mr.Collins — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:09:41 +0000

This obviously a movement for someone or entity to make money and turn art into a factory process. It totally cuts out the individual freelance artist. Would not surprise me if Microsoft was backing this bill in order to by up all the registries and force all artists to submit their work into a pile like taking cans to the metal scrappers. How can an artist protect and retain his art if he has to pay to register every scrap of paper. I alone make thousands of sketches and doodles a month. I am to pay out $1000 dollars a month to keep my intellectual property from being ripped off? Current copyright law is a right that should not be messed with to make it easier to catalog for libraries and the like. They already have fair usage rights that I think no artist is in opposition to. If a student uses art of mine for a report to get a grade so be it. The guise of protecting librarians and students from legal ramifications of righting a report is bull. This is the obliteration and deconstruction of the individual, free thinking, creative process we as artist now enjoy. It is the beginning of the end my brothers and sisters.

By: seo

seo — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:05:03 +0000

Existing orphans and future unmarked work will need a legal path that Artists agree is fair to them. Proposals have been offered by artist groups to solve the complaints of archivist and filmmakers.

By: Britt Griswold

Britt Griswold — Sat, 17 May 2008 06:35:51 +0000

The only thing you have said here that makes any sense to me as an artist is a 50 year patent and then a very inexpensive re-registration fee. After 50 years you should have a good idea if your art is worth something. The idea of officially registering visual works for full Government Protection offered by the Copyright office - ICANN style in private databases all linked up for searching, for a few cents a piece, is a good idea. As long as it is viewed as a way to find the owner, not as away to avoid the owner who has not participated. Also visual search is not 100% effective. that means through random chance every work will be labeled "orphaned at some point. I am not one who thinks technology can solve this problem, it can only successfully be used as a tool to help a user find an author, it can not be used to exclude authorship and create an orphan. These tools will minimize the orphans of the future. Existing orphans and future unmarked work will need a legal path that Artists agree is fair to them. Proposals have been offered by artist groups to solve the complaints of archivist and filmmakers. Regular web denizens and non-profits and commercial companies will need to abide by the fairly reasonable fair use laws we have or get explicit permission after a VERY Diligent search.

For works that already exist, institute a Canadian style Board to consider requests for Orphan Status with appropriate payment for the requested use to the owner should they turn up later, again all searchable on line. Offer these avenues to use work, and you might get the artist community to agree. Leave the big fines in place to deter those who don't ask permission, innocent or not. If the path is clear, not asking is the same as not wanting to ask, cause it is free if you don't ask and don't get caught.

Since images can not be identified as foreign or domestic, any solution that does not consider global markets is destine to fail. Any system that does not take into account the ingenuity and sneakiness of people who can dream up a dozen ways to get around the proposed law and look innocent because it will pay, is doomed to fail, at least fail the creator of the work.

I believe copyright is needed to encourage new expressions of ideas, be they old or new. This is what copyright is about, wether the professor thinks we all owe a debt to everyone else or not for the inspiration.

By: Brady Brim-DeForest

Brady Brim-DeForest — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:06:33 +0000

Lawrence,

I am very curious about your take on the latest iteration of this bill: The Orphan Works Act of 2008.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5889:

Thanks so much,
Brady

By: Tamiya

Tamiya — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:00:04 +0000

Although informative, this better suited as a cure for insomnia than to drive legal change. I am sorry, Lawrence, I generally like your work, but I have to be honest that this was painful to watch because I sincerely want you to succeeded in having an impact.

By: freeporn

freeporn — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 02:54:21 +0000

I think this is an excellent idea. Whats the status of H.R.5439?

Would you like to see it withdrawn and a new bill created. Would Smith or Berman object to this? What’s the scope of the political battle currently.

By: Tony Sleep

Tony Sleep — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:31:29 +0000

We have the Gowers report proposing similar orphan rights here in UK, where of course there is no copyright registry. Gowers proposes creating one, but no doubt it will be as cumbersome and disastrous as every other Government bureaucracy.

As a UK photographer, firstly alarmed by the US proposals, and now by our own domestic equivalent, I was pretty happy to see LL talking what looks like good sense here. It is the beginning of a way past a logjam of conflicted interests and denial.

I agree universal cheap and simple registration is a way forward - as LL suggests, a sort of 'DNS for copyright'. This even exists already as the Digital Object Identifier system, which is a suitable open standards protocol already supported by some browsers. All we need is registries implemented for the purpose. DOI costs work out to a few cents per item.

By: Chris Castle

Chris Castle — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:01:31 +0000

Professor, I have heard your statements about how difficult it is to find out who owns what copyright, and the disintegration of the cinema. You are surely aware that these issues are dealt with every day at a relatively modest cost? Thompson and Tompson reports costing less than $500, film preservation projects, etc.?