1 proposed legislation on orphan works: solving the problem or escalating the crisis? denise troll...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Proposed Legislation on Orphan Works:
Solving the Problem or Escalating the Crisis?
Denise Troll CoveyCarnegie Mellon University Libraries
EDUCAUSE Live! webcast – July 6, 2006
2
U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry
• Are orphan works “being needlessly removed from access & their dissemination inhibited”?
• Are “inappropriate burdens” imposed on users?
• Should something be done?
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
721 Initialcomments
146 Replycomments
Experience No
Yes NIMBY
January 26, 2005
May 9 March 25
3
Public roundtables Topics
Definition
• Registries
Consequences
Reclaiming
• International
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
DC CA
Illustrators
Photographers
Authors
Film
Music
Book publishers
Rights organizations
Other
Cultural heritage
2 days
1 day
July & August 2005
4
Viable definition drives solution
“Overloading the boat”
Case–by–case Hybrids Categorical
• © owner cannot be identified
• © owner cannot be found
• © owner does not respond
• © owner uncertain of ownership– Grants or denies permission anyway
Publishers, photographers, authors, illustrators, film, music
5
Viable solution drives definition
• Meet certain threshold requirements = orphan – Age of work?
– Print status?
– Non–profit use only?
– Registration to opt out?
Case–by–case Hybrids Categorical
“Don’t embroider the existing situation.
Do something to benefit the citizenry.”
Libraries, archives, museums, Creative Commons
6
Consequences
• How long does an orphan designation endure?– Until the © owner comes forward
– In perpetuity
• What use does an it enable?– A particular use by a particular user
– Any use by any user
• To what does it apply? – The work
– The use
7
What should be done?
72%
90%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
721 Initialcomments
146 Replycomments
Nothing
Limited remedies
Public domain
No change Limited remedies Public domain
8
Reclaiming
• Different remedies for different users & uses?
• How compensate the © owner? – Issues with case–by–case approach
• Who proves reasonableness?• No attorney fees? No statutory damages? • Cap? Royalty? Who & how determine fee?• How budget for large projects?
– Issue with categorical approaches• Take–down option would constitute free use• Default fee could be too low
9
Recommended legislation
• Each potential user must perform a “good faith, reasonably diligent search to locate the owner”– If search is unsuccessful, user may use the work
with attribution to author & © owner if appropriate
– If © owner comes forward & user’s search is found to be reasonable, then limited remedies apply
• Limited monetary relief with exception
• Limited injunctive relief with qualifiers
• Limited remedies terminate after 10 years to “allow” examination
February 2005
10
HR 5439 Orphan Works Act 2006
• Adopts recommendations with few changes
• Requires Copyright Office to
– Receive, maintain, & make publicly available
information to guide searches
– Study effects & report by Dec 12, 2014
– Conduct public inquiry on remedies for small
copyright claims & report by June 1, 2009
• Addresses cases of immunity
May 22, 2006
11
Concern: begging the question
• Notice of Inquiry invited definitions, but assumed definition as owner can’t be located
• Report contains conflicting definitions– Parent of the work is unlocatable or unavailable
• Locate (find) – onus is on user• Available (accessible) – onus is on © owner
• Recommendation & HR 5439 adopt definition assumed in Notice of Inquiry
– Necessitates reasonable effort approach
12
Occurrences of “reasonable”Section 2 Limitations on remedies No.
(a)(1) Conditions 4
(a)(2)(B) Requirements for reasonably diligent search
8
(a)(2)(C) Information to guide searches 4
(b)(1) Monetary relief 4
(b)(2) Injunctive relief 4
(b)(3) Reasonable compensation 3
TOTAL 27
13
Reasonably diligent search 8
Reasonable compensation 6
Reasonable under the circumstances 4
Reasonably available expert assistance 2
Reasonably available technology 2
Reasonable degree of certainty 1
Reasonably available to users 1
Reasonable attorney’s fee 1
Reasonable willing buyer 1
Reasonable willing seller 1
27
Attribution
14
Concern: ambiguity • Definition or tautology?
– “A search to locate the owner of an infringed copyright in a work is ‘reasonably diligent’ only if it includes steps that are reasonable under the circumstances . . . .”
• Guideline or tongue twister?– “A reasonably diligent search includes the use
of reasonably available expert assistance & reasonably available technology, which may include, if reasonable under the circumstances, resources for which a charge or subscription fee is imposed.”
15
Who determines . . .
• If search was, or compensation is, reasonable?– Under what circumstances?
• If expert assistance or technology is reasonably available to users?– Who identifies expert assistance & technology?
• If buyer & seller are reasonably willing?
16
How respond to uncertainty?
Two schools of thought:
– Risk is reduced by limited remedies
• If search is found to be reasonable
– Risk will have chilling effect
• Orphan Works Act will
go the route of fair use
17
Concern: passing the buck
• HR 5439 passes the buck on removing obstacles to locating © owners to industries & associations – No incentive to develop tools (no fee, small claims)
– Difficulty & cost of developing tools
– Without tools, limited incentive for © owners to make themselves “known & accessible”
• HR 5439 removes significant obstacle to use in return for significant user investment
18
Random, feasibility study
Fine & rare books study
Publisher Title Publisher Title
Permission granted $228 $197 $251 $65
Permission granted plus not located (OW)
$129 $109 $147 $54
Permission granted plus not located plus no response
$81 $67 $138 $50
Concern: cost & scale
Few titles per publisher
Many titles per publisher
Transaction costs per book
19
Concern: burden
• No burden on © owners – Retain right to waste user investment– No recognition that © owners can appreciate use
or free ride on markets created by users
• Significant burden on industries & associations
• Some burden on Copyright Office – Not a one–stop–shop for users
• Tremendous burden on users– Users pay cost of conducting & documenting
searches + likely the cost of tool development
20
Concern: missed opportunities
• Reconsider the © term – Federal government knew that the 1976 CTEA
would exacerbate the orphan works problem
• Provide solution commensurate with the problem – Likely that orphan works
will be created at a faster rate than they can be preserved, disseminated, & used
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
1923-1929
1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
Books published in English in the United States (WorldCat)Books for which copyright owner cannot be locatedBooks for which presumed copyright owner does not respondBooks out-of-print
Estimates based on results
of random sample feasibility study
conducted at Carnegie Mellon
22
Commendable
• Public process & sequence of events
• Legislation likely to enable all types of uses
of all types of works by all types of users
under certain conditions
• Better than expected,
but not as good as it gets
23
M I S S I N G
Library Coalition for Identified Missing Parents & Recovery of Apparently Neglected Children
1-800-SHARE-IDwww.missingparents.org
Publisher ALast known addressReasonable search
Publisher BLast known addressReasonable search
Author CLast known addressReasonable search
Estate DLast known addressReasonable search
How leverage the opportunity?
24
Orphan Works Act of 2006
would take effect June 1, 2008
© Denise Troll [email protected]
First right of publication: EDUCAUSE
Images from stock.xchng