 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2005-02-07 11:17
The US Copyright Office is seeking public comments on the issue of orphan works which is a topic that comes up on the board fairly often.
The notice is available at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html
From the Notice:
SUMMARY:
The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by “orphan works,” i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts or making such works available to the public. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties. Specifically, the Office is seeking comments on whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders.
This is an excellent opportunity to voice your views in a manner that may have a direct impact on future law! Comments must be sent by March 25th.
Best
RW
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-02-07 13:53
This is an excellent point for the CRO to be making, for unlike patents and trademarks, there is very little effort involved in registering copyright (filing and payment of a fee, no "technical" issues or searches involved). In other words, copyright is "fire and forget", and many holders disappear into the woodwork immediately.
Nothing is more frustrating than to try and contact a copyright holder for permission, only to have them not even take the minimal effort to return a pre-paid reply cards with "OK, here's how much I want" or "No, I don't want to allow use of my work". I can understand if there was some expense involved on their part, but doing nothing (and many people do just that) is bad for commerce and just plain rude.
On the other hand, I can also respect the wishes of the holder. Like all other creative rights, copyright was granted for the very good reason of guaranteeing the gains from the work to the author. However, unlike with songs (where the author has the exclusive right of first performance, but thereafter has to accept a standard fee for "cover" performances), the holder of copyright can deny use of the work forever if he or she desires.
The play "In Old Chicago" was released for non-board dramatic use one time back in the 1930's or '40's, and the film that resulted (Roxie Hart, a neat little romp with all sorts of hidden talent (Phil Silvers, William Frawley) in addition to the "stars") offended the copyright holder so badly that she refused to release the rights again within her lifetime. Only after her death did her estate release them to the producers of the musical Chicago. Something similar exists with the musical review "Oh What A Lovely War!", with the holder (Joan Littlewood) restricting what could be done with her work and making it hard on those who admired it to produce productions throughout her lifespan.
I'd opt for something similar to the song approach, where the owner could hold it close to the vest as long as they wanted, but once permission was granted for one performance, all would be allowed to do so with the appropriate compensation. Don't know if that will be done in this case, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2005-02-07 17:20
When you read down through the request one of the issues they are bringing up is the definition of "orphan." Although the major focus appears to be on work in which the owner is difficult or impossible to determine or contact, they do leave the door open for issues where the material is no longer being made available.
On first reading this would appear to me to leave open a discussion on music which is currently copyrighted but no longer available because the publisher has chosen not to reprint it. Since one of the stated goals if not the primary goal of Copyright is to protect the monetary interests of the owner, then what service does the copyright provide if the owner demonstrates that there is no financial interest in the copyright? It is a sticky question and interesting one when placed against potential public interest. This opposed to a conscious decision by the owner not to release a work for reasons other than monetary.
I may be wandering onto slippery ground, but I think an argument could be made that an orphan work might also be defined as one which is removed from public access because of a lack of financial interest in it by the owner.
Written music in this case strikes me as a unique example because of the public interest in both the historical and preservation interests that it may represent.
Best
RW
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: george
Date: 2005-02-07 19:06
The owner of the copyright owns the work. He is under no obligation to sell his property. You do not lose ownership of any asset just because you do not choose to profit from it; why should it be different for music?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-02-07 19:12
I think that it should have to be renewed every 5 years and if it doesn't get renewed - it gets revoked and becomes public domain.
That way a great book like the Russianoff Method doesn't disappear forever.
Either make $ with it or give it away, but don't sit on it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-02-07 19:25
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> I think that it should have to be renewed every 5 years and if
> it doesn't get renewed - it gets revoked and becomes public
> domain.
The renewal portion of the copyright has been discontinued for some time, and attempts to even get the current period reduced by the judicial branch have failed at the Supreme Court (see Eldred vs. Ashcroft - I involved a bit of personal finances in that one).
If we want to continue this thread, let's stay on topic - "orphaned copyrights", not "all the stuff I'd like to see in the copyright law because I don't like the way it works ...".
We need to see who is filing on this interesting problem, and see how it may be resolved. If it goes to court, assistance to those filing amicus briefs will be appreciated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-02-07 22:02
Interesting and of importance to us and others. MC, could we as a friendly, concerned group, have our attorney/cl'ists submit comments/suggestions to the CRO? I agree with the necessity for a carefully-worded definition of "orphan/orphaned works", perhaps with example-situations as mentioned above. It all needs thought, doesn't it ?
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
