SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Support Mixed For US Orphan Works Bill As Issue Catches Global Attention

    Published on 7 May 2008 @ 2:53 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch
    In an issue that may be rising internationally, legislation pending in the United States Senate and House to free up use of “orphan works” whose copyright owners cannot be found has won strong support from the recording, webcasting and library sectors but faces challenges from visual artists and the textile industry.

    The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S 2913) [pdf] and the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (HR 5889) [pdf], introduced on 24 April, require users of such materials to search diligently for their owners, and to compensate them if they are eventually found.

    But the House version is less palatable to public interest groups than the “cleaner” Senate measure, Public Knowledge Director of Policy and New Media Alex Curtis said in a 24 April blog.

    Meanwhile, the World Intellectual Property Organization and some members of the European Union appear to be taking the orphan works issue into greater consideration as well.

    Both pieces of US legislation seek to ensure that users make a diligent search for copyright owners before using work claimed to be orphaned, and pay them reasonable compensation if they surface, unless the use is for scholarly, charitable, religious or educational purposes. The US Copyright Office must develop search guidelines and certify private-sector registry services for visual art.

    Curtis said the Senate bill requires little modifying but the House bill “resembles more of a well-decorated Christmas tree” in favour of copyright owners. It requires users to register their search efforts in a “notice of use archive” housed at the Copyright Office. It is unclear whether the depository would be “dark” – meaning its contents would be disclosed only when a user is sued – or open, raising privacy and “copyright troll” concerns, he wrote. Users who fail to deposit their search results are considered infringers.

    Users will be charged a fee to register their searches in order to fund the new administrative procedures, said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association’s (ALA) Washington, DC office. The requirement will be “burdensome and potentially extremely costly” to libraries engaged in mass digitisation projects where millions of titles are involved, she told Intellectual Property Watch.

    Despite concerns over several provisions in the House bill, Public Knowledge and the ALA said they are pleased with Congress’s efforts so far.

    Libraries like the fact that the bills provide a safe harbour from statutory damages for librarians and archivists if a reasonable search is conducted, Sheketoff said. In addition, she said, the legislation does not affect fair use. The measures are the “first pro-user change to the Copyright Law in almost two decades,” Curtis wrote.

    The bills are an “important step” toward meaningful consideration of the needs of users and copyright owners, Recording Industry Association of America Chairman Mitch Bainwol said in a statement. The legislation is a “good first step as we consider how innovation is impacted by our copyright system’s lack of registration requirements coupled with strict liability and statutory damages,” said Digital Media Association Executive Director Jonathan Potter.

    Visual Artists, Textile Industry Opposed

    Illustrators, photographers and other visual artists, however, are mobilising to challenge the proposal.

    “Our chief objective to these bills is that they’ve been written so broadly their effect can’t be limited to true orphaned work,” Illustrators’ Partnership of America (IPA) founder Brad Holland told Intellectual Property Watch. Forcing anyone who creates a visual work, whether professional or personal, published or unpublished, to register it with yet-to-be-created commercial registries will cause users to rely increasingly on the companies to perform a diligent search, he said. Unregistered works could then be infringed as orphans, he said.

    The proposals will disproportionately affect visual artists because paintings, drawings and photographs are often published without contact information, credit lines can be easily removed by others, and pictures can be separated from the publications in which they appear, Holland said. And because visual artists often produce many more works than the most prolific author or songwriter, it will cost them more time and money to register and maintain tens of thousands of registrations, he said.

    The legislation will create a “gold mine for opportunists” as commercial archives harvest newly-created “orphans,” alter them slightly to make “derivative works,” and then register them as their own “creative works,” Holland said. In addition, coercive registration may violate the Berne Convention, which bars requiring “any formality” as a precondition to copyright protection, the IPA, Advertising Photographers of America and Artists Foundation of Massachusetts said in 30 April comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    At the heart of the orphan works debate is the notion that old works whose authors have abandoned their copyrights and who cannot be located should be made available for the greater good of society, Corinne Kevorkian, president and general manager of the Schumacher Division of F. Schumacher & Co. said at a 13 March hearing by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.

    Such works arguably have no commercial value but are of cultural, historical or educational significance, Kevorkian said. Textile designs for home furnishings, by contrast, are created solely for commercial exploitation and can never be considered orphaned, she said. They are “not intended to be art,” she added.

    The orphan works proposal will open the door to massive commercial theft, Kevorkian said. She urged lawmakers to exclude any pictorial or graphic work initially created for commercial exploitation or that was at any time commercially exploited. Kevorkian spoke on behalf of the National Textile Association, American Manufacturing Trade Coalition, Decorative Fabrics Association, Association of Contract Textiles and Home Fashion Products Association.

    [Note: The House Judiciary Intellectual Property Subcommittee approved HR 5889 on 7 May.] The bills, which so far have fewer than a handful of sponsors each, have been referred to the respective judiciary panels. The Senate version could see a Judiciary Committee mark-up and vote as early as 8 May, a Democratic committee aide said.

    WIPO, EU Developments

    The ALA is a member of the Library Copy Alliance, which represents US libraries at WIPO and other meetings. At the next meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, the alliance likely will be part of a group sponsoring a “side event” on orphan works. “Member nations are interested in what we have developed here [US], and hopefully can use our legislation – if it passes – as a model,” said Sheketoff. The next SCCR meeting is scheduled for 3-7 November 2008.

    Meanwhile, in its 24 August 2006 recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural content and digital preservation, the European Commission asked member states to find ways to ease the use of orphan works, a Commission spokeswoman said.

    Recent status reports show that Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Hungary are dealing with orphan works via an “extended collective licensing” arrangement which allows collective management societies in certain circumstances to issue licences on behalf of rights holders it does not formally represent, the spokeswoman said. Germany, Hungary and Denmark are in the process of adopting stronger regimes, she said. The problem is still under discussion in most EU nations, often in working groups treating orphan works with other copyright-related issues in the digital libraries arena, she said.

    The Commission is supporting the work of sector-specific groups, including text, audiovisual, music/sound and visual/photography, that are trying to agree on what actions must be taken before a work is considered orphaned, she said.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Carol Samsel says:

      Wow! It sounds as though the U.S. is abolishing copyright protection, except for large corporations. I am an artist and, according to this, any company could publish my work. It would be up to me to catch violators. Even then, I would be unable to prevent them from using my work, or negotiate my own terms for use, but would have to agree to what is considered “reasonable.” Who decides “reasonable?”

      And the “search” requirement is a joke. For instance, if someone sees my image of an American Alligator titled “The Grin,” they might search Alligator, Reptile, etc. However, not only would these general headings bring up an excessive number of matches, none of them would retrieve the correct one!

      The requirements say that each artist is responsbile for registering their material, but under these terms, what’s the point? So that a corporation can’t sue the individual they stole from in the first place — when that person has the audacity to use the image she/she created?

    2. Tina Manley says:

      “Both pieces of US legislation seek to ensure that users make a diligent search for copyright owners before using work claimed to be orphaned, and pay them reasonable compensation if they surface, unless the use is for scholarly, charitable, religious or educational purposes.”

      This is what I do not understand. Why should works used for those purposes be exempt from reasonable compensation!!!!????? That would exempt all of the work I do – all work for textbook and publishing companies, all work for non-profits, all work for any religious organizations. Everyone else working for those organizations gets paid. Why should photographers not be compensated?

      Tina Manley

    3. Lisa Young says:

      Absolutely horrifying. As a stock photographer this would place the burden on me to track all possible misuses of my photographs. It would be such an overwhelming task I doubt there would be much time leftover for creating new content and making a living!

      This is not the first time there have been efforts to pass this type of bill. The Orphan Works Bill needs to be defeated soundly once and for all. I urge everyone who opposes these bills to write their congressional representatives!

    4. Intoxicated Zodiac Blog » call 911, the artist is down and bloggers beware says:

      [...] Geneva/ May 7, 2008 Orphan Works Bill Catches Global Attention/ Intellectual Property Watch [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.