We are seeing an amazing thing happening. And if you know me, you know that I have very strong political views that are not very often mentioned on this or any other site I write on. But let me say that the situation we find ourselves in, with a congress of stupid, intellectually lame, and power hungry politicos with nothing but their own pocketbooks in mind being in charge of the rights to our work… Good God, what is that?

There is a powerful power and rights grab afoot folks. While I can see there being some value to the so-called “Orphan Works” idea, the thought that some huge company can simply plant an ownership flag is simply insane. If they were talking about orphaned works going into public domain, that may change some of the situation, but it seems they are opening the door to the imagopolises of Getty and Corbis to simply claim it is theirs… even if it is yours. Screw you.

We will attempt to make a compendium of links to check and bookmark as this hideously corrupt rights grab from the small artist to the big corporations winds its way through the hallways where a member of the communications committe referred to the internet as a set of tubes… Yeah, that’s what I mean.

Six months after the last version of an Orphan Works bill died in a Congressional committee, a new Orphan Works bill is being drafted for consideration in the 2008 legislative session.

Fortunately, a coalition of associations representing the interests of the image licensing community has come together due to our collective concern on this issue. The goal of our “Imagery Alliance” is to present a coordinated response.

Orphaned Works Blog

Bookmark and read. Lots of links there.

Here is a site by the ALA with lots of links on Orphaned Works Legislation.

Here is a site that you have to read:

Since 2005, efforts have been underway to solve the Orphan Works problem. Public Knowledge and many other organizations have proposed that the law should allow use of an orphan work if the user searched for the copyright owner in good faith and with reasonable diligence but failed to find the owner to ask permission. The copyright office recommends a similar solution, differing only in how the remedies would be limited. Groups of copyright holders, mainly photographers, illustrators, graphic artists, and textile designers, have opposed both specific aspects of our proposals and the Copyright Office recommendations and any attempts to permit use without consent. Public Knowledge and other proponents of an orphan works policy are hopeful that, working with other copyright holders, we can work toward a common policy goal of making sure orphan owners are found.

Over at a site interestingly titled: Center for the Study of the Public Domain you will find a lot of links and interesting views. You may not agree with all that is there, but you damn well should know what is being said on all sides.

“Orphan Works” probably comprise the majority of the record of 20th century culture. These works are still presumably under copyright (only works published before 1923 are conclusively in the public domain), but the copyright owner cannot be found. The default response of archivists, libraries, film restorers, artists, scholars, educators, publishers, and others is to drop copyrighted work unless it is clearly in the public domain. As a result, orphan works are not used in new creative efforts or made available to the public due to uncertainty over their copyright status, even when there is no longer anyone claiming copyright ownership, or the owner no longer has any objection to such use.

ASMP is working hard to make sure there are some safeguards:

Our analysis

It has become clear is that some Orphan Works law is likely to be passed sooner or later. Key members of the House and Senate want it; significant user groups such as museums, academic institutions and publishers want it; and the general public wants it. ASMP understands the need for, and welcomes, a solution to the Orphan Works problem. Our objective has never been to defeat Orphan Works legislation as such. Rather, our goal is and has always been to make sure that any Orphan Works bill is fair to visual artists. In addition, it appears that the political environment this year is substantially more favorable to creators than it is likely to be over the next few years. These factors make it important for ASMP to help craft an Orphan Works bill that treats photographers and other visual artists fairly, and to support the passage of a fair and workable bill in this Congress.

This blog presents a view that should be read. Right? Wrong? Read it.

But Mark Simon apparently believes that enacting legislation to handle orphaned works in a way that protects people who legitimately try to find the original copyright holder, but can’t, will lead to the effective invalidation of copyright on ALL UNREGISTERED ART EVERYWHERE OMGZ CALL OUT THE CAVALRY. His article, which I linked above, is miserably poorly researched, jumps to completely illogical conclusions, and, most retardedly of all, implores artists to letterbomb Congress in protest of proposed legislation which does not actually exist. Someone please tell me where this guy is getting the crack he’s smoking, because I want to avoid that streetcorner and everything in a six-block radius, kthx.

So, here are six misconceptions that are making the rounds about orphaned works, and a short explanation of why each one is a misinterpretation or just a flat-out lie. I also give links to useful supporting material, and resources you can use to keep track of this issue as it evolves.

Here is the Mark Simon article referenced above.

This older article has some good points to ponder. Ponder them now.

So what has prompted the Copyright Office to raise this issue now? After all, problems caused by the elimination of formalities have been recognized for many years. The case of Kahle v. Ashcroft, however, may be the cause of the Copyright Office’s current interest in the topic.

In March of 2004, several plaintiffs filed suit against then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, Brewster Kahle, the Internet Archive, Richard Prelinger and the Prelinger Film Archive, operate websites that serve to distribute public domain work over the Internet. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the current U.S. system of copyright is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in Kahle focus on what they term the “orphan class” of creative works, which their complaint defines as “work that the author has no continuing interest to control, but which, because of the burdens of the law, no one else can effectively and efficiently archive, preserve, or build upon in the digital environment for a term now approaching almost a century.”[3]

Information for today’s photographer. From novice to pro, LE Magazine has it all.

If you have found some good articles and commentary on this new “Orphaned Works” legislation, please add them in the comments area. BTW, we do not spam our members with offers of refinancing their homes or creating an aura of alpha male that drive women mad. We only require registration so we can keep the site orderly and without the spammers.