The Orphan Bill - Effects us all

The 2nd bullet, i think, is the main difference.

f the infringer fails to negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith, or fails to pay in a reasonably timely manner, the infringer may lose the limitations on remedies, provided the infringer's reasonable search is adjudicated by courts to be insufficient.

could translate to... If the infringer fails to respond to the claims of the artist, then he will lose his remedy limitation GIVEN THE COURT DEEMS HIS SEARCH INSUFFICIENT..

so even if he did steal it, realizes it is that artists work, but still gave a sufficient search than he is in the clear.

and the last bullet pretty much claims we are on our own when it comes to finding and pursuing them
 
The 2nd bullet, i think, is the main difference.

f the infringer fails to negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith, or fails to pay in a reasonably timely manner, the infringer may lose the limitations on remedies, provided the infringer's reasonable search is adjudicated by courts to be insufficient.

could translate to... If the infringer fails to respond to the claims of the artist, then he will lose his remedy limitation GIVEN THE COURT DEEMS HIS SEARCH INSUFFICIENT..

so even if he did steal it, realizes it is that artists work, but still gave a sufficient search than he is in the clear.

and the last bullet pretty much claims we are on our own when it comes to finding and pursuing them
As I indicated earlier, this doesn't affect me personally. I don't steal and no one in their right mind would want to steal my photos. However...

If I honestly believed that one of your photos was in the public domain and you discovered my use of that photo, don't you currently need a court decision to determine my liability?

I guess that I'm wondering how much different things will be if the proposed law is passed.
 
No need to even go that far. Just send a DCMA takedown notice to their internet service provider. I have yet to see a case where the content provider has actually CHECKED if the material indeed infringes on copyrights or not. :D
 
This thing is a joke. It's not even in congress. I asked one of my co-workers who's a law student and just finished studying copyright law, and he said he'd never even heard of it.
 
Alpha - have you had any luck finding good sold (web) proof of that? So far we only have the word of one blog post - reads informativly, but its still a blog post - vs - news posts.
For a little more context the last link I posted is for Amature Photography mag - a publication in the UK
 
I'm not saying it's a literal joke. But there is way more hype than this supposed bill is actually deserving of. It's not a proposed bill. Bills are proposed in congress. And this bill is not in congress. It's not my burden to prove that it isn't before congress, but others' to prove that it is. If it goes to congress, then I'll start worrying.
 
This thing is a joke. It's not even in congress. I asked one of my co-workers who's a law student and just finished studying copyright law, and he said he'd never even heard of it.

Name all the camera models in use. All of them.

There is no lawyer out there who can possibly know every bill before Congress at any given time.

Since the bill number was given, you could have just looked it up yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05889:
 
Well a reading of the legislation itself leads me to conclude that the media, and apparently most of you, have made unqualified assumptions about the law and its reach.

It specifies:
(I) performed and documented a qualifying search, in good faith, for the owner of the infringed copyright; and

(II) was unable to locate the owner of the infringed copyright;

So let's say you have a website with your photos on it. There is a notice of copyright on the photos or the site. Under the Orphan Bill, there is no "remedy" for copyright infringement (i.e. they cannot be taken) provided you are the known owner.

This much is explicit. The bill is not intended to sanction the stealing of works from "known" authors, but to allow truly orphaned works to be copyrighted by the discoverer.

A case in which the law would apply would be the following. You are at a garage sale or thrift store or somehow stumble upon an archive of old photographs. You do not know who the copyright holder is, and after a search in good faith for a copyright holder cannot find one. You are permitted to copyright the photo.

Whether or not the law is applicable to your fears of theft I believe is relatively clear-- it is not. If such a case were to go before a court...likely the supreme...I would most certainly be willing to wager that the courts would find in favor of a known copyright holder.
 
I never said that the Orphan law would be a good thing. I simply said I think you guys are over-stating the risks.
 
(This is not directed at Alpha personally, I'm simply commenting on the concept presented in the quote.)

This much is explicit. The bill is not intended to sanction the stealing of works from "known" authors, but to allow truly orphaned works to be copyrighted by the discoverer.

A case in which the law would apply would be the following. You are at a garage sale or thrift store or somehow stumble upon an archive of old photographs. You do not know who the copyright holder is, and after a search in good faith for a copyright holder cannot find one. You are permitted to copyright the photo

This is, in effect, creating a law that allows and encourages theft. As stated above, the law would allow someone to claim it as their own work. Under any law you'd like to apply, that's fraud. It does not matter if the item in question is orphaned, no one should be given a legal right to steal the work of another and claim it as their own.

If this indeed IS the intent of the law, it needs to be defeated.

However, I think the intent of the law is not to allow outright theft of works as described above, but to allow someone to use an orphaned work without fear of being sued for copyright infringement, PROVIDED they take substantial steps to prove that it is indeed orphaned.

Should that be the case, I can see some merit to the idea, in some cases, but the current formulation of the law in question is flawed and needs to be reworked. In order for this to adequately protect everyone, there needs to be some firm guidelines on what is considered 'substantial'. In addition, any guidelines should be in favor of the original owner of the work, and should also include specific penalties for those who abuse the law in order to steal from others.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top