Slashdot Mirror
Opening the Public Doman to Orphan Books
InklingBooks writes "In the late 1990s, when Hollywood paid an all-too-willing Congress to extend copyright terms to 90 years, an existing problem grew much worse. Many out-of-print books, including some SciFi classics, became orphans. Though still "protected" by copyright, there was no one around who could give legal permission to publish them. Their author were dead, and it was expensive and often impossible to find out who (if anyone) now owned their literary estates. Fortunately, the Copyright Office is now taking comments on how the law might be changed. See Orphan Works."
If something can be done about this problem it would be an incredible step forward in copyright law.
Hopefully they will also consider "abandonware" not just books.
I was lucky enough to be able to get in touch with the author of my favorite computer book to get permission republish the work under a Creative Commons license: Thinking Forth. Computer books are notorious for going out of print but they have high value to vintage computer users, and some like TF are valuable classics in and of themselves.
Not everyone is so fortunate though. Usually the copyright holder is impossible to get hold of or they have no interest in even discussing it. Or else you are dealing with a legal department that just wants to keep any possible liabilities to a minimum. No benefit to them, so not worth it to deal with you.
How about for any work under copyright, they have to PUBLISH the owner of the copyright to the library of congress every 10 years, or the copyright is to be considered expired. In effect, you have to tell people who owns the copyright in order to maintain the copyright.
Yeah I see your idea, of mandatory registration, but I think that has already been rejected as unworkable. First of all, it's not very egalitarian -- a big corporation would have a much easier time maintaining compliance than the small fry author or developer. The corp can have people devoted to getting stuff registered and keeping it registered.
Yes copyright is to protect the individual and it is also to make sure the public domain is enriched (at least that's the original idea). But if someone creates something I don't care how much legal knowledge they have about getting things registered, or whether they have cash for the fee. They created it, give them some protection automatically. It's the right thing to do.
On the other hand how can we know if the work is abandoned/orphaned if no one registers or renews their copyright? Well if it makes lots of dough, then registration/renewal becomes feasible and important. But before that time, it's too much of a gamble to go to the trouble. Most creative works aren't worth much of anything in cash value.
So I'm suggesting that maintain automatic protection as we have it now, but shorten the term. Then require registration, but not at the risk of all-out losing copyright protection. That's the old system, and it's already been rejected, for good reason. There needs to be balance somewhere, and that's what I was suggesting.
Similar to the Canadian system, but the escrow account for 'fees' in cast of a legal challenge is a bad idea I think.
-- John.
The point of the idea is you would HAVE to register.
The problem with this idea is that it directly conflicts with the Berne Convention (i.e. international copyright law). The Berne convention specifically prohibits any formality as a condition to the "enjoyment and exercise" of copyright.
In order to make your suggestion credible, you'll have to argue the benefits of the US abandoning the primary international convention on copyrights. Not that there aren't strong arguments for doing exactly that, but be aware that there are also strong arguments for remaining in compliance with the Berne convention. Primarily, we can ask that people in other countries be held to those international laws that we also respect.
Regards,
Ross
Looks like a hole a mile wide here. A Derivative work would only apply to a commentary on the subject and only to the original portions. Under fair use, I can use a sample of a work, be it a bit of text or picture or sound in context with building an arguement or acting in a journalistic fashion and reporting about it. Since I am not using the whole of it, it's fair use. I could use part of your comment thus;
"your own unrestricted copy of a PD text" - CaptainCheese (724779)
that would be fair use. but to use it without CaptainCheese (724779) it would be clear plagerism. If I were to copy the full funtionally unedited text of your post (I won't), then bracket it with text about where it came from then would I now be the possessor of the text's copyright? It's like saying a photocopy becomes a legal copyright, simply by making a copy.
On your second statement, A demand for a pure source like a untainted copy of the original is comical. It's like demanding a printer who makes bibles to obtain a copy of a Gutenberg original, or maybe even a scroll from the 1st century.
All they did was to copy the text into another form and effectively transmit it. Were I to walk into a Metallica concert and tape it I would be violating their copyright but if instead of recording it I used a transmitter and had a receiver record it elsewhere would that make it legally mine? This is not a copyright, it's pillage or in this case graverobbing.
Since in this case the subject work is about a vampire it's rather funny.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23