Orphan works e-petition response.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06 June 2013   #1
Orphan works e-petition response.

The e-petition 'Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works' signed by you recently reached 27,880 signatures and a response has been made to it.As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: This petition appears to address a measure in the recent Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERR Act) concerning orphan works. In fact, the Act ensures that the work of photographers and illustrators cannot simply be taken by others through a number of strong protections for creators’ interests. Orphan works are copyright works (such as books, photographs, films and music) for which one or more of the copyright owners cannot be found. Without the permission of all the rights-holders these works can only be used lawfully to a very limited extent. There are millions of such works held in the nation’s museums, archives and libraries. With regard to the removal of data about the ownership of the copyright work (metadata), it is already a civil infringement under UK copyright law to knowingly and without authority strip metadata from a copyright work. If the infringer communicates the work to the public it may be a criminal offence. It may also be a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 if the infringer claims to be the rights holder. The Government wants to enable these culturally and economically valuable works to be used while protecting the interests of the missing rights-holders. Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works. Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply to the government-appointed authorising body for a licence. As part of that process they must undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body. The absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme. Only once the diligent search for the rights-holder has been verified by the authorising body and after the licence fee has been paid will a licence to use the orphan work be issued. Licences will be for specified purposes and subject to a licence fee which is payable up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. The licence fee will then be held for the missing rights-holder to claim. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found by the search. If the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued. The proposal for an orphan works scheme was the subject of a formal written consultation and extensive informal consultation with all stakeholders, including several representatives from photography organisations. There were a number of genuine concerns which have been addressed by various safeguards, such as the verification of the diligent search and the requirement for remuneration to be set aside. However, some media articles have contained a number of inaccuracies about the scheme. Under these powers copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection. The powers do not allow any person simply to use a photograph or any other work if they cannot find the rights-holder. A Working Group has been set up by the industry-led Copyright Hub to consider the issue of metadata and try to obtain cross-industry agreement on ensuring that metadata is not removed from copyright works. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
__________________
www.zazzle.co.uk/gingerhammer
 
Old 06 June 2013   #2
Good read thank you.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #3
A lot of ifs and maybes in there. Also, a "diligent" search for the owner of say a photo is open to interpretation. The only one sure to get any money out of it is the "Government appointed independent authorising body" which doesn't even appear to exist yet except in that article (Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works).

To me, the article suggests that anyone can claim to have searched for the owner of a digital image, pay a fee to use it for any purpose and be free and clear to do so.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #4
We'll just have to see how this all plays out. Perhaps not the 'wild west' we were fearing but there's bound to be people who'll experience the worst side. At least the debate is still open.
__________________
www.zazzle.co.uk/gingerhammer
 
Old 06 June 2013   #5
It also sounds like any system like that would be incredibly inefficient.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 06 June 2013   #6
Originally Posted by Dillster: A lot of ifs and maybes in there. Also, a "diligent" search for the owner of say a photo is open to interpretation. The only one sure to get any money out of it is the "Government appointed independent authorising body" which doesn't even appear to exist yet except in that article (Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works).

To me, the article suggests that anyone can claim to have searched for the owner of a digital image, pay a fee to use it for any purpose and be free and clear to do so.


I don't think you'll be able to get away with just saying "I looked for rights holder, but couldn't find them". You would normally have to present evidence to state that you couldn't find the rights holder.

And in order for anybody to use an orphaned work they'd still need to pay a licensing fee, so I don't think it's going to create the free-for-all you think it will.

This law makes sense when seen in context of those institutes it was designed for - musuems, universities, archives, etc which are looking to digitize their collections but are unable to do because they can't find the rights holders.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #7
Originally Posted by Dillster: A lot of ifs and maybes in there. Also, a "diligent" search for the owner of say a photo is open to interpretation. The only one sure to get any money out of it is the "Government appointed independent authorising body" which doesn't even appear to exist yet except in that article (Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works).

To me, the article suggests that anyone can claim to have searched for the owner of a digital image, pay a fee to use it for any purpose and be free and clear to do so.


How many people are really going to go through with such a charade? If you're ready to pay a fee at the appropriate rate why not just pay the rights-holder direct? That will be a lot easier and quicker than dealing with a government appointed body.

Edit: Also, it clearly states the license is for a specific purpose, not 'any purpose'.
__________________


Last edited by mattwood : 06 June 2013 at 12:55 PM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #8
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.