Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Federal Register RfC on orphan works

-- Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users - My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions - On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote: > Here's my rather cynical take on things... In 3 years, the U.S. is going > to pass another copyright extension act. We know this is going to happen > because it has never failed to happen in the history of U.S. copyright law. > Figuring out a way to placate the complaints of U.S. cultural institutions > before this extension is proposed will make passing the extension a > relatively painless process. This means granting some kind of limited "fair > use" rights to those institutions (same as what was granted in Europe). > Considering the relative stranglehold that the U.S. media industry has over > U.S. politics (both on the Republican and Democratic sides), I see very > little chance for any reform that would allow commercial use of orphaned > U.S. media. If the government can make cultural institutions happy without > angering the media industry, that is the course they will choose. I do > think, however, that pushing for adoption of the rule of the shorter term > is politically feasible, for two reasons: > 1. It doesn't adversely affect the U.S. media industry, in fact it might > actually benefit it in some cases. > 2. The fact that the U.S. passed the URAA without simultaneously adopting > the rule of the shorter term seems to be a glaring oversight. Bringing > ourselves into full compliance with the recommendations of the Berne > Convention should not be especially controversial, as it's already a > convention that most of the world has agreed to. > Rather than wasting our time on pushing for ambitious reforms that will > only be completely watered down in the end (and possibly make it harder to > get real copyright reform), I would argue that we should put our efforts > behind rule of the shorter term and at least try to get it on the radar. > That's just my opinion though. > > Ryan Kaldari > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote: > >> Welcome, Bob! I miss Manhattan, though admittedly not as much this time >> of year :) >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.orgwrote: >> >>> I recently joined this list specifically because of orphan works >>> legislation. I recently wrote an opinion piece on public domain for The >>> Signpost (user:Kosboot) and I saw a similar plea on the WMF blog. Though >>> I'm only a lowly editor, I would hope WMF would take a stand on the orphan >>> works issue. Part of the technique of negotiation is that you ask for >>> more, knowing that the result will be less than what you ask for. So I >>> think WMF should be really bold and ask for something like treating orphan >>> works as if public domain if no one comes forward. I think it would be >>> wise to parse some of Maria Pallante's words (she's the US Register of >>> Copyright) to see what is her thinking on the matter (she seems to be more >>> liberal than most had expected). >>> >>> In any case, I'd be happy to work on such a project. >>> >> >> Cool! I'd suggest we could start it the same way we did the (ongoing) EU >> consultation - put the questions into the wiki and start drafting answers. >> (I would ask that this time we actually try to draft answers, not just >> comments - it was a lot of work to try to craft things into answers :) >> >> And generally, I agree that we should make strong requests, but I'm >> definitely worried about exactly the situation Mathias raised. In the EU, >> the "mix a lot of requests into a pot without a practical result" approach >> led to a "solution" that solved nothing and now makes it much harder to >> reach an actual solution :/ >> >> Luis (who ran into this problem personally while trying to find an >> illustration for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva_Hamilton_Hoyt - >> great picture of her in a 1931 book with unfindable publisher) >> >> >>> >>> Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, >>> Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts >>> blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 >>> Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users >>> - My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions - >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Mathias Schindler < >>> mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de> wrote: >>> >>>> 2014-02-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org: >>>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org >>>> > >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hey guys, >>>> >> The U.S. Federal Register is doing an RfC and Public Roundtable on >>>> the >>>> >> issue of orphan works. I would really like for us to take this as an >>>> >> opportunity to push for U.S. adoption of the "rule of the shorter >>>> term", as >>>> >> this would solve our URAA problems on Commons and free millions of >>>> orphan >>>> >> foreign works in the U.S. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I had been aware of this, but hadn't raised it here because most of >>>> the >>>> > orphan works proposals I'm aware of are a lot like fair use - >>>> nice(ish) for >>>> > lots of users, but not giving us the certainty we like to have when >>>> > creating/distributing materials. But a rule of shorter term proposal >>>> would >>>> > definitely give address one part of the orphan works problem in a way >>>> that >>>> > would give us the certainty we like/need. >>>> >>>> Greetings from Europe, where we can say "been there, done that" with >>>> respect to Orphan Works legislation >>>> ( >>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:299:0005:001... >>>> ). >>>> >>>> In short, the EU orphan works directive does not benefit Wikipedia for >>>> many reasons. First, we are not among the priviledged institutions >>>> (Article 1) and the permitted uses of orphan works are far too narrow >>>> to help open content projects (Article 6). On top of that, the >>>> dilligent search procedure as required by Article 3 is incompatible >>>> with the idea of mass digitisation and the possibility to end the >>>> orphan work status (Article 5) is fundamentally against the idea of a >>>> lasting commons of works that can be built upon. >>>> >>>> The consultation work by the US Federal Register should have a close >>>> look at the way Europe did it. >>>> >>>> I strongly recommend participation in this RfC by US based open >>>> content projects with fundamentally different needs than, for example, >>>> google or a public library. >>>> >>>> Mathias >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >>>> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >>> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Luis Villa >> Deputy General Counsel >> Wikimedia Foundation >> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 >> >> NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you >> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the >> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical >> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community >> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >> >