Yes, should have said "fixes specific to orphan works". Obviously shorter (or at least not effectively eternal!) terms is a clear-cut priority that solves many kinds of problems.

Luis

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
In my view what we need to push for are changes in the copyright term.

In the short term, we should push for "Rule of the Shorter Term" to be activated.  This could free some U.S. copyrights in Europe, and some European copyrights in the United States -- and, most importantly, produce a single harmonised transatlantic standard.

There have been rumours of a Rule of the Shorter Term clause in TPP, to put pressure on Canada to lengthen its copyrights.  And it is there in Berne, waiting to be activated.  So this is something that could perhaps be put on the agenda without too many waves.


More fundamentally, clearance will continue to be a nightmare so long as "Life+X" remains the basic standard for copyright terms.

I think we should try to use every chance we can to try to get reform to "Life+X, but no longer than Publication+Y" on the agenda, which would create an easily verified hard cutoff akin to U.S. year 1923 rule.

I would suggest "Life+70, but no longer than Publication+95".

I am aware that that is far longer than most copyright radicals would seek.

But I think it has three advantages:
(i)   It's already the standard for corporately-made works in the United States, so would cause minimum change for those works.

(ii)  For the next four years, everything published 95 years ago will already be in the public domain in the United States; so there would be no immediate step-change of works becoming public domain there, only a slow additional trickle after 2018.

(iii) It puts works into the public domain in time for the centenary of their creation to be celebrated, and guarantees the public that everything a century old is good to re-use.


Orphan works legislation doesn't grant something that Commons can use (or anyone, without the risk of being hit for licence payments down the track).

It's the copyright term that ultimately has to be the focus, if we're to end clearance hell.  95 years should be enough for anybody.

  -- James.


On 06/11/2014 17:51, Luis Villa wrote:
Yes, thanks, Stevie!

I do wonder, on the orphan works front, what kind of reform would actually
work for us given the standards in place on Commons and elsewhere. Even the
most aggressive proposals I'm aware of end up looking a lot like
American-style fair use, with a non-zero amount of uncertainty around the
ability to use going forward. Are there specific proposals for reform in
the EU that would be acceptable on Commons?[1]

Luis

[1] I think a fair amount of reform of Commons is probably desirable, but
well outside the scope of this list, so for purposes of discussion lets
take current levels of enforcement of the precautionary principle for
granted.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:

Great work! Thanks Stevie and WMUK for keeping your eyes on the ball.

Dimi

2014-11-06 16:23 GMT+01:00 Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>:

Hello everyone,

Last week the UK's Intellectual Property Office issued new guidance on
the use of orphan works
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works>
.

Wikimedia UK has just published its response to the new guidance. You can read
the blog post here
<https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the-new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/>
or view the copy as text below.

Thank you,

Stevie

*Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme*

The UK’s Intellectual Property Office
<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office> last
week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orphan-works>
.

This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of
intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply
for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied
that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and
they have paid a licensing and administration fee.

This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use
after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many
years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide
greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are
sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright
owner come forward.

Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual
Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new
guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions,
the imposition of an official fee is concerning.

Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily
used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.

A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical
approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works
Directive
<http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm>
.

We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching
review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For
example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many
works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.

You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on
copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright>
.

--

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


_______________________________________________
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

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. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.