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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org.uk>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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors(a)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
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*