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've already submitted a formal comment as an independent citizen, but it would be great if the WMF also submitted a comment. The RfC page is at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/10/2014-02830/orphan-works-... Note that the page doesn't mention the rule of the shorter term at all, and I imagine the issue isn't even on their radar. Let's fix that!
Here is the text of the comment I already submitted in case it is useful:
Due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), there are now millions of orphan copyrighted works in the United States that are public domain in their country of origin, for example, the writings of Mahatma Gandhi. These works were previously public domain in the United States but have had their copyrights restored by the URAA. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to find out who technically retains the copyright since few people are even aware that the copyrights on these works have been restored in the US.
There is a simple legal solution to this situation. The United States should adopt the "rule of the shorter term" as set out in the Berne Convention (art. 7-8): "the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work."
Although the US is a signatory of the Berne Convention, we have opted out of the rule of the shorter term (See 17 U.S.C. 104), and are one of the few Berne Convention countries that does not practice it (along with China and Venezuela). By refusing to adopt the rule of the shorter term we are hurting the interests of all Americans in order to benefit a small handful of foreign authors (or more accurately, the companies and estates who control their copyright interests).
In light of the URAA, we should balance the interests of the public with the interests of copyright holders by following the suggestions of Berne Convention and adopting the rule of the shorter term.
Ryan Kaldari
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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.
Luis
I've already submitted a formal comment as an independent citizen, but it would be great if the WMF also submitted a comment. The RfC page is at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/10/2014-02830/orphan-works-... Note that the page doesn't mention the rule of the shorter term at all, and I imagine the issue isn't even on their radar. Let's fix that!
Here is the text of the comment I already submitted in case it is useful:
Due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), there are now millions of orphan copyrighted works in the United States that are public domain in their country of origin, for example, the writings of Mahatma Gandhi. These works were previously public domain in the United States but have had their copyrights restored by the URAA. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to find out who technically retains the copyright since few people are even aware that the copyrights on these works have been restored in the US.
There is a simple legal solution to this situation. The United States should adopt the "rule of the shorter term" as set out in the Berne Convention (art. 7-8): "the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work."
Although the US is a signatory of the Berne Convention, we have opted out of the rule of the shorter term (See 17 U.S.C. 104), and are one of the few Berne Convention countries that does not practice it (along with China and Venezuela). By refusing to adopt the rule of the shorter term we are hurting the interests of all Americans in order to benefit a small handful of foreign authors (or more accurately, the companies and estates who control their copyright interests).
In light of the URAA, we should balance the interests of the public with the interests of copyright holders by following the suggestions of Berne Convention and adopting the rule of the shorter term.
Ryan Kaldari
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
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
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.
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
The orphan works issue is an important one. The Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU (an affiliation of European chapters) is actually calling for change to the European Commission on this very issue. Some information on this can be seen at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
On 13 February 2014 13:30, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
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.
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
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.org wrote:
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
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
HI Ryan,
To an extent I share your cynicism. But as has been pointed out to me, more of the general population is aware of copyright today than they were in 1998. That's where I think WMF can help--not so much in lobbying, but spreading information about copyright, the restrictions that go with it, and the implications of yet another extension. That's one reason why I think annual observance and celebration of Public Domain Day is so crucially important: It's an an opportunity to disseminate information. This year I noticed more organizations/websites took it upon themselves to observe it. If all these organizations can publicize Public Domain Day annually, it might actually create some pushback should Congress dare to extend copyright again.
Bob
Actually, at least one person with industry connections has told me that the industry is bracing itself to lose the term extension argument time around. Even admitting that might happen is new for them. I think we should engage in that discussion, but we've got a lot of growing to do as an organization before we're ready to engage productively - becoming more sophisticated in how we participate in public domain day, for example, but also in how we do things like respond to government requests and picking and choosing which issues to promote on-wiki.
Meantime- anyone want to put the orphan works questions into meta and start drafting questions? :)
Luis
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
HI Ryan,
To an extent I share your cynicism. But as has been pointed out to me, more of the general population is aware of copyright today than they were in 1998. That's where I think WMF can help--not so much in lobbying, but spreading information about copyright, the restrictions that go with it, and the implications of yet another extension. That's one reason why I think annual observance and celebration of Public Domain Day is so crucially important: It's an an opportunity to disseminate information. This year I noticed more organizations/websites took it upon themselves to observe it. If all these organizations can publicize Public Domain Day annually, it might actually create some pushback should Congress dare to extend copyright again.
Bob
--
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:
- 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
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org