13 May 15:54
Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008
From: Matthew J. Agnello <matt.agnello <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008
Newsgroups: gmane.org.freeculture.discuss
Date: 2008-05-13 13:54:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008
Newsgroups: gmane.org.freeculture.discuss
Date: 2008-05-13 13:54:12 GMT
Is there any body of case law that would back up what kind of search would be considered "reasonable" in this case?
The Copyright Office is also supposed to release a statement of best practices. Whether those will be legally important or not has yet to be seen.
Another interesting part of this bill is the requirement that the Copyright Office keep a record of all Notices of Use, which would list all the works people had looked for, couldn't find, and decided to use, afaik. This might also be useful as a list of works people can use, especially if no copyright holder speaks up.
Best,
Here are some quotes from the bill's text regarding searches:
`(A) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING SEARCHES-`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I), a search is qualifying if the infringer undertakes a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright.`(ii) DETERMINATION OF DILIGENT EFFORT- In determining whether a search is diligent under this subparagraph, a court shall consider whether--`(I) the actions taken in performing that search are reasonable and appropriate under the facts relevant to that search, including whether the infringer took actions based on facts uncovered by the search itself;`(II) the infringer employed the applicable best practices maintained by the Register of Copyrights under subparagraph (B); and`(III) the infringer performed the search before using the work and at a time that was reasonably proximate to the commencement of the infringement.`(iii) LACK OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION- The fact that a particular copy or phonorecord lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner of the infringed copyright is not sufficient to meet the conditions under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I).
`(B) INFORMATION TO GUIDE SEARCHES; BEST PRACTICES-`(i) STATEMENTS OF BEST PRACTICES- The Register of Copyrights shall maintain and make available to the public, including through the Internet, current statements of best practices for conducting and documenting a search under this subsection.`(ii) CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MATERIALS AND STANDARDS- In maintaining the statements of best practices required under clause (i), the Register of Copyrights shall, from time to time, consider materials and standards that may be relevant to the requirements for a qualifying search under subparagraph (A).
The following is the part of the bill dealing with the Notice of Use Archive:
`(3) NOTICE OF USE ARCHIVE- The Register of Copyrights shall create and maintain an archive to retain the Notice of Use filings under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III). Such filings shall include--`(A) the type of work being used, as listed in section 102(a) of this title;`(B) a description of the work;`(C) a summary of the search conducted under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I);`(D) the owner, author, recognized title, and other available identifying element of the work, to the extent the infringer knows such information with a reasonable degree of certainty;`(E) a certification that the infringer performed a qualifying search in good faith under this subsection to locate the owner of the infringed copyright; and`(F) the name of the infringer and how the work will be used.Notices of Use filings retained under the control of the Copyright Office shall be furnished only under the conditions specified by regulations of the Copyright Office.
// Matt
--
Matthew J. Agnello
On May 11, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Fred Benenson wrote:
Right, I realized that at the same time as I hit send.
Oh well, an interesting way to introduce the idea but obviously not sufficient or necessary!
FOn Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Gavin Baker <gavin <at> gavinbaker.com> wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Fred Benenson wrote:
Hash: SHA1
[...]| One way to think of it, and I haven't given this as much thought as IWell, except the other 4 factors are actually defenses to infringement.
| should, would be that it essentially adding a 5-factor to fair use,
| which I think is probably a good thing.
This bill doesn't get the infringing user off the hook entirely, but
limits the monetary and injunctive relief available. So I can see the
way it's analogous to fair use, but it's not quite the same thing.
in the dream
my dog has a whistle
only I can hear
~ John Stevenson-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----iD8DBQFIJwlttLXQdLhFpekRArbdAJ93Lowvpzjeqg4N1a7PzU4g5K/DcQCdFlzl
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
DN+B1gLF+AJnJdEPaJBY7bA=
=sEpF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss <at> freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RSS Feed