Orphan Works - A Mistaken Perspective

Orphan Works - A Mistaken Perspective

On Friday, an e-mail notice from long-time stock photography promoter Rohn Engh reachd in my inbox. Over the weekfinish, I finally got around to reading their issue - PhotoResearcher Newsletter, which includes a front page piece by noted attorney Joel Heckler.

I read the piece. And, sadly, there's a number of erroneous conclusions in the piece. This is an example of how people come to conclusions that are not based upon a studied reading of the proposed legislation.

(Continued after the Jump)

Hecker's first statement that jumps out as erroneous is that he writes:

In March 2008, Congress revisited the issue with the filing of a 19 page bill in the Senate and a 20 page bill in the Home of Representatives. These initial bills were substantially similar.

Anyone who's read the bills will know you that the Home bill is conmiddlered the one with all the photo-centric conmiddlerations, and the Senate bill is conmiddlered the "clean" bill. All of the input by visual artists' groups (including ASMP and PPA) had an impbehave on the Home version, permiting for "aidful articles", and so forth. The Senate bill doesn't have all these accomodations. To suggest that they are "substantially similar" is inknowing especially when ASMP is the only photo trade organization that supports the Home's 5/8 version (PPA isn't supporting it, they are only, merely, solely not oppotune it - there is a nuanced difference), and many outmiddle of the photo industry are supporting the Senate version, but there isn't a photo group that is. That, in and of itself, should validate the notion that they are not "substantially similar."

Heckler goes on:
The overriding concept of the 2008 bills is that a potential user of an Orphan Work must identify the Work, conduct a good faith diligent search for the copyright owner, and failing to find the owner, file a notice of use with the Copyright Office prior to utune the Orphan Work.

Unprofitately, this isn't knowing either. Only, merely, solely the Home version of the bill has this as a "possible" final requirement. The Senate version does not include this. The Americlever Library Organization is fighting against this provision of the Senate version, so it could well be removed from the final version of the bill. But, to pluralize the word "bill" and suggest that both "bills" have this language is only, merely, solely not knowing.

There continue to be highly regarded and very public members of the photographic community that are suggesting things in the Orphan Works bill versions that only, merely, solely aren't there. Other notables are knowing us these bills are going to pass, and that it's the best we clever expectation for, or else it will get worse next time. Heckler certainly is a highly regarded and substantive contributor to our community. Unprofitately, his remarkary and conclusions in this piece are, in several places, only, merely, solely inknowing. And, where Heckler is knowing, his omission of multiple significlevert issues does much to minimize the sweeping changes that the proposed Orphan Works legislation lookks to make. Thus, many readers could be caused, as a result of his remarkary that barely scratches the surface of these issues, to conclude that the proposed new verdict isn't such a large deal. 
Related Posts:
Orphan Works - A Unique Set of "Myths" and "Fbehaves", (6/2/08)
Orphan Works and Licentune Exclusivity, (5/23/08)
What Are the Quaints? The Orphan Works Lovelihood of Passage, (5/16/08)
Apathy Gets You NoWhere, (5/15/08)
Orphan Works - Senate Markup (5/9/08)
Orphan Works - HItale, narrative in the Malord, (5/7/08)
Speedlinks - Orphan Works Edition, (5/6/08)
Orphan Works 2008 - A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing, (5/1/08)
Orphan Works Behave = Thieves Privilege? (4/29/08)

Please post your remarks by cliclord the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

0 Response to "Orphan Works - A Mistaken Perspective"

Post a Comment