Comment from flossy-p
Time: April 28, 2008, 2:35 pm

I too have come across this, and I agree the information I found was either out of date, pending a new decision, or overly angry. And although I remain skeptical, I decided to post about it anyway. I guess I was more interested the the governments relationship to the arts. Whether it involves us wee artmakers, or just the big-wig-corporates, I always think it’s good to keep your ear to the ground about what moves are being made in general.

The fright and even skepticism of this was a good contrast to the enlightenment I was feeling about a government summit we had here (in australia) a few weekends ago - positive steps to bringing the arts back into a more important stream of society. (that’s what my post was about).

Sorry this comment is long winded and a bit pointless. I guess I agree, not sure, if anyone knows more details about the Orphan Works legislation, but the IF crowd could move mountains if we need to - I’m quite sure.

Comment from Cynthia Turner
Time: April 28, 2008, 3:48 pm

Please read “Orphan Works - No Myth”
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00264

Please also read “Written Statement of Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner on Behalf of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America to The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives”
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00261

Please read “How Registries Will Orphan Your Work”
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00263

The bills were introduced simultaneously in the House and Senate on April 24. We are setting up a site to allow rightsholders and stakeholders (artists and their support businesses) to write Congress.

You can access much more material and background at the Illustrators’ Partnership Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

Please help us to keep spreading the word.

Kind Regards,
Cynthia Turner

Comment from OddRiddle
Time: April 28, 2008, 5:18 pm

I think that, since the bill hasn’t even been released to congress yet, the best thing that any of us can do is to try to keep an eye on it for now. Without having an official bill to look at it’s hard for anyone to know anything for sure about how this could play out.

Not that this doesn’t scare me, of course! I just wish there was more concrete info on the bill itself. If the time comes, I’ll certainly send a letter to congress.

Comment from ArtSweet
Time: April 29, 2008, 6:00 am

This is very scary, and is to be acted upon in congress tomorrow! I quote the following excellent recap with permission:

- - - - -

Just thought I’d chime in on the Orphan Works situation. As you probably know, last Friday both the Senate and House introduced variations of the same bill: The Shawn Bentley Orphan Acts of 2008 (S. 2913) and The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889). If these bills pass, they will have devastating consequences for visual artists.

Having been involved in strategy sessions for the last few days with Brad Holland (Illustrator’s Partnership) and others, let me outline what you can do that would be helpful.

1. Write a letter to your congressional House leader and Senators stating your opposition to the bills. Send the letter both by e-mail and fax.

2. Help raise awareness about the potential consequences of this legislation, and ask everyone you know to write and send letters.

A number of groups which oppose this legislation are collaborating on creating a website which will enable you to e-mail your congressional leaders with the push of button. It will also contain sample letters. I will post the link as soon as the site is live.

The main reasons to object to this legislation are listed below. In case any of you want to start work on your letters before the sample letters are published, I’ve also included additional information to help you explain and clarify these objections.

1. It changes the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act (enacted in 1978), and makes it virtually impossible for artists to protect their work. It basically allows anyone to use a design without the copyright holder’s permission.

Under current law, you receive basic copyright protection even if you don’t register your work. Under Orphan Works law your work could be declared an orphan even if you have registered it. Congress, in enacting the Copyright Act of 1976, provided that copyright exists in the creation of any work that is copyrightable subject matter, regardless of whether or not the owner has performed any legal formalities, such as registration, or copyright notices, or taken any steps to protect or defend the copyright. Since 1978 (when it was enacted) many creators have relied upon the Copyright Act of 1976, and employed business practices based upon the protections it offered. The proposed Orphan Works Act of 2008 would have the effect of depriving certain creators of the ability to enforce their copyrights because they did not take steps that the Copyright Act of 1976 did not require them to take. In essence, it will give infringers the legal means to use a design without the copyright holder’s permission.

2. It requires artists to attempt to protect their work by registering it with a digital data base system (presumably for a fee, in addition to the copyright filing fee)—when no such system exists!

The proposed legislation is predicated on the establishment of private, profit making registries that would establish databases of digital versions of artworks and provide a place for infringers to try to locate the artist, BUT it will be enacted whether or not these data bases ever come into existence. This will relieve the infringer of liability if he simply attempts a search that cannot possibly be performed successfully.

In addition, the legislation places no limit on the number of these registries or the prices they would charge. The burden of paying for digitization and depositing the digitized copy with the private registry would presumably fall entirely on the artist, and even if an image is contained in the registry, as long as the infringer “looks” without finding it, the infringement is allowed. There is no liability imposed for the failure of a database to find an image registered in that database when it is searched, and no requirement that all available databases be searched, thus potentially requiring multiple registrations (and multiple registration fees). Also there are no safeguards to prevent any person or company from fraudulently registering work they do not own.

3. It eliminates statutory damages wherever an infringer can successfully claim an orphan works defense, thus eliminating the only tool the law provides to prevent deliberate infringement.

Current law almost certainly deters rampant infringement because the present remedies – damages of up to $150,000 per infringing article– make infringement risky. By “limiting remedies,” the Orphan Works amendment will effectively create a no-fault license to infringe.

4. It allows for an infringer to create—and copyright—a derivative work from the original design.

Under current law, the right to create a derivative work is one of an artist’s exclusive rights. Section103(a) says a user can’t copyright a derivative image that he’s infringed. “Protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.” Under the proposed new bills, since the entirety of an infringed work can be included in a derivative use, then the copyright of the derivative will amount to a copyright of the original. This would be a de facto capture of new exclusive rights by the infringer. In other words, these bills allow infringers to make and copyright derivatives—even if the copyright holder to the original work objects.

If this legislation passes it would mean a return to pre-1976 U.S. Copyright Act when many artists’ works fell into the public domain because they could not afford to comply with the formalities of registration as a condition of copyright protection. This violates the trust under which American artists have worked for the last 30 years, and nullifies our U.S. Copyright registrations. Further, it is against the Berne Convention, and invites retaliation from around the world because international artists’ works are just as vulnerable to infringement under the U.S. Orphan Works Act.

Now let me recap the current situation:

The Senate has only given a few days for comments on the bill to be made; they are due Wednesday, April 30th. The House has not specified a time-frame, and may give as little as 24 hours notice before closing the window for comments. There are several loosely allied groups which are opposing the legislation. These include The Illustrator’s Partnership (illustrators), The Artists’ Rights Society (fine artists), The Advertising Photographers of America (photographers), the Artists Foundation (fine artists), the Textile coalition (4 textile groups) and the Industry Coalition (whose members include the Craft and Hobby Association and George Little Management). During an OW strategy session Friday afternoon, Corrine Kevorkian, counsel for textile giant F. Shumacher, shared that the Textile coalition intends to recommend to the Senate that they adopt the House version. If this happens, the Textile industry will be spared the draconian impact of the Orphan Works Act because the House version exempts useful articles (see #1 below). She also intends to emphasize that the legislation shouldn’t take effect until the electronic data bases actually exist.

Although the bills are similar, there are some important differences to note. Both are devastating to all visual artists, but the House bill is somewhat less objectionable. Here are the three main differences:

1. The House bill includes an exception for useful articles, which (as far as I can determine) means that products (such as textiles and mugs) which are functional whether or not design has been applied to them, will not be impacted by this legislation.

2. The House bill also requires that manufacturers file their intention to use an image before they can use it –although it does not (a) specify a time period or method for doing so, (b) does not require an image to be included, only a verbal description (the Mona Lisa, for example could be described as “a dark-haired woman with an unusual expression” which would supposedly allow Leonardo to identify his work), and (c) does not require the filings to be readily searchable to allow an artist to monitor unauthorized uses of his/her work.

3. The House bill allows for a longer (possible) time period before implementation: January 1, 2013 vs. the Senate bill which uses the date of January 1, 2011. Unfortunately both bills are scheduled to take effect on the earlier of: “the date on which the Copyright Office certifies under section 3 at least 2 separate and independent searchable, comprehensive, electronic databases, that allow for searches of copyrighted works that are pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, and are available to the public through the Internet; or the January 1st, 2011 or 2013 listed by the respective bills. This means that if there is no visually searchable database operable before the date(s) listed, the legislation goes into effect anyway!

If you would like additional information on the potential impact of this legislation, you can learn more by

a. Reviewing the submission to the House by the Illustrator’s Partnership http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00261

b. Listening to Brad Holland’s informative webcast: http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html.

This is a very serious situation, and will require a concerted effort on all of our parts to stop it. I’m glad to see so much posting going on… and I believe that together we CAN make a difference. I’ll be in touch as soon as I have more information.

This may be forwarded in its entirety to any interested parties.

Best wishes,

Joanne

Joanne Fink
Lakeside Design

- - - - -

Many thanks to Joanne for her comprehensive review!

I faxed and emailed my senators and rep yesterday.

Comment from Diane Knott
Time: April 29, 2008, 6:10 am

Joanne, thanks for posting this info! I was just going to paste the link to it here! You’ve explained it rationally with no anger. It makes sense and I decided to do more than just wait it out. I sent letters to both of my senators and my congressman yesterday. I’ve also contacted the art dept. chair at our local university suggesting that he present this to the art classes for discussion, as this could very well impact future artists’ profession, as well as those of us currently earning our living this way.
Clearly, this bill has too many gray areas that need clarification. When people outside of our industry are involved in setting guidelines that affect OUR rights, one has to question their motives. I certainly question them.
Diane Knott

Comment from Jacob Souva
Time: April 29, 2008, 6:48 am

I’ve done some research and it has left me with the impression that the foundation of what we do for a living (or for hobby) is in jeopardy.

The bottom line is that this legislation removes your ownership from an image. In other words, if you create something it’s open to be used without your permission unless you register your work for a fee. The open sharing of images on the web as it exists now (through IF and other exceptional sites) would cease to exist because the law that currently protects our images would cease to exist. Your rights to your own images would be removed!

The proliferation of images that are not registered into the marketplace would make the need for freelance illustrators diminish greatly. If you think out ahead a bit, who prospers? Stock agencies and people who register your images before you can.

As somebody who has recently had my work stolen and published in a book, I can tell you that the only satisfaction is that they did so illegally and could face charges. Making it harder for artists and easier for thieves makes no sense.

Please spread the word!

Comment from sue Zipkin
Time: April 29, 2008, 7:08 am

WE REALLY NEW SOMES NEWS MEDIA ON THIS TOPIC!!!

The trouble is wouldn’t the media be part of the group that wants this OW bill passed? Then they can just steal images left and right and say they searched for their owner. I would think getting media to help our cause and protect or copyrights might be a very difficult task because from my understanding they might back this bill in a heart beat . Any thoughts?

Comment from sue Zipkin
Time: April 29, 2008, 7:11 am

TYPO : I meant to say
WE REALLY NEED SOMES NEWS MEDIA ON THIS TOPIC!!!

Comment from sruble
Time: April 29, 2008, 7:31 am

The U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate introduced two versions of the orphan works bill on Thursday April 24th, 2008. Both the Senate version, S.2913, and the House version, H.R.5889 are very similar in nature and closely mirror the last Orphan Works Act.

This is real, and we need to act now. The senate is only accepting input until Wed. April 30th. The House hasn’t set a date yet, but if you send the letters at the same time, then you’re covered.

You can find your senators and representatives here: http://capwiz.com/gag/dbq/officials/

Comment from Brenda Pinnick
Time: April 29, 2008, 11:15 am

Each of us has much to lose if either of these bills pass. PLEASE ACT NOW to stop this horrible threat to our livi-hoods. Big manufacturers have a lot to lose also, but the small, upstarts who don’t own their own library of art are probably drooling all over themselves in anticipation of the art waiting to be exploited. Who knows, they may start HERE…Illustration Friday.

Comment from Jamie Tucker
Time: April 29, 2008, 2:59 pm

The thing that confuses me even more is I am from Canada. I don’t know how this would affect me or what I can do about it. I don’t have a member in the house of representatives to write to… Will this set precedents for legislation in Canada?? Will this only bear on work I do for American publishers?

Confused Canuck

Comment from AlexC
Time: April 29, 2008, 7:59 pm

Hi there,

I was directed to your site by someone who reads it and suggested I leave a comment. My guess is that I’m sure to draw a lot of negative comments, and that’s okay. For those who are interested in reading my comments, I just wanted to give a different point-of-view, and maybe even have some healthy back-and-forth discussion. Let the commenting begin!

I work for a public interest group called Public Knowledge, and yes, we generally support orphan works policy. You can find our site here:

http://www.publicknowledge.org

our general stance and brief history of orphan works here:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow

and for those who want to dive right-in, our take on the new bills can be found here:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1537

I also link to the legislation in that post above, if you’re so inclined you can read it for yourself (each bill is only about 20 pages and might be worth your time–start with the Senate one as the House Bill builds off of it).

I understand that there is a lot of passion in this debate because people rely on their creative works for their livelihoods, and the perception of this policy is that one way or another, rights are being taken or diminished in some way. In the visual arts community, there’s a feeling of injustice and that someone is getting away with something. You have no reason to believe me, so at least up front, I’m not going to bother shouting that that’s not true. Instead, I’d prefer to go through what orphan works is supposed to be about and then try to parse the arguments listed above by ArtSweet and try to address each as best as I can.

Let me start with the basic premises for orphan works. There are a number of groups: independent and documentary film makers, libraries, archives, museums, and public television stations that came to Congress with a problem that they’ve experienced. They have a copyrighted work in their hands that they would like to put in a film, in an exhibit or otherwise expose it. They want to ask the owner permission or pay to a license, but no matter how how much time and money they put into a search, the owner cannot be found. Copyright law stops the use of the work because if they did use it, they risk extremely high copyright infringement liability–potentially $150,000 per work. This means that literally millions of works go unused and unexposed (remember from the comments above that simply expressing your idea in a “tangible medium” gets you a copyright, regardless of whether you formally register it).

Think how many casual snap-shots you alone may have taken in your life that have little or no identifying information on them. You may say, well, that’s fine because I don’t want any of my images spread around. But what about the documentary filmmaker who discovers that quintessential photo in a shoebox full of pics at a garage sale? The one and only photo that proves the point or perfectly documents a time and place, but can’t be used because even after an exhaustive search, the owner can’t be found.

The Copyright Office studied the problem for a year, listened to everyone interested (including many of the organizations you may belong to) and developed a 128 page report outlining the problem of “orphan works.” The study can be found here:

The Copyright Office said that there was a problem and sited some examples that created the problems: for those works who’s owners had died without heirs, for owners that were companies that went out of business, for owners who transferred their rights but no one recorded any transfer. Compounding the problem was the Copyright Registry itself because it’s not easily searchable (it only provides test searches and text results–how many records would get returned with a search for “Statue of Liberty” and and how could you possibly tell them apart without seeing the images?).

The Copyright Office proposed some model legislation, and here were the basic rules:

* If a user found a work and wanted to use it, they had to search for the owner to ask permission.

* If after a diligent search the user couldn’t find the owner, the user could use the work without having the high copyright liability looming over their heads.

* In the unlikely case that an owner surfaces, the user would compensate the owner for the use.

* If an owner finds that a user didn’t do a diligent search, that user will be on the hook for damages.

The current legislation is built from these basic rules, but goes a long way to address the concerns of owners who participated in the roundtable discussions and three Congressional hearings.

I’ll start going through the specific arguments raised above in ArtSweet’s comment next. Please feel free to leave a comment.

Comment from AlexC
Time: April 29, 2008, 9:57 pm

It’s important to start again here by saying that in 99.999% of the time that users search, they find the owner. Orphan works policy is supposed to allow the use in those 0.001% of the times where no amount of searching results in a discovered owner. But if owners don’t search, they’re infringers, plain and simple.

Okay, now to try to address some of the specific arguments raised above:

> 1. [The new 2008 legislation] changes the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act (enacted in 1978), and makes it virtually impossible for artists to protect their work. It basically allows anyone to use a design without the copyright holder’s permission.

It’s hard to show how something *doesn’t* do something. How do copyright owners protect their works today under current copyright law, especially visual artists? If someone uses your work without permission, then you contact them and ask them to stop and/or compensate you. Or you can sue them for infringement and if you registered you may be able to get some statutory damages.

The major way that things might differ under orphan works is that you always have responsible users who want to find you. Remember we’re talking about people who are going to use this orphan works limitation–they will have to have done a search for you–which is way more effort than low-life infringers will have done. In most cases, those orphan works users are going to find you after a search. In the rare case that the user doesn’t find the owner and the rarer case that that owner surfaces, the law requires the owner will be compensated. If the user acts in bad faith, or doesn’t do a reasonable search, they can be held liable for statutory damages (again, presuming that the owner registered their works, which is required under current copyright law and doesn’t change under any orphan works policy).

The key difference is that users that put diligent effort into searches and negotiate in good faith are shielded from statutory damages. Still, it’s not true that orphan works policy allows anyone to use a design without the owners permission.

> 2. It requires artists to attempt to protect their work by registering it with a digital data base system (presumably for a fee, in addition to the copyright filing fee)—when no such system exists!

Nope. This outrightly false. No where in either of these bills is an owner required to do anything with their copyrighted works–no submission to any digital database service, no additional payments, no nothing.

Like I noted in my previous comment, a big part of visual artists’ problem being found is the lack of an effective search for the Copyright Registry. If you’ve never searched for a particular work in the Registry online, you’ve got to try it. Go ahead, I’ll wait:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

It’s archaic, isn’t it? Only text-based searches and results. No images, poor descriptions and key words. It’s a mess, and the Copyright Office in their orphan works study and numerous testimonials have admitted it. But the Office claims to not have the expertise nor the funds to create something useful and up-to-date. This doesn’t help visual artists to be found. So, we suggested that in lieu of the Copyright Office, that the market could pick up the slack. There’s lots of technologies out there on the web that can store images (see sites like Mira.com or Flickr.com) and others that allow you to comparatively search images (take a look at Like.com). Modern technologies could dramatically aid the problem of owners becoming disassociated with their works, but they’re not being used, not by the Copyright Office and rarely by visual artists. So, we suggested that the Copyright Office at least inform the public what market based services could provide useful registry-like services.

**That’s it.** Look at the legislation yourself. Owners aren’t required to do anything. There’s no ramification if a user searches one of these services and cannot find an owner because they didn’t sign up. These services don’t legally replace the Copyright Registry in any way. The legislation only asks the Copyright Office to make a list of services that meet minimum requirements, none of which require an owner to do anything. Period.

My personal hope is that visual artists and even musicians would take advantage of new technologies that could dramatically ease searching for and identifying their works. If the arguments above have you concerned about cost, think about this–a year’s subscription to Flickr.com (which allows for **unlimited image uploads and storage** and is easily searchable) is almost half the cost of **a single copyright registration** at the Copyright Office which is uselessly searchable. Regardless, this legislation doesn’t require artists to do anything. And just because a user can’t find an artist’s work through one of these services doesn’t allow an orphan works user to use your work.

> 3. It eliminates statutory damages wherever an infringer can successfully claim an orphan works defense, thus eliminating the only tool the law provides to prevent deliberate infringement.

I’ve said it already that this is the goal of orphan works, to limit statutory damages in cases where users searched for the owner but came up dry. But the law does require that the owner is compensated in the slim chance that an owner, who was diligently searched for, surfaces. If a user negotiates in bad faith–you’re back to statutory damages. If an owner doesn’t diligently search–back to statutory damages.

I also want to note that if an owner sues a user for not putting in diligent effort into their search, that there are numerous provisions to help the owner in the court proceeding: 1. that the user has to state up-front that they’re intending to use the orphan works limitation; 2. that they have to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of a US district court; 3. that they have to spell out and document the search that they did up front. All of these will dramatically make it easier for an owner and a court to get to the bottom of the issue, even easier than in a traditional copyright infringement case. If anything, owners should find themselves wanting every infringer to claim that they are orphan works user because it makes it easier for the owners to pursue court claims.

> 4. It allows for an infringer to create—and copyright—a derivative work from the original design.

This is correct. It’s on page 13, line 9 of the Senate Bill. How else could a documentary filmmaker use an orphaned photo in their movie without the documentary movie being a derivative work of the photo? Still, just like in all the other orphan works cases, that documentary filmmaker would have to compensate the owner if she surfaced. However…

> Under the proposed new bills, since the entirety of an infringed work can be included in a derivative use, then the copyright of the derivative will amount to a copyright of the original.

Nope, this is not true. Yes, a derivative is based off the original, but that doesn’t mean the user (who is also the owner of the derivative) somehow takes over the copyright of the original, nor does it mean that the user could claim any additional rights from the original work. It’s legally wrong, regardless of whether we’re talking plain-old copyright law or orphan works policy.

I think those are the key arguments and points I wanted to make. It’s late here and I really hope I didn’t misstate anything–if I did, I will gladly admit that I’m wrong. Sorry for the lengthy post for those who actually read through it. I’m sure my arguments will stir up discussion and I hope to participate if you’re interested. Thanks for your time.

Comment from JG
Time: April 30, 2008, 2:20 am

“diligent effort into their search”
I would like to see what defines “a diligent effort”! Googled a subject in ‘images’ perhaps???

The reason so many image creators are upset by this proposed bill is because it threatens our livelihood at the very core. It will work retrospectively on all our existing unregistered work, that we felt we already had copyright on.

The onus will be for us to pay to register every image, and to personally follow up on infringed uses, which will cost time and money we do not have. We are not a rich profession with time to spare archiving images and writing our names on everything every day (only to find the name was removed when the image was printed making it untraceable again - commonly done with images).

Yes, we would like important archive images to be made available for use by honest bodies who can’t trace the copyright owners, but this is not the way to enable that act. There is already ‘fair use’ in place, and maybe that needs to be reviewed with a fee being paid into a copyright body for such images.

By making every image copyright free unless traceable, you endanger the whole arts business.

And using your story about a photo…”about the documentary filmmaker who discovers that quintessential photo in a shoebox full of pics at a garage sale? The one and only photo that proves the point or perfectly documents a time and place, but can’t be used because even after an exhaustive search, the owner can’t be found. ” This is too a simple idea, and to be honest, I would not want that photo made available for easy use by the documentary maker without provenance.
Imagine now instead… a nude photo taken in a moment of student pranks many years ago, of a now important person… would you still feel that photo should be freely used without permission of the originator? Would the documentary maker ask the person in the photo who it belongs to as part of their ‘diligent search’?
This law which seemingly opens images up to innocent use, could also effect what would today be considered abuse.

There are many aspects to copyright that give protection in many ways, whilst also hindering use of some images. We need to free up legitimate use of untraceable copyright images perhaps, but not at the expense of losing copyright protection for all who have not marked or registered their images.

Comment from rama
Time: April 30, 2008, 11:52 pm

i’m glad that alexc took some time to post the argument FOR orphan works legislation but the fact that he references the same documentary film maker several times suggests that he is more excited about the INTENTIONS of the legislation than he is aware of the fact that there will inevitably be unintended repercussions. the weakening of any law might promotes freedom but it also gives unethical people a little more wiggle room to take advantage of that freedom.

since penelope posted this topic as a question, i guess the simplified question is this: do you think copyright laws are too strict or do you think copyright laws aren’t strict enough?

let your answer determine your course of action.

Comment from lisa mertins
Time: May 2, 2008, 7:14 am

my two cents is, the one thing that can’t be automated, mandated, churned out cheaply, or truly replicated easily is creativity. yet here comes an attempt. it’s one thing big business can’t control but i believe they’ll keep trying. folks, i work for a newspaper and i sure never thought i’d see the day when it’s importance would be diluted…
laws protecting our rights as “content creators” should be strong and simple imho.

Comment from Chris Castle
Time: May 11, 2008, 8:44 am

Make no mistake–there are major online entities such as Google that are backing the Orphan Works bill. Just as Google’s YouTube is trying to talk copyright owners of audiovisual works into giving Google copies of their works for the “filtering database” that has taken over a year to develop (when existing commercial applications were available), Google Print is taking copies of books (and doing a poor job of it by some accounts), Google will now close the loop and be able to scoop up millions of other works into a database that Google will own.

As Google’s attorney, Alexander MacGilivrey put it in his testimony at the Copyright Office:

“I would encourage the Copyright Office to consider not just the very, very small scale, the one user who wants to make use of the work, but also the very, very large scale and talking in the millions of works.”

Don’t forget–the Senate version of the bill is called the “Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act”–Shawn Bentley was a lobbyist for AOL.

Comment from David
Time: May 21, 2008, 2:22 am

lots more about the act here.. http://www.itwire.com/content/view/18308/53/

Comment from Warren
Time: June 4, 2008, 5:12 pm

Truthfully, this bill doesn’t eliminate ownership on anything, it just makes it hard to protect. The bill is well-intentioned, but full of loopholes.

I’ve been trying to get a commentary on it going at my blog:
http://www.designershaveissues.blogspot.com.

I address the six misconceptions article by Meredith and some other arguments people have favoring this bill.

I believe I have researched this well and I hope to hear input from others.

Comment from Thomas Nowacki
Time: June 6, 2008, 5:51 am

Plain and simple: This bill gives infringers the license to infringe.

Keep in mind that’s it’s to the person benefit to NOT find the owner.

“Good faith” my sweet aunt petunia’s behind…