United States Copyright Office (2015b)
Contents
Source Details
United States Copyright Office (2015b) | |
Title: | Orphan Works and Mass Digitization |
Author(s): | United States Copyright Office |
Year: | 2015 |
Citation: | Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, United States Copyright Office (2015), available at http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | In 2014, 81 public roundtable participant and 166 responses to Notice of Inquiry were received. In 2012, 89 reply and 91 initial comments to Notice of Inquiry were received. |
Data Type: | Primary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | Yes |
Comparative Study?: | Yes |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2012, facilitating the dissemination of creative expression is an important means of facilitating the constitutional mandate to 'promote the Progress of Science.' This Report addresses two circumstances in which the accomplishment of that goal may be hindered under the current law due to practical obstacles preventing good faith actors from securing permission to make productive uses of copyrighted works. First, with respect to orphan works, referred to as 'perhaps the single greatest impediment to creating new works,' a user's ability to seek permission or to negotiate licensing terms is compromised by the fact that, despite his or her diligent efforts, the user cannot identify or locate the copyright owner. Second, in the case of mass digitization – which involves making reproductions of many works, as well as possible efforts to make the works publicly accessible – obtaining permission is essentially impossible, not necessarily because of a lack of identifying information or the inability to contact the copyright owner, but because of the sheer number of individual permissions required.
Main Results of the Study
After reviewing stakeholder responses and international systems, the Copyright Office recommends two separate solutions for mass digitization and orphan works. Due to the widespread problem of receiving permission for orphan work use, the Copyright Office recommends limiting liability on infringement for orphan works after diligent search. For mass digitization, the issue centres on market efficiency rather than lack of information. Thus the Copyright Office proposes legislative reform (with regulatory flexibility) based on extended collective licensing.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The proposed orphan works legislative framework would do the following:
- Establish a limitation on remedies for copyright infringement for eligible users who can prove they have engaged in a good faith diligent search for the owner of a copyright and have been unable to identify or locate him or her;
- Define a diligent search as, at a minimum, searching Copyright Office records; searching sources of copyright authorship, ownership, and licensing; using technology tools; and using databases, all as reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances;
- Require the Copyright Office to maintain and update Recommended Practices for diligent searches for various categories of works, through public consultation with interested stakeholders;
- Add injunction and monetary relief limitations for infringements of orphan works by eligible nonprofit educational institutions, museums, libraries, archives, or public broadcasters, for noncommercial, educational, religious, or charitable purposes, provided the eligible entity promptly ceases the infringing use;
- Explicitly preserve the ability of users to assert fair use for uses of orphan works.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 247 |
Level of aggregation: | Stakeholders |
Period of material under study: | 2014 |
Sample size: | 180 |
Level of aggregation: | Stakeholders |
Period of material under study: | 2012 |