How People Voted
 |
 |
22% For, 78% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 5889, The Orphan Works Act of 2008
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing revision saved on April 28, 2008, 19:30:16 (webmaster), with revision saved on May 21, 2008, 19:31:06 (webmaster):
H.R. 5889 would provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
Orphan Works Act of 2008 - Limits the remedies in a civil action brought for infringement of copyright in an orphan work if the infringer proves that: (1) the infringer performed and documented a reasonably diligent search in good faith to locate the copyright owner before using the work, but was unable to locate the owner; (2) a Notice of Use was filed with the Register of Copyrights before the work was used; and (3) the infringing use of the work provided attribution to the author and owner of the copyright, if known.
Permits an award of reasonable compensation for the use of the infringed work, except if: (1) the infringement is performed without any commercial advantage and for primarily a charitable, religious, scholarly, or educational purpose; and (2) the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement.
Directs the Register of Copyrights to: (1) undertake a certification process for the establishment of an electronic database to facilitate the search for pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that are subject to copyright protection; and (2) study and report to Congress on remedies for copyright infringement claims by an individual copyright owner or a related group of copyright owners seeking small amounts of monetary relief.
Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the function of the deposit requirement in the copyright registration system .
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Referred to5/7/2008: House committee.committee/subcommittee actions. Status: ReferredForwarded by Subcommittee to the HouseFull Committee on the Judiciary.(Amended) by Voice Vote .
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Lenn Long
May 8, 2008, 8:43pm (report abuse)As a photographer any legislation that takes my rights as image creator away from me I cannot support.
This bill in its current form has such vague and wide sweeping language it essentially disolves the entire copyright lawbook.
Jim
May 13, 2008, 9:43pm (report abuse)I support this Bill.
Fair use has been gutted, we can have a private free exchange of information on the internet or we can have copyright laws. There is not room for both.
I will not sacrifice freedom of speech, privacy and the basic realities of the internet to maintain outdated business models.
Josh
May 21, 2008, 3:58am (report abuse)This bill is nothing. HR 4279 is our worse nightmare. The Ray Charles MP3s and the Peanuts comic strips may soon become public domain.
Bill from NYC
May 22, 2008, 1:04pm (report abuse)We're not talking about outdated business models. We're talking about people who will say they performed a diligent search for the owner of a copyright, when in fact they did not, and they will pay the limit of damages as a discounted fee for the use of the work in question. Anyone who makes their living as an artist already has issues with keeping their work safeguarded from theft...this Orphan Works bill, if signed into law, will just legalize it.
Diana in NYC
May 22, 2008, 2:58pm (report abuse)While I have no problem with NON-profit museums, schools and archivist having easier access to old, forgotten works, I do have serious issues with the broad sweep of the brush this new OW bill has been created with. They have opened the floodgates for large, onerous FOR PROFIT companies (and freeloading smaller entities) to manipulate and use the bill/law to their own commercial advantage, which would be devastating to the small creative arts business community. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech (privacy would be out the window if anyone can grab and use personal family photos that are not properly 'registered'), but all to do with valuable properties that dubious companies look to take advantage of FOR PROFIT if this bill passes. It needs to be seriously overhauled for it to be fair to all honestly involved.
Jeremy McHugh
May 23, 2008, 5:03pm (report abuse)This bill ignores the Berne Convention. It tosses a creator's rights into the wind by removing the assumption that a creator's work is their own to do with as they please.The fallout of this bill's passing would be international. Other countries that follow the Berne Convention would find their creators equally at a loss as to how to protect their interests.The hoped-for commercial registries that Orphan works legislation assumes will arise to make this ill-conceived system function will be wide open for abuse. The bill's wording practically reads as a "how-to" manual for copyright infringement.
Copyright is not an obstacle to free speech as some would like to assert when clouding the issue. Copyright is a right of property and privacy and both will be in jeopardy if this bill is allowed to pass.
Jtaylor83
May 23, 2008, 11:23pm (report abuse)This bill has nothing to do with the Berne Convention. Pro-IP (HR 4279) is an obstacle of a person freedom to live. Pro-IP will allow the RIAA, MPAA, WGA, Anime Artists, game companies, and celebrities to own your house even if you do not own a computer or any other device that infringes copyright.
Edtropolis
May 24, 2008, 6:22pm (report abuse)Diana, this bill does not include personal material belongings such as your family photos. I wouldn't worry about this bill because Pro-IP is killing fair-use and the second amendment. If you're worried, then sell your stuff (including the clothes on your body) and go live in the woods. Your Jesus cannot save you anymore, he died 2000 years ago and he's still dead today.
Lisa
August 4, 2008, 8:00pm (report abuse)Edtropolis, this bill would indeed impact personal material, as well as any other material on the web. The term 'orphan' is never defined in the text of the bill itself, except to say that the creator could not be found. So it could be any type of visual art at all: old, new, foreign. Any image recently scrapped off of any website could be labeled 'orphan' so long as a 'diligent' search was conducted to find the creator (someone please tell me how this could possibly be done!).
Here's another thing to think about since this bill is aimed at creating an exception for non profits. Of the 19 states that actually DO have privacy laws none of them will protect your personal photos from unauthorized use by a non-profit organization.
Since when do we advocate socialism and slavery? The right of a human being to profit from his/her labor is an essential human right! I for one don't enjoy working only to give it all away instead of cashing the paycheck.
ps
August 4, 2008, 8:05pm (report abuse)The only thing protecting your family photos right now is the fact that we enjoy the protection of 'passive copyright' which means no signature or registration is required you own it and control it from the moment you create it whether it's a photo or sketch. No one touches it without your permission. That's what the Berne Convention did for us and this bill will undo all of that.
Working artist
September 30, 2008, 2:42am (report abuse)How am I outdated? How is making a living outdated? This idea that I'm not allowed to work for money, and that everyone can do whatever they want with my things is all well and good as long as SOMEBODY GIVES ME ENOUGH MONEY TO EAT AND PUT A ROOF OVER MY HEAD. Otherwise what you are talking about is theft, Jim, and not your precious Communism.
Freedom From The Christian Faith Foundation
December 9, 2008, 2:00pm (report abuse)Lisa, socialism and child slavery is the two best ways to repair our financial problems. I think it's time to sell off our underaged children as slaves. Don't you agree? The point to this is underaged children are slaves. Children don't have rights as we do, and they don't have souls. Children should not be treated as babies, they should be treated as property. As property, children are to obey your commands and not complain. If they do, you just take a BB gun and shoot them in the brain as part of their punishment for not obeying your every command.
@FFTCFF
December 9, 2008, 3:36pm (report abuse)Ummm, you realize that this is about copyright law, right?