It's now 9:22pm, Wednesday, May 21, 2008, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to send me the most current copy of the Orphaned Works Act. I spent most of the day on the telephone today with Senator Leahy's aide, press secretary and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is the result of those conversations.
The Interview with Senator Leahy's aide:
Before I ask anything at all, I think you should know that I've spent the morning reading Title 17 of the U.S. Code with special emphasis on Chapter 5. You should also know that this will all be on the web.
Q: 'Could you please define an Orphaned Work?'
A: Absolutely, an Orphaned work is an image that does not have a clearly visible name attached to it and whose owner can not be found by searching the US Copyright office.
Q: So it doesn't necessarily have to be a significantly old image?
A: No.
Q: And it isn't Orphaned because the original creator has long passed?
A: No.
Q: So this has nothing to do with restoring old photos or preserving historically significant photos and works?
A: No, the intention is to specifically target online artists who fail to attach their name to their work.
Q: But there's no specific wording to that effect.
A: I will make note of that for the Senator.
Q: Also, much of this bill outlines protections for libraries, archives, educational institutions and non-profits that are already clearly outlined in Title 17 Chapter 5 Sec. 504.
A: That is true, but this bill would extend those protections to Broadcast Agencies.
Q: Broadcast Agencies? That's an incredibly, generic term for an hugely, profitable market. Why should they be exempt from lawsuit for copyright infringement?
A: I can't answer that.
Q: Hang on a second, you said a work would be considered Orphaned if the creator 'failed to attach their name to their work' but Copyright Law says that no specific mark or registration is required?
A: Uh . . . right.
Q: So this would effectively eliminate passive copyright, which is the right to control your own work from the moment of creation regardless of registration and formalities?
A: I really can't answer that.
Q: But you just did, you said very clearly that in order to be protected a visual work would be required to have a name clearly attached!
A: I'll connect you to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm sure they'll have the answer for you.
Connected to the Senate Judiciary Committee now:
Q: Senator Leahy's aide tells me that an Orphaned Work is one without a clearly visible name attached to it.
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: So this Orphaned Works bill will effectively eliminated passive copyright?
A: I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Q: Ok, as a parent I snap hundreds of photos of my sons and I use the Internet to share them with family and friends far away. I don't take time to sign each and every one, and I certainly don't pay to register them. So how will this bill impact me?
A: I would have to look into that and get back to you.
Q: Also does this Bill mean that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Berne Convention?
A: I'm not sure I understand.
Q: Well the result of the Berne Convention was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wasn't it?
A: Well, yes.
Q: And the DMCA clearly allows for passive copyright which means I and other artists around the world have the right to control our work without having to sign it or register it right?
A: Oh, I see what you mean. Again that's something I will have to look into and get back to you on.
So, Sarah and I exchanged email addresses and that's all I know at this point. ~Lisa Sage
Update: May 28, 2008 still no word on how this will impact families.
Update: June 30, 2008 still no word on how this will impact families.
