Parts of the proposed ammendments are listed below (These are extracts, for full information see the original bill and its amendments in full).
They give more detail on:
- Definition of Orphan Work
- Where burden of proof of Orphan status should reside (the publisher)
- Compensation to copyright holder if found
- What a diligent search entails
- What kind of organisation may become a licensing body
30A Orphan works
The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that acts in relation to an orphan work which would otherwise require the consent of the copyright owner may be done notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright.
A work shall become an orphan work when the copyright owner cannot be found.
The burden of proof that the copyright owner cannot be found shall be on the person who publishes the orphan work, and the burden shall be discharged by proof that a diligent search to identify and locate the copyright owner has been undertaken and has not been successful.
The work shall cease to be an orphan work when the identity and location of the copyright owner becomes known.
The copyright owner shall be compensated in an amount equal to the licence fee he would have received had he been identified at the time of publication and he shall be entitled to aggravated damages if the person who publishes the work is unable to discharge the burden of proof described in subsection (3).
Regulations under subsection (1) shall only provide for authorising a licensing body that represents a substantial number of authors or, as appropriate, performers of the type of works for which the licence is to be granted.
The regulations shall provide that no such licence may be granted unless the would-be licensee demonstrates to the licensing body that they have undertaken a diligent search for authors, performers and other holders of rights in each work for which a licence is sought, including the making of detailed enquiries to relevant institutions and rights holders in the same or similar fields.
Regulation under subsection (1) shall only provide for authorising a licensing body that represents a substantial number of authors or, as appropriate, performers of the type of works for which the licence is to be granted.
The amendments are going through the committee stage of the Lords over the next few days.
At first glance it seems to green light the development of a bureacratic layer to gatekeep the transition to public domain certification. Could be more of a hindrance than a help. Will the licensing agency arbitrate that '...a diligent search to identify and locate the copyright owner has been undertaken' by publishers? In practice I think it will be publish first and answer any questions later with the licencing agency operating as a clearing house for ownership claims.
ReplyDeleteThe requirements mentioned exactly decribe the services of the patent-pending ownership identification process of The Copyright Registry at C-Registry.us. It's time for pro-creator British and American counterparts (who support copyright and creators being paid for their work) to join together and actively promote a solution for Orphan Works legislation that is advancing world-wide.
ReplyDeleteYou've missed out the most important one about throwing out orphan works legislation, and extended collective licensing, in their entirety.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Wiard