UK Copyright Law - more stuff freed & available.

[carpetmojo]

Copyright law has been amended regarding "orphan" works, such that a lot are now free of copyright problems.
A kind of arcane area, but of interest to some, especially if those that can, start to be made available digitally. Some look very interesting indeed.
Here's the link to the article in today's Independent - hope it works, and is of interest.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-9824266.html

[ATDrake]

This is interesting, thanks for the link, and a nice step forward which seems fair to both the public and any applicable remaining rights-holders if they should ever show up. I hope something like this gets adopted in more countries.

[Mike L]

Thanks for posting this. It's an interesting item.

One thing I am curious about is this statements:

Under the new scheme, a licence can be granted by the Intellectual Property Office so that these works can be reproduced on websites, in books and on television without breaking the law. If rights owners do subsequently come forward they can be remunerated.

I wonder who will remunerate the rights owners. Is it the organisation or individual (such as a museum) which is reproducing the work? That would seem to defeat the object. Or is the Intellectual Property Office? And if so, where does the money come from?

I'm only asking out of curiosity. I'm not trying to make a point.

Mike

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Thanks for posting this. It's an interesting item.

One thing I am curious about is this statements:

I wonder who will remunerate the rights owners. Is it the organisation or individual (such as a museum) which is reproducing the work? That would seem to defeat the object. Or is the Intellectual Property Office? And if so, where does the money come from?

I'm only asking out of curiosity. I'm not trying to make a point.

Mike

If rights holders do come forward, they should be compensated for future use, not past use. Where were they and why didn't they come forward earlier?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Thanks for posting this. It's an interesting item.

One thing I am curious about is this statements:



I wonder who will remunerate the rights owners. Is it the organisation or individual (such as a museum) which is reproducing the work? That would seem to defeat the object. Or is the Intellectual Property Office? And if so, where does the money come from?

No idea what the details on this are, but generally, these proposals involve the compensation being paid for by the taxpayers. This is not all that unusual thought outside the US.

[crossi]

I believe orphaned money and property reverts to the state after a certain amount of time if no claimants step forward. Or so I've heard. If bank accounts with thousands of dollars in them or houses worth thousands can be claimed and sold by the state why do they make it so hard to claim a book right that was of so little value that the publisher and the heirs of whoever wrote it just forgot about it? The copyright laws are ridiculous.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by crossi

I believe orphaned money and property reverts to the state after a certain amount of time if no claimants step forward. Or so I've heard. If bank accounts with thousands of dollars in them or houses worth thousands can be claimed and sold by the state why do they make it so hard to claim a book right that was of so little value that the publisher and the heirs of whoever wrote it just forgot about it? The copyright laws are ridiculous.

Well, a lot of this stuff is a result of small things like the 2nd World War, and other conflicts, in which quite a few people died, including many of their immediate heirs .....

There is the possibility that other things were, and remained so for quite a while, more pressing ?

And, just quickly - if your statement re: copyright concerns the principle, rather than specific regulations/formats ...... do you also find it ridiculous that you get a wage, or receive payment for, your work ?
And is your right to that covered by law ?

Just a thought ....

[Ghitulescu]

That's the effect of the amendments in the EU directives.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Well, a lot of this stuff is a result of small things like the 2nd World War, and other conflicts, in which quite a few people died, including many of their immediate heirs .....

There is the possibility that other things were, and remained so for quite a while, more pressing ?

And, just quickly - if your statement re: copyright concerns the principle, rather than specific regulations/formats ...... do you also find it ridiculous that you get a wage, or receive payment for, your work ?
And is your right to that covered by law ?

Just a thought ....

I find it ridiculous that my employer doesn't still paying me for programs that I wrote 20 years ago.

In the US, at least, copyright was put into the Constitution as a quid pro quo. Not having works available isn't in the general public's best interest. It seems to me that having orphaned works available with proceeds going to a fund that reverts to the state after a period of time, if unclaimed, is a reasonable compromise. As a reminder, copyright is a monopoly granted for a limited time by the government in the interest of bettering the public good. It is _not_ property.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It is _not_ property.

It's about intellectual property, which is distinct from real estate, which is distinct from chattel. Merely arguing the word doesn't change anything about the reality, any more than arguing "buy" vs "license" changes the terms of use of an ebook. It's a worse-than-useless smokescreen that distracts from the real issues.

[crossi]

I don't object to the principal of copyright, for a strictly limited time like the origional 14 yrs with an option to renew. I do object to the public being forced to pay for protecting some work from being made available to them for a ridiculously long time for no compensation. If I expect police and fire protection I expect to pay property tax to pay for it, not get it for free. Why should they get to freeload. If they want something protected they should register it and pay a fee. No fee no protection. If they simply want something, like a diary to be hidden then lock it up where no one can copy it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's about intellectual property, which is distinct from real estate, which is distinct from chattel. Merely arguing the word doesn't change anything about the reality, any more than arguing "buy" vs "license" changes the terms of use of an ebook. It's a worse-than-useless smokescreen that distracts from the real issues.

Intellectual property is a phrase that was coined by a lawyer to help convince the jury that his client's idea was property that belonged to him. Words matter, because that is what frames the debate.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Intellectual property is a phrase that was coined by a lawyer[....]

So is real estate, so is chattle, and, likely, so is property.

to help convince the jury that his client's idea was property that belonged to him.

Just like "deeds" are used to give that impression about places on the Earth.

All "property ownership" is an artificial construct of our society. There is an argument to made that aside from our bodies, our ideas and thoughts are the only things that we CAN truly own.

IP is no different and every bit as valid as the made-up notion that passing someone little slips of green paper creates a transfer of property ownership when you buy a thing in store.

Words matter, because that is what frames the debate.

Misframes it in this case. Use words to convey meaning. Don't try to impose meaning that isn't there by intentionally picking a wrong word, or to try to dismiss meaning that is there by refusing to use the right word.

You do that as rhetoric to persuade, not as the foundation for your argument.

Our society calls it intellectual property and has laws concerning it.
It is so.
Get over it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Intellectual property is a phrase that was coined by a lawyer to help convince the jury that his client's idea was property that belonged to him. Words matter, because that is what frames the debate.

It's also a term that's enshrined in law. Eg, the UK judicial system has an Intellectual Property Court, which deals with patent, copyright, and trademark issues, where the judge is a specialist in the field.

[rollei]

Orphan work now may be available on the internet, that would be beneficial to the general public