The orphan works is designed for archives, libraries , museums, special collections and others who have over the years become repositories of materials that were donated without a proper deed of gift. As it stands now because no one knows who owns the copyright these materials are effectively close to researchers. The orphan works act is NOT designed to take away someone's copyright

Thanks,

I think everyone is FREAKING over nothing. I didn't type this, I just took this from Snover@Y!'s journal, he pretty much sums up this whole thing perfectly. "First of all, Mark's definition of orphan works is wrong. An orphan work is a creative work where the original copyright owner cannot be located or identified. What he is describing as "orphan works" is, in actuality, the public domain. (Though, improper registration only applies to works from before when the Berne Convention was ratified.) (See en.citizendium.org/wik····an_works) Second of all, there is no current legislation before congress regarding orphan works. The Public Domain Enhancement Act was the last bit of legislation regarding copyright and orphan works reform, and died after being referred to committee in 2006. You can confirm this yourself by searching for "orphan works" at the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov/bss/110····rch.html). Third of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act doesn't legalise theft any more than copyright expiration legalises theft. Copyright is supposed to be a short, fixed term exclusive right that encourages the production of new creative works. Copyright was not intended to allow Disney to continue to make money on cartoons created 3 generations ago, or for John Lennon's wife to get rich off her dead husband's estate, but that's how it is today thanks to the large media conglomerates. (For someone that's spending so much time railing against corporations, Mark seems to spend a lot of time not talking about how the major film and music studios have pressured Congress to extend copyright terms 11 times since the original 1790 copyright act.) Fourth of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act requires a token payment of $1 every 10 years, ONCE THE COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT ALREADY FOR FIFTY YEARS. That means, the first 50 years of copyright are still free, even under the proposed Act. Fifth of all, Mark is wrong about current registration requirements. In order to file ANY copyright infringement suit, not just one for statutory damages, you have to register the work with the copyright office. Statutory damages can only be claimed if the registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work. All this information is easily available from the Copyright Office's Web site (www.copyright.gov/circ····.html#cr) so there's no reason for him to get it wrong. Sixth of all, I'm very interested to learn how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes Bill Gates money, since Mark claims that Bill Gates doesn't "do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money". I'm even more interested as to how Mark thinks that Bill Gates stepping down as chairman of Microsoft to move into philanthropy will make him more money than continuing to run the largest software company on earth. Finally, the most important thing. The point of orphan works laws, which is COMPLETELY missed by this three page comedy of errors, is NOT to make it possible for people or corporations to steal your work. In fact, most of the orphan works legislation has been pioneered by people such as Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred -- people that are TIRED of big corporations continuing to steal from the public domain by pushing forward copyright term limits. The point of orphaned works laws is to make it possible for people to use works whose owners cannot be found, thereby preventing these works from fading into oblivion and creating a new surge of creativity built on these freely available works. Under the current system, even if someone is willing to pay for license to use a work, if they can't find the original copyright holder, they can't risk using the work in case the original copyright holder or a heir surfaces later and sues them. With the proposed US orphan works law, after 50 years, if the copyright holder does not pay the $1 tax to continue their copyright ownership, the work enters the public domain. How fifty years of exclusive rights is not enough for Mark, I don't know. It's still FAR more than the original 28-year term set back in 1790, and still FAR more than is needed to make money on a work. Any potential legislation that works to reduce copyright terms is a VERY GOOD THING for all creatives today. Hey, it even means that once Corbis's library enters the public domain, you won't need to pay them to get copies anymore."

Firstly, those that think this is a dead issue need to go here: http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/03/orphan-bill-rears-its-ugly-head-aga... Secondly, I'm sure this has already been addressed, but if this bill passes, it will spell certain death for the commercial artist. If there is such a vast cache of art to choose from, what would compel anyone to hire an artist/photographer from that point forward, provided said client/company had done a "reasonable search" for the copyright holder? This just looks like more bullshit to tie up the legal system and line the pockets of those that work in it. I understand the basic principles of why this bill was even conceptualized in the first place, but the cons definitely outweigh the pros in this case. Bottom line - if you can't find the copyright holder, move on.

This is absurd. If you deny the legal protection of copyright, you deny the very foundation of this country--the unique rights of the individual, Nuf said. It will NEVER happen

Hooray !!! Lets declare orphan software then !!

Call your senators and representatives. The Phone number for the congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. You can give the operator your zip code and then you will be connected to your senators' or representative's offices. Looks like the main person to contact may be Rep. Howard Berman D-CA28, he's the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. You can find the names of other representative on the committee here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Judiciary_Subcommittee_... This is an issue that appears to be non partisan in nature, so don't be afraid to call someone of an opposing party. Please be concise and inquisitive while raising your concerns and as always be polite. If they don't hear from you they'll think they are doing great job.

I read this and did some google-fu and the best I can tell, this bill died in the house in September, 2006. Am I missing something? If so, please update this article with the house bill number, or what bill it's attached to! I'm not going to write a letter to my respective political clown if there isn't actually a bill in the house. That would make me crazier than they are. Publish the facts, please.

I just picked up this tid bit of info a few moments ago, I'll tell you right now this bill will not pass in my country! Multiple Petetions and Protests of large magnitudes are gearing up and getting together to shut this ""Criminal Opperation"" down! If you would like to assist please follow the link at the bottom for one of the many petitions to be signed. Thank You. An Artist Deviants against the "Orphaned Works" Bill http://www.petitiononline.com/dAvsOW/petition.html

get your story straight before posting it, or make sure you can't be immediately verified a wolf-crying teary-eyed panic boy... telling stories about Chinese legislation on art would be a safer bet, for example.