For the record: The Senate orphan works bill passed the Senate on Friday September 26, 2008

House Version: H.R. 5889

Yes, as I read it though, the House bill never made it through?

I don't know if either of these bills does what people are claiming or not, but the original intention wasn't to steal rights from  all of us. The idea was that older "orphaned works" for historical purposes and works where an author could not be found after a diligent search, could be used. As it is now they are locked for all time, never to be seen or used again in the public eye.

I think most people here understand the orphaned works issue. The problem, specifically with the UK bill, is summed up perfectly in this letter from The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution to Peter Mandelson (Current UK Secretary of State):

"The Committee's view is that this is inappropriate, and that "orphan work" should be defined in the Bill. Likewise the following matters are left for you as Secretary of State and are not settled in the Bill: the treatment of royalties, the deduction of administrative costs, the period for which sums must be held for the copyright owner, and the subsequent treatment of those sums. The Committee notes that regulations made under this section are subject only to negative resolution procedure; and that the provisions contain no express duty on you as Secretary of State to consult appropriate stakeholders....it would greatly assist the Committee if you could explain why you consider it to be constitutionally appropriate for what appear to be such wide-ranging and open-ended rule-making powers to be conferred on you as Secretary of State."

All those details are not actually legislated in the bill. They are subject to change at any time by the current, or any subsequent, Secretary of State with only the negative resolution procedure in the way. That makes me uncomfortable.

What's worrying about it? Make sure you understand it.

-------

The premise behind an �orphan works� addition to copyright law is that it would provide a means for anyone to make use of copyrighted material that no longer has an owner.

It works by limiting damages that can be claimed if the work truly falls under orphan works protection. If a person wants to use a work they must ask permission from the copyright holder just as they do now. Under the current law, if they can�t find the owner they are out of luck. With the orphan works bill in effect, they could use the work after conducting a diligent search and failing to find the copyright owner. Later, if the original owner shows up, he must be paid fair royalties for the use of the work. It does not limit or change Fair Use.

What is worrying, to me, is this specific bill not the concept of claiming orphaned works. What worries me is this
(from the article):

In fact what an "orphan work" is remains undefined in the Bill. Simlarly, what precisely will comprise an "adequate search", what level of fee will be required, how the fee will be divided between the revenant author and the collecting society, who will benefit from unclaimed fees, who the extended licensing societies will be and what rules they will have to follow, are all unspecified and unknown to supporters and opponents alike. As far as orphans and photographers are concerned, this is a deliberate shell of a bill whose real payload will not be made apparent until it is too late to do anything about it.

Peter Mandelson, in response to concerns raised by the lords select committee on the constitution, claimed that certain terms within the bill cannot be defined because they must ramain fluid, including "adequate search" and "orphaned work". This is where the contention lies with this bill, not in the issue of orphaned works itself.