Internal:Public Policy/Orphan works

This is a draft of the Public Policy Committee's report to the Board of Directors on the subject of Orphan Works and Mass Digitization for the U. S. Copyright Office workshop on March 10–11, 2014.

Outline

• Background
  • What are orphan works?
  • How Wikimedia projects have benefited from public domain works: media in Commons, text in Wikisource and Wikipedia, etc.
  • Wikimedia projects cannot currently use orphan works; how they would benefit from being able to use them to fulfill our educational mission.
• How are Wikimedia's needs different than the more well-known case of Google Books etc.?
• Which of the specific provisions being proposed would be best? Would some be too burdensome for use on Wikimedia projects?

Sources

• The workshop page
• Report on Orphan Works by the US Copyright Office, 2006 (127 pages plus appendices and comments)
• A 2011 background paper on mass digitization by the Copyright Office, especially see pp. 25ff

Examples

• The issue will be clear if we have examples to work from.
• I have a small one. I struggled with the decision about whether to use a photo of economist Robert Hoselitz that came from his family to illustrate the article about him. It wasn't clear what to do and I gave up, to the disappointment of people who had helped me. The original photographer could not be identified. Who held the copyright? How would I label it on Commons? I didn't want to end up in an argument. I'd already had to fight pretty hard to kill off a photo of someone else that was incorrectly labeled as a photo of Hoselitz. The photo was also quite dark--a side issue. To the point: if orphan works were a nicely available permission category on Commons, that would have helped me. -- Econterms (talk)

Proposal from Copyright Office

The 2006 proposal by the Copyright Office, summarized on p.8, about what to do about orphan works seems appropriate. I believe it did not become law. They may be holding these workshops to rebuild support for it or something like it. Basically it says the user of an orphan work has to make "diligent" efforts to find the proper owner and license it. The Copyright Office does or would have materials online to help the person search and "diligent" would be defined partly by evidence that the user had used those materials. Potential users who can't find the owner could use the material, labeling it as an orphan work. Seems good to me. Can we back that? And/or, is the labeling requirement excessive for Wikimedia? -- Econterms (talk)

Comments from Slowking4

• Slowking4 and I conversed by "google hangout" -- my first time, maybe.
• He says: "We want a procedure that we can say we followed in the metadata of an uploaded file. We'll put it in the licensing terms e.g. on commons. it gives a "safe harbor" - a defense for the good faith. we could also have a licensing procedure going forward. they could migrate it to flicker, after it had been digitized by Wikimedians. The copyright holder would benefit from it. (just pennies normally). it cuts through the uncertainty. if we agree to the procedure we can keep these cases out of court. This way nobody needs to threaten that. We are already doing well at crediting the source of photos."
• He says also: "We're in favor of any reform. We do not need to take a specific stance on specific legislation here. Our principles are clear and simple."
• He has meetings tomorrow that prevent him from making it to the Tuesday evening gathering. He thinks we will have something close to a consensus and so he is not anxious about missing this one meeting."
• We can mention in our briefings in April, and suggested congressional briefings prep on April 12, and briefings themselves on April 14. Could include students.