That fits with my understanding with regard to museums. The Internet issue is, as you say, messy. Another messy situation: I've heard of an increasing number of cases where it it very difficult to get reproductions of contemporary photos without proof of ownership of copyright, though -- especially for professional-looking prints. (Cases such as getting reprints of your child's class portrait, for instance.) If you can track down the original photographer, you can usually buy for a small fee the transfer of copyright (which is why it's generally good to get one up-front, where they are usually free), but in cases where you can't locate the photographer, don't know the photographer's identity, or the photographer is no longer in business/it is unknown who the copyright holder is, that can be problematic, since many photo labs, especially the larger, chain ones, don't wish to take on the liability and have a blanket policy not to make copies in these cases.
It seems to me that legislation to clarify the questions regarding fair use in these circumstances would be a good thing, and that there are valid concerns that need to be considered, and that rather than people attacking a bill that doesn't exist, list out the potential pitfalls that such a bill should avoid, while listing the goals and intent as well, and work out a proposal for legislation on this topic. Unless people are arguing that museums shouldn't be able to digitize their entire collections, which I don't think they are, then I don't see what's wrong with the concept of greater certainty about what is an orphaned work, and more flexibility with what can be done with it. If that means strengthening the amount of work one must do to determine the owner, document the process, apply for orphaned work status, whatever, so be it -- but I've yet to read a good proposal for how to address all these potential problems being bandied about in a bill that doesn't even exist.
Legislation that provided clearer guidelines on what is and isn't orphaned work, and made it possible for orphaned work to be used more openly in certain circumstances, would certainly make the museum field happier, would it not?
The laws being a mess generally don't benefit anyone but lawyers, and I think the intention here it so sort out an existing mess to everyone's satisfaction.
no subject
It seems to me that legislation to clarify the questions regarding fair use in these circumstances would be a good thing, and that there are valid concerns that need to be considered, and that rather than people attacking a bill that doesn't exist, list out the potential pitfalls that such a bill should avoid, while listing the goals and intent as well, and work out a proposal for legislation on this topic. Unless people are arguing that museums shouldn't be able to digitize their entire collections, which I don't think they are, then I don't see what's wrong with the concept of greater certainty about what is an orphaned work, and more flexibility with what can be done with it. If that means strengthening the amount of work one must do to determine the owner, document the process, apply for orphaned work status, whatever, so be it -- but I've yet to read a good proposal for how to address all these potential problems being bandied about in a bill that doesn't even exist.
Legislation that provided clearer guidelines on what is and isn't orphaned work, and made it possible for orphaned work to be used more openly in certain circumstances, would certainly make the museum field happier, would it not?
The laws being a mess generally don't benefit anyone but lawyers, and I think the intention here it so sort out an existing mess to everyone's satisfaction.