S.2913 - Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008

A bill to provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works. view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works. as introduced.
  • Popular: Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 as passed senate.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • aaron 05/12/2008 7:34am

    An important step towards more reasonable content protection laws – see this

  • aaron 05/12/2008 7:35am

    An important step towards more reasonable content protection laws – see this analysis by Public Knowledge for very thorough coverage of the issues involved.

  • Anonymous 05/13/2008 9:37am

    Aaron, this is a stupid bill and you obviously sided with the first fawning, misleading ‘authority’ you came across. Every artist, photographer, illustrator, designer and other creative I know is livid that Congress is pushing through a bill that seeks to deprive us of our livelihood and drive many people out of work. The ONLY people that are behind it are the clueless and those that make a profit on using other peoples work without their permission.

    The fact that Orin Hatch could be behind such a socialist bill is amazing (and slowly becoming public in exactly those terms). The premise behind the bill is that the use, by other people, of an artist’s work is more important than the rights of the artist. I think that it’s pure thievery.

    As it is, ‘the public’ would gain more benefit to ‘take’ Hatch’s nice house and turn it into a homeless shelter, but to suggest that goes against everything we believe in about the rights of individuals and property.

    If Hatch puts a nice table and chair outside his house to ornament his lawn, but doesn’t actually sit in it, does that ‘property’ become orphaned? If his vacation home stays vacant for a couple of years and we can’t find Hatch, can we take his home as an orphaned home?

    Then why is our desire to use somebody else’s work justification enough to steal it? I have photographs that I HOPE will fade away with age. My neglect of those pictures is my right. Nobody has the right to steal it for their own purposes.

    Hatch should be ashamed. A Vermont Democrat I can forgive: They don’t know any better.

  • Anonymous 05/13/2008 9:38am

    Aaron, this is a stupid bill and you obviously sided with the first fawning, misleading ‘authority’ you came across. Every artist, photographer, illustrator, designer and other creative I know is livid that Congress is pushing through a bill that seeks to deprive us of our livelihood and drive many people out of work. The ONLY people that are behind it are the clueless and those that make a profit on using other peoples work without their permission.

    The fact that Orin Hatch could be behind such a socialist bill is amazing (and slowly becoming public in exactly those terms). The premise behind the bill is that the use, by other people, of an artist’s work is more important than the rights of the artist. I think that it’s pure thievery.

    As it is, ‘the public’ would gain more benefit to ‘take’ Hatch’s nice house and turn it into a homeless shelter, but to suggest that goes against everything we believe in about the rights of individuals and property.

    If Hatch puts a nice table and chair outside his house to ornament his lawn, but doesn’t actually sit in it, does that ‘property’ become orphaned? If his vacation home stays vacant for a couple of years and we can’t find Hatch, can we take his home as an orphaned home?

    Then why is our desire to use somebody else’s work justification enough to steal it? I have photographs that I HOPE will fade away with age. My neglect of those pictures is my right. Nobody has the right to steal it for their own purposes.

    Hatch should be ashamed. A Vermont Democrat I can forgive: They don’t know any better.

    Sean Rice
    Rasa Design Studio
    www.rasadesign.com/orphan-works-bill.html

  • Comm_reply
    adelie 06/09/2008 8:26pm

    You said “I have photographs that I HOPE will fade away with age. My neglect of those pictures is my right. Nobody has the right to steal it for their own purposes.”

    You are obviously not familiar with something called the public domain. The PRESENT LAW say that if you let those photographs fade away with history, YOU ARE A THIEF! You can not make something, call it culture and then claim that you own it. YOU DO NOT OWN your creative works, you are granted a limited monopoly over the work for a limited period of time. If you disagree, go lobby for some change, otherwise get a little more familiar with copyright law, actually read the Constitution before you start spouting off property rights that don’t exist.

    This is a bad Bill for reasons of fact that have nothing to do with your lies, and just because this will will be shot down doesn’t mean for a second that you were right.

  • ralicon 05/16/2008 1:27pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I can’t believe congress is actually introducing a bill that blatantly benefits crooks to steal artists work and disguising it as “reasonable copyright protection”

    Truly shameful.

  • Comm_reply
    adelie 06/09/2008 8:41pm

    Really? You just noticed? Were you asleep for the the NET Act, DMCA, CTEA or these other abominations of the law that were BOUGHT by the content industry’s Lawyers. I mean really, who paid you to post here? If you don’t want people STEALING your precious “art”, keep it in your sock drawer. All art builds on prior art, and if you didn’t know that, your art likely sucks. But if you like I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just a hypocrite.

  • Anonymous 05/19/2008 9:59pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This basically sums up the bill -

    Thief: “Wow – that’s a nice car, I wonder who owns it? hmm…”

    Thief: "Wow – I looked all over and I couldn’t find the owner. I’m going to take it for a drive. "

    Owner calls the cops and the cops find the thief -

    Cops: “You are under arrest unless you can prove that you searched for the owner of the car before you took it for a joy ride.”

    Thief: “My friend is back at the restaurant we were eating at and he can verify that I looked all over the block and knocked on the doors of several homes before taking the car.”

    Cops: “Well, that’s good then. Please take the car to the wash and fill it up for the owner and return it. Then please pay the owner $100.00 for the use of the car for the day.”

    Thief: “Sure thing officer.”

    Owner of the car: “WTF?”

  • Anonymous 05/22/2008 6:56pm

    I’ve heard this so many times, and this is the biggest knee-jerk reaction I’ve ever heard. First of all, all versions of the law call for a “good faith” search. The author of the 2006 bill stated in no uncertain terms that “Well, I spent 10 minutes on Google and didn’t find them… let’s party!” was NOT considered a “good faith” search, and would NOT be exempted from litigation under the law. Plus, OMG! There’s no way the United States is going to suddenly PULL OUT of the Berne Convention. Registrations of copyrights will STILL be considered optional and the snide comments of overworked bureaucrats from the Office Of Copyright should not be considered “legally binding”. That’s just absurd. I mean, we’re sitting here worrying about how this sudden infringement of our rights is going to hinder our salability! Oh noes! Like posting art on the internet and flipping a little © logo on it is going to prevent theives in China from downloading our artz and putting them up on pay sites! Our laws only affect the United States, folks. We have no RIGHTS or AUTHORITY to tell other nations how to conduct business. So, when you put images online, you’re taking your life, and the probability that your art of photo will be put up on dump sites like 4-Chan every single day. Something to consider.

    I don’t support the Orphaned Works legislation, but going around misinforming people without relevant facts to back up your vitriolic rage is pointless. And comparing a “good faith” search for art to stealing a car is prurient scare-mongering.

  • donnyshaw 05/28/2008 1:24pm

    Lawrence Lessig had an op-ed in the NY Times last week about this bill explaining not only why he thinks it’s unfair, but how it could be improved.

    Here’s the gist:

    “The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans.

    The change is also unwise, because for all this unfairness, it simply wouldn’t do much good. The uncertain standard of the bill doesn’t offer any efficient opportunity for libraries or archives to make older works available, because the cost of a “diligent effort” is not going to be cheap. The only beneficiaries would be the new class of “diligent effort” searchers who would be a drain on library budgets."

    For the sake of saving space on the comment board, I’ll paste in the link for you to check out Lessig’s recommendations:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?scp=1&sq=orphan+works&st=nyt

  • Anonymous 06/02/2008 5:01pm

    Guess this says it all for me. The bill in more than one place refers to the “INFRINGED” works and what the
    “COPYRIGHT HOLDER” can do once infringed upon. If the bill specifically addresses this problem, then only someone lacking understanding or willing to overlook the obvious could possibly say that this is not going to be a problem for artist and photographers. Only those looking to use artwork without (and possible profiting from) compensating the rightful owner could possible support this bill.

    it is legalized theft and it WILL include any visual material found on the internet and ergo will include family photos that are uploaded onto photobucket and other sites mistakenly by the rightful owners.

    This is being bought and paid for by the large search engines to sell ads (a billion dollar industry).

    Val/TX

    quoted from the bill
    “OWNER OF THE INFRINGED COPYRIGHT- The `owner of the infringed copyright’ is the legal owner of the exclusive right under section 106 that is applicable to the infringement in question, or any party with the authority to grant or license that right.

    `(4) REASONABLE COMPENSATION- The term `reasonable compensation’ means, with respect to a claim for infringement, the amount on which a willing buyer and willing seller in the positions of the infringer and the owner of the infringed copyright would have agreed with respect to the infringing use of the work immediately before the infringement began."

  • Anonymous 06/03/2008 11:32am

    My family doesn’t eat publicity. by Lloyd Shugart on Jun 3rd, 2008 @ 10:05am

    http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?s=2&pg=1 May 20th, 2008 5:30 pm Link I am a photographer who has worked for over 40 years. To a large extent, my retirement and estate will consist of the value of my copyrighted archives. The current proposals for the resolution of the “Orphan Works” problem will no doubt destroy much of the value of my work, since images can so easily be taken off the Internet, stripped of identification and distributed. This has happened to me. One image, which came to be important in the 2004 presidential campaign had been taken in 1970. It was stripped of copyright information and published over 400 times on the web. It was intentionally “orphaned”. Many infringers did not even strip the copyright, they published it without permission or a license and claimed I shouldn’t complain. “It is free publicity.” My family doesn’t eat publicity. The bill is a disaster for all intellectual property workers. If the government can list sex offenders and campaign contributors on the Internet, they should be able to manage copyright. — Leif Skoogfors, Philadelphia, PA Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
    #
    It was a lonely search. by Lloyd Shugart on Jun 3rd, 2008 @ 10:56am

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742156853&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    According to Marilyn Henry, author of Confronting the Perpetrators: A History of the Claims Conference, the process of reclaiming looted art has always been one of the most prickly of all Holocaust restitution issues.

    “Countless Nazi victims spent decades trying to find artworks that once belonged to their families. It was a lonely search. The burden was on the victim to find what had been taken, to prove it belonged to him and to convince whoever had it to give it back,” she says from her home in New York.

    “Imagine looking for a needle in a haystack, finding the needle, and being told by the haystack owner that you had to prove you owned the needle before the war, and then convince him that he should return the needle to you.”

  • Anonymous 06/03/2008 2:11pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    When My grandfather died I inhereted his work. Its life +50 for copywright. I would hate to loose income because someone could not get hold of him. This is not a fair bill.

  • Comm_reply
    adelie 06/09/2008 8:51pm

    Geez, my parents and grandparents hard work only left me with a work ethic and moral code that insisted I become a science teacher in a public school. Poor me. Hopefully one day the law will recognize how I inspired these kids and garnish their wages for the royalty I deserve on their success.

    It is also sad that you have a valuable copyright in your possession and you don’t know one bit about copyright law, obviously, based on your interpretation of this bill. Btw, have you honored the work of your grandfather, or do you just collect a check every so often?

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 06/15/2008 4:49am

    Adelie, you wrote: "If you don’t want people STEALING your precious “art”, keep it in your sock drawer. All art builds on prior art, and if you didn’t know that, your art likely sucks." &
    “Hopefully one day the law will recognize how I inspired these kids and garnish their wages for the royalty I deserve "
    -—————————————————
    Are you really trying to say that you just jumped up and became a teacher with no training or study? because unless you did, your ‘TEACHING’ skills are the result of exposure to other teacher’s ‘prior’ experience and therefore you shouldn’t be paid to teach according to that train of thought (which incidently doesn’t even have enough steam to leave the station). You should definitely study up on copyright because it’s intention is to allow the creator of a work, the opportunity to profit from his labor of creation. Be glad your teacher’s certificate can’t be “Orphaned” for someone else’s gain.

    PS> it seems doubtful to me with your attitude, that you did much to inspire any students. Here’s a prayer that my child never has to suffer thru a teacher like you!

  • Anonymous 06/09/2008 2:11pm

    In Response to a discussion over at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/124144950.shtml , it seems that I have now been locked out, my last response below they wouldn’t allow. I think this is really what is driving the truck. You be the judge.

    here is my post that they denied.

    Ok Mike,

    I now understand your new world order, and marketing/capitalization approach. It all starts here http://eldred.cc/aboutus/ and digresses to just as I thought. Re-packaging/mashup Orphan Works (someone else’s creative works) into a marketable product so that they can sell and capitalize.

    It sure is funny how the new market users want all the protection of copyrights while using everyone else’s copyrights to profit. This is utopia.

    http://www.eldritchpress.org/ ©Copyright 1999 Eric Eldred

    http://www.higginsonbooks.com/ No part of this web site may be copied or reproduced in any form without the written permission of Higginson Book Company
    Copyright ©1997-2008 by Higginson Books Company (All Rights Reserved)

    http://www.lucksmusic.net/ © 2006 Luck’s Music
    http://www.kalmus-music.com/ ©1998, 2007 Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
    http://www.moviecraft.com/ COPYRIGHT: All video releases listed in this catalog are subject to copyright and may not be copied, duplicated, reproduced, or transmitted without permission from Moviecraft, Inc..

    http://store.doverpublications.com/ DOVERPUBLICATIONS.COM TERMS OF USE, by the way which seems to grab everyone’s copyrights or at least a license, that chooses to participate

  • brewcrew3 06/09/2008 4:16pm

    This opens the door wide open for anyone, especially larger corporations to profit from others with very little legal recourse. Today, things are copyrighted from the moment they are created. This bill wipes that out.

    Oppose this bill until it is modified to protect the artists with specifics. You could drive a truck through the loopholes this bill creates.

  • adelie 06/09/2008 9:03pm

    Ok, I just need to know; Question to all the great artists out there all anti-creative commons: Are Public Libraries just the greatest abomination that ever took place, and offense to your rights? Are used book stores and every consumer protection law that recognizes first sale doctrine taking food out of your child’s mouth (or great great grand-child’s)? Do you ACTUALLY believe this? If so, look forward to a trespassing lawsuit the next time I catch you painting a sunset overlooking my house you self important [artist wanna-be].

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 06/15/2008 2:40pm

    If you think that artists will continue to create art for the enjoyment of the masses and the enrichment of huge corporations while we starve (more than most of us do already) and our families suffer are missing a valuable part of this equation – this is a way for most artists to survive.

    do you seek to remove art, music and literature from our society altogether? that’s all this type of legislation would achieve.

  • Comm_reply
    adelie 06/09/2008 9:13pm

    btw, I oppose this bill because it does nothing to reduce the hoards of lawyers on both sides for this to work. Lawrence Lessig’s 14 year opt out, $1 opt in thereafter is much more reasonable, and allows human beings to understand and comply with the law without an entire law firm at bay.


Vote on This Bill

21% Users Support Bill

6 in favor / 22 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments