7706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: DOL–OS. 

Title of Collection: National 

Longitudinal Study of Unemployment 

Insurance Recipients. 

OMB ICR Reference Number: 121308– 

0190–001. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

Households. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 2,178. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 5,695. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

2,373 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0. 

Dated: February 4, 2014. 

Michel Smyth, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02821 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 4510–23–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Notice and Request for Comments: 

LSC Merger of Service Areas in 

Louisiana 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

Comments—LSC merger of the two 

service areas covering the south-central 

and southeastern region of Louisiana. 

SUMMARY: The Legal Services 

Corporation (LSC) intends to merge the 

two service areas that cover the twelve 

counties of the south-central region of 

Louisiana (including Baton Rouge) and 

the ten counties of the southeastern 

region of the state (including New 

Orleans). Grants for these individual 

service areas have been awarded to 

Southeast Louisiana Legal Services 

Corporation (SLLSC) since 2011. For 

2014, LSC awarded SLLSC three-year 

grants for these two service areas. LSC 

intends to merge the two service areas 

into one service area and to award one 

grant for the new combined service area. 

Doing so will harmonize the grant 

structure with the current delivery 

model. 

DATES: All comments must be received 

on or before the close of business on 

March 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted to LSC by email to 

competition@lsc.gov (this is the 

preferred option); by submitting a form 

online at http://www.lsc.gov/contact-us; 

by mail to Legal Services Corporation, 

3333 K Street NW., Third Floor, 

Washington, DC 20007, Attention: 

Reginald Haley; or by fax to 202–337– 

6813. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reginald J. Haley, Office of Program 

Performance, Legal Services 

Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20007; or by email at 

haleyr@lsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

mission of LSC is to promote equal 

access to justice and to provide funding 

for high-quality civil legal assistance to 

low-income persons. Pursuant to its 

statutory authority, LSC designates 

service areas in U.S. states, territories, 

possessions, and the District of 

Columbia for which it provides grants to 

legal aid programs to provide free civil 

legal services. 

The LSC Act charges LSC with 

ensuring that ‘‘grants and contracts are 

made so as to provide the most 

economical and effective delivery of 

legal assistance to persons in both urban 

and rural areas.’’ 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(3). 

Merging the two Louisiana service areas 

will provide an economical and 

effective delivery approach for serving 

the legal needs of the low-income 

population and will harmonize the grant 

structure with the current delivery 

model. 

LSC provides grants through a 

competitive bidding process, which is 

regulated by 45 CFR Part 1634. In 2013, 

LSC implemented a competitive grants 

process for 2014 calendar year funding 

that included, inter alia, these Louisiana 

service areas. For 2014, LSC awarded 

SLLSC three-year grants for both of 

these service areas. LSC intends to 

merge the two service areas into a single 

service area and merge the 2014 grants 

for those service areas into a single grant 

beginning March 21, 2014. 

LSC invites public comment on this 

decision. Interested parties may submit 

comments to LSC no later than the close 

of business on March 12, 2014. More 

information about LSC can be found at: 

http://www.lsc.gov. 

Dated: February 5, 2014. 

Atitaya C. Rok, 

Staff Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02810 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2012–12] 

Orphan Works and Mass Digitization; 

Request for Additional Comments and 

Announcement of Public Roundtables 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office 

will host public roundtable discussions 

and seeks further comments on 

potential legislative solutions for orphan 

works and mass digitization under U.S. 

copyright law. The meetings and 

comments will provide an opportunity 

for interested parties to address new 

legal developments as well as issues 

raised by comments provided in 

response to the Office’s previous Notice 

of Inquiry. 

DATES: The public roundtables will be 

held on March 10, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. 

to 5:00 p.m. EST and March 11, 2014 

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. Written 

comments must be received no later 

than 5 p.m. EST on April 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: 

Public Roundtables 

The public roundtables will take 

place in the Copyright Office Hearing 

Room, LM—408 of the Madison 

Building of the Library of Congress, 101 

Independence Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20559. The Copyright Office strongly 

prefers that requests for participation be 

submitted electronically. The agendas 

and the process for submitting requests 

to participate in or observe one of these 

meetings are included on the Copyright 

Office Web site. If electronic registration 

is not feasible, please contact the Office 

at 202–707–1027. 

Public Comments 

Members of the public will have the 

opportunity to submit written 

comments following the public 

roundtable meetings. The written 

comments may address topics listed in 

this Notice of Inquiry as well as respond 

to any issues raised during the public 

meetings. All written comments should 

be submitted electronically. A comment 

form will be posted on the Copyright 

Office Web site at http://copyright.gov/ 

orphan/ no later than March 12, 2014. 

The Web site interface requires 

commenting parties to complete a form 

specifying name and organization, as 

applicable, and to upload comments as 

an attachment via a browser button. To 

meet accessibility standards, 

commenting parties must upload 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7707 

1 ‘‘An ‘orphan work’ is an original work of 

authorship for which a good faith, prospective user 

cannot readily identify and/or locate the copyright 

owner(s) in a situation where permission from the 

copyright owner(s) is necessary as a matter of law.’’ 

Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry, Orphan Works 

and Mass Digitization, 77 FR 64555 (Oct. 22, 2012), 

available at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/

77fr64555.pdf. 

2U.S. Copyright Office, Legal Issues in Mass 

Digitization: A Preliminary Analysis and Discussion 

Document (2011), available at http://

www.copyright.gov/docs/massdigitization/

USCOMassDigitization_October2011.pdf. 

3Notice, 77 FR 64555–61. 

4U.S. Copyright Office, Report on Orphan Works 

(2006), available at http://www.copyright.gov/

orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf. 5Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 

2913, 110th Cong. (2008); Orphan Works Act of 

2008, H.R. 5889, 110th Cong. (2008); Orphan Works 

Act of 2006, H.R. 5439, 109th Cong. (2006). 6Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 902 F. Supp. 

2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Authors Guild, Inc. v. 

Google Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 

(‘‘Google I’’). 

7See supra note 5. 

8 Google I, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 678. ‘‘Google 

Books’’ is the larger project that includes the Google 

Books Library Project and the Google Books Partner 

Project (formerly ‘‘Google Print’’). Google 

commenced its book scanning project (then referred 

to as ‘‘Google Print Library Project’’) in 2004. In 

September 2005, the Authors Guild of America and 

five publisher members of the Association of 

American Publishers (‘‘AAP’’) sued Google for 

copyright infringement. The Google Books Partner 

Project was created when Google and the publishers 

announced a settlement agreement in October 2012. 

References to ‘‘Google Books’’ or the ‘‘Google Books 

case’’ relate to litigation surrounding the Library 

Project. 

9Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 05 

Civ. 8136 (DC), 2013 WL 6017130, *26 (S.D.N.Y 

Nov. 14, 2013) (‘‘Google II’’). 

comments in a single file not to exceed 

six megabytes (MB) in one of the 

following formats: the Adobe Portable 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file (not a scanned 

document). The form and face of the 

comments must include both the name 

of the submitter and organization. The 

Office will post the comments publicly 

on the Office’s Web site exactly as they 

are received, along with names and 

organizations. If electronic submission 

of comments is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at 202–707–1027 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate 

Register of Copyrights and Director of 

Policy and International Affairs, by 

telephone at 202–707–1027 or by email 

at kacl@loc.gov, or Catherine Rowland, 

Senior Counsel for Policy and 

International Affairs, by telephone at 

202–707–1027 or by email at crowland@

loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Copyright Office is 

reviewing the issue of orphan works 1

under U.S. copyright law in 

continuation of its previous work on the 

subject and to advise Congress on 

potential legislative solutions. As part of 

its current review, the Office is 

considering recent developments in the 

legal and business environments 

regarding orphan works in the context 

of: (1) occasional or isolated uses of 

orphan works; and (2) mass digitization. 

In October 2011, the Office published a 

Preliminary Analysis and Discussion 

document (the ‘‘Analysis’’) that 

examined various legal issues involved 

in mass digitization projects.2

Subsequently, to assist with further 

review of the issue, the Office published 

a general Notice of Inquiry (the 

‘‘Notice’’) seeking comments from the 

public on both mass digitization and 

isolated uses of orphan works.3 The 

Notice provided background on the 

Office’s previous review of this issue in 

its January 2006 Report on Orphan 

Works (the ‘‘2006 Report’’),4 legislation 

proposed in 2006 and 2008,5 the Google 

Books Search and Hathitrust litigation,6

the role of the Office and private 

registries in alleviating the orphan 

works problem, legal issues in mass 

digitization, and recent international 

developments. In 2013, the Office 

received ninety-one initial comments 

from various interested parties and 

eighty-nine reply comments. The 

Notice, comments, and background 

materials are available at the Copyright 

Office Web site. The Office now 

announces public roundtables and seeks 

further public comments to discuss new 

legal developments as well as specific 

issues raised by earlier public comments 

as it considers potential legislative 

recommendations. 

Subjects of Comments and Public 

Roundtables: After reviewing the 

comments in response to the Copyright 

Office’s prior Notice, the Office is 

interested in holding public roundtables 

to further explore the issues 

surrounding orphan works and mass 

digitization. The Office will hold the 

public roundtable discussions over the 

course of two days. The first day will 

cover the following topics: (1) The need 

for legislation in light of recent legal and 

technological developments; (2) 

defining a good faith ‘‘reasonably 

diligent search’’ standard; (3) the role of 

private and public registries; (4) the 

types of works subject to any orphan 

works legislation, including issues 

related specifically to photographs; and 

(5) the types of users and uses subject 

to any orphan works legislation. The 

second day will include discussions of 

the following topics: (1) Remedies and 

procedures regarding orphan works; (2) 

mass digitization, generally; (3) 

extended collective licensing and mass 

digitization; and (4) the structure and 

mechanics of a possible extended 

collective licensing system in the 

United States. Each of these topics is 

explained in more detail below. 

Additionally, the Office invites 

further written comments regarding the 

subjects briefly identified above and 

further explained below, including from 

parties who did not previously address 

those subjects, or those who wish to 

amplify or clarify their earlier comments 

or respond to issues raised in the public 

roundtable meetings. A party choosing 

to respond to this Notice of Inquiry need 

not address every subject below, but the 

Office requests that responding parties 

clearly identify and separately address 

each subject for which a response is 

submitted. Commenters may address 

any or all of the issues identified below, 

as well as provide information on other 

aspects of these issues that are relevant 

to developing potential legislative 

solutions to the issues of orphan works 

and mass digitization. 

Day One 

Session 1: The Need for Legislation in 

Light of Recent Legal and Technological 

Developments 

The Office’s 2006 Report concluded 

that the orphan works problem was 

pervasive and provided draft legislative 

language for congressional 

consideration. Though several bills were 

introduced in 2006 and 2008,7 none of 

them ultimately were enacted. Since 

then, high-profile litigation in the 

United States brought the issue of 

orphan works back to the fore. In 

rejecting the proposed settlement 

agreement in The Authors Guild, Inc. v. 

Google Inc. in 2011, the Southern 

District Court of New York explicitly 

noted that it is Congress, and not the 

courts, who should decide how to 

resolve the issue of orphan works.8

Recently, the same district court granted 

summary judgment to Google on 

copyright infringement claims relating 

to the Google Books Library Project, 

concluding that ‘‘Google Books provides 

significant public benefits,’’ and that its 

book scanning project constitutes fair 

use under U.S. copyright law.9 While 

the court’s ruling did find the Google 

Books mass digitization project to be fair 

use, it neither indicated how broadly 

the opinion could be used to justify 

other types of mass digitization projects 

nor did it explicitly address the issue of 

orphan works. 

Similarly, on October 10, 2012, the 

Southern District of New York also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

10HathiTrust, 902 F. Supp. 2d 445. 

11 Id. at 455–56. 

12The PLUS Registry (the ‘‘Registry’’) is an online 

database created and operated by PLUS Coalition, 

Inc., an international group of communities 

‘‘dedicated to creating, using, distributing and 

preserving images.’’ Users may search the Registry 

to find rights and descriptive information 

(‘‘metadata’’) for any image, and to 

find current contact information for related 

creators, rights holders and institutions. Owners 

may register their images and image licenses to 

allow authorized users to find rights and 

descriptive metadata using a specific ID or image 

recognition. Plus Coalition, Inc., ‘‘About,’’https://

www.plusregistry.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/

PlusDB.woa/1/wo/kl6vPj6TeDu1MqoK7ajbug/

0.107.27. The role of private and public registries 

is further discussed in Session 3, below. 

13As mentioned in the Notice, the Office has 

begun digitizing its historic records and is initiating 

upgrades to its registration and recordation systems. 

These projects will facilitate public access to, and 

thus improve users’ ability to investigate, the 

copyright status of works, including the 

identification and location of copyright owners. The 

upgrades to the registration and recordation systems 

also are meant to facilitate the effective registration 

of works and recordation of documents related to 

registered works, helping to ensure that the record 

and contact information on file with the Office 

remains accurate. Notice, 77 FR 64558. 

14H.R. 5889, 110th Cong. sec. 2(a), § 514(b)(3) 

(2008). 

ruled that the digitization project 

undertaken by the HathiTrust Digital 

Library (‘‘HathiTrust’’) and its five 

university partners was largely 

transformative and protected by fair 

use.10 The court, however, did not 

consider the copyright claims relating to 

the HathiTrust Orphan Works Project, 

finding that the issue was not ripe for 

adjudication because the defendants 

had suspended the project shortly after 

the complaint was filed.11

In addition to these legal 

developments, technology has 

significantly progressed since Congress 

last considered the orphan works issue. 

Since 2008, technological developments 

have arguably mitigated the orphan 

works problem via vastly improved 

search tools and database technology. 

Improved search engine technology 

allows users to locate rights holders 

(and vice versa) via image, sound, or 

video searches. Improved databases, 

such as the PLUS Registry,12 and 

database interoperability allow 

copyright rights holders to better 

publicize ownership information. Yet, 

many argue that these technologies are 

not being effectively utilized in the 

context of orphan works and a 

legislative solution remains necessary. 

In light of recent legal and 

technological developments, the Office 

is interested in discussing the current 

need for legislation to address the issues 

of orphan works and mass digitization. 

Specifically, the public roundtable 

meetings will allow participants to 

discuss whether recent legal 

developments have obviated the need 

for legislation, or whether new 

legislation would resolve or alleviate the 

concerns identified in the comments. 

Can the orphan works problem be 

resolved under existing exceptions and 

limitations contained in the current 

Copyright Act, such as fair use? Should 

this determination hinge on the type of 

use or user making use of the work? If 

legislation is deemed necessary, how 

should it reflect or acknowledge recent 

developments in fair use law, if at all? 

Additionally, the Office would like to 

discuss the impact of technological 

advancements. For example, have 

improved search tools and database 

technologies mitigated the orphan 

works problem, or are these 

technologies not being effectively 

utilized in the context of orphan works? 

Session 2: Defining the Good Faith 

‘‘Reasonably Diligent Search’’ Standard 

In its 2006 Report, the Copyright 

Office recommended that Congress 

amend the Copyright Act to limit the 

remedies available against good faith 

users of orphan works after the user 

performed a generally ‘‘reasonably 

diligent search’’ to locate the owner of 

that work. The 2008 bills set forth 

certain baseline requirements such as 

searching the Office’s online records, 

and would have required users to 

consult best practices applicable to the 

work at issue. Both copyright owners 

and users would have participated in 

developing these best practices, which 

the Register of Copyrights would have 

coordinated. 

The Office is interested in discussing 

how best to define a good faith, 

reasonably diligent search in light of 

changes in the legal and technological 

environment since 2008, and whether 

improvements can be made to the 

standard set forth in the 2008 bills. 

What are the relative advantages or risks 

of flexible versus rigidly-defined search 

standards? Additionally, should the 

Office participate in developing search 

criteria or evaluating searches, and 

should regulations set forth specific 

search criteria? Moreover, what should 

be the role of community-developed 

best practices documents that may guide 

particular groups of users making 

particular types of uses, and who should 

develop these ‘‘best practices’’ 

documents? Finally, what role should 

the Office play in developing, 

monitoring, or certifying search criteria? 

Session 3: The Role of Private and 

Public Registries 

One question regarding orphan works 

is the role public and private registries 

might play in any orphan works 

solution. The most obvious of these 

registries, the Copyright Office’s own 

registration and recordation system, 

provides a wealth of copyright 

information but has limitations based on 

both technological requirements and the 

fact that registration and recordation is 

not mandatory in the United States. 

There are other registries that have 

ownership information, and there has 

been some suggestion that the Office 

should investigate enhancing 

interoperability between the Office 

system and private rights registries.13

The Office would like to discuss the 

role registration and recordation may 

play in helping to more effectively 

mitigate the orphan works problem. For 

example, in the context of orphan 

works, how could the Office facilitate 

and incentivize owners to register their 

works and keep their ownership and 

contact information current? Should 

failure to register with the Office affect 

the orphan status of a work? How could 

any such incentives be reconciled with 

the United States’ obligations under the 

Berne Convention and other 

international instruments? Additionally, 

the Office is interested in learning more 

about the appropriate role of third party 

registries (commercial and 

noncommercial). For example, what 

could be the Office’s role in overseeing 

or certifying these third party registries? 

Would it be helpful for the Office to 

establish a registry requiring users to 

register their use of, or intent to use, 

orphan works similar to that envisioned 

in the Orphan Works Act of 2008? 14

Does the recently-passed UK orphan 

works legislation, which envisions a key 

role for a web portal connecting 

multiple private and public Web sites 

and databases, present an attractive 

model for utilizing and organizing these 

registries in the United States? 

Session 4: Types of Works Subject to 

Orphan Works Legislation, Including 

Issues Related Specifically to 

Photographs 

As described in the Office’s previous 

Notice and many of the responding 

comments, orphan works remain a 

pervasive issue in copyright law. While 

the issue cuts across all creative sectors, 

the unique challenges posed by 

photographs have long been an obstacle 

to developing an effective orphan works 

solution. Photographs and other works 

of visual art may lack or may more 

easily become divorced from ownership 

information, especially in the age of 

social media that has largely transpired 

since Congress considered the 2008 

bills. This lack of identifying 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7709 

15 Directive 2012/28/EU, of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 

on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works, 

available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/ 

doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&

f=PE%2036%202012%20REV%202. Note, however, 

that photographs embedded in other, covered, 

works (e.g., photographs contained in books) are 

included within this scheme. Id. at art. 1(4). 

16See Plus Coalition, Inc., supra note 12. Both the 

2008 House and Senate bills would have delayed 

implementation until after such a registry was 

developed. 17See Directive, supra note 15, at art. 6(2). 

18S. 2913, 110th Cong. sec. 2(a) § 514(c)(1)(B), 

514(b)(1)(A) (2008). 

information often prevents users from 

locating or even initiating a search for 

orphaned photographs’ rights holders. 

The 2008 bills included a number of 

provisions specifically aimed at 

resolving some of the issues specific to 

photographs. 

In light of the peculiar position of 

photographs, it is important to consider 

how any orphan works solution might 

address these specific works, either by 

creating specific rules or excluding 

them altogether. Excluding photographs 

would not be a novel solution; the 

European Union recently approved an 

orphan works directive (the ‘‘Directive’’) 

that provides an exception for 

noncommercial public interest users 

making noncommercial public interest 

uses of orphan works, while providing 

a general exclusion of photographs from 

the scheme.15

The Office is interested in discussing 

how to address the problems presented 

by certain types of works, including 

specifically photographic and visual arts 

orphan works. Should an orphan works 

solution exclude any particular type of 

work or should it include all 

copyrighted works? Would the 

exclusion of certain types of works 

substantially undermine the 

effectiveness of any orphan works 

solution? If all types of works are 

included, what (if any) special 

provisions are required to ensure that all 

copyright owners, such as 

photographers, are treated equitably 

within the legislative framework? Do 

recent developments such as the 

creation of voluntary registries, like the 

PLUS Registry,16 mitigate any of the 

earlier concerns regarding the treatment 

of photographs? 

Session 5: Types of users and uses 

subject to orphan works legislation 

The Copyright Office’s previous 

orphan works review did not 

differentiate between commercial and 

noncommercial uses and users of 

orphan works. Since then, however, 

there has been a debate regarding 

whether an orphan works solution 

should take into account the user’s 

status as either a commercial or 

noncommercial entity. For example, the 

Directive provides an exception for 

noncommercial public interest users 

making noncommercial public interest 

uses of orphan works.17 Any solution 

that excludes commercial users and 

uses, however, may arguably provide an 

incomplete solution. Some have argued 

that the policy motivations behind any 

orphan works legislation logically 

should extend to commercial uses that 

may promote the underlying goals of the 

Copyright Act. The United Kingdom’s 

recently adopted orphan works 

legislation does not differentiate 

between commercial and 

noncommercial users or uses. 

The Office thus is interested in 

learning more about whether an orphan 

works solution should encompass both 

commercial and noncommercial uses. 

Should orphan works legislation apply 

equally to commercial and 

noncommercial uses and users? If not, 

how should specific types of uses and 

users be treated within the legislative 

framework? Should orphan works 

legislation be limited only to uses by 

noncommercial entities with a public 

service mission? Should these entities 

be permitted to use orphan works only 

for limited purposes such as 

preservation, or should they be able to 

broadly use orphan works to provide 

access to the public? Should 

commercial entities be able to make 

commercial use of orphan works? What 

are the relative advantages or 

disadvantages of allowing such use? 

Day Two 

Session 1: Remedies and Procedures 

Regarding Orphan Works 

The Office’s 2006 Report did not 

suggest creation of an exception to 

copyright for use of orphan works, but 

instead recommended that Congress 

limit the remedies that the copyright 

owner could seek against good faith 

users of orphan works to injunctive 

relief and ‘‘reasonable compensation’’ 

for the use of the work. The Office also 

recommended a ‘‘take-down’’ option for 

certain noncommercial users engaged in 

noncommercial activities, which was 

incorporated in the proposed 2008 

legislation. In addition to the take-down 

provision, the legislation also would 

have (1) limited remedies to good faith 

users of orphan works having performed 

a reasonably diligent search, (2) been 

applicable on a case-by-case basis, and 

(3) permitted rights holders to 

reasonable compensation, but not 

statutory damages or attorneys’ fees. The 

Senate bill would have allowed owners 

to reclaim their works by serving a 

‘‘Notice of Claim of Infringement,’’ 

requiring the user to cease the 

infringement and negotiate in good faith 

with the rights holder.18

The appropriate structure and scope 

of remedies continues to be a significant 

issue of concern for both copyright 

owners and potential users of orphan 

works. For example, the threat and 

unpredictable nature of statutory 

damages, the need for predictability and 

reasonableness in assessing damages, 

and the rights available to creators of 

derivative works based on orphan works 

are all issues that warrant further 

discussion. 

The Office is interested in discussing 

remedies and procedures in the context 

of orphan works. What remedies should 

be available where orphan works rights 

holders emerge after a third party has 

already begun to use an orphaned work? 

What rights should be available for 

creators of derivative works based on 

orphan works? What procedures should 

be put in place where these situations 

arise? Does the limitation on liability 

model still make sense in the current 

legal environment? Should orphan 

works legislation instead be re-framed 

as an exception to copyright as it is in 

an increasing number of foreign 

jurisdictions? 

Session 2: Mass Digitization, Generally 

The Office’s 2006 Report and the 2008 

proposed legislation did not consider 

the issue of mass digitization in detail. 

Although mass digitization was ongoing 

in 2008, the practice has since become 

much more prevalent. Thus, it is 

important to understand how mass 

digitization fits into an orphan works 

solution. Because many of the 

comments submitted in response to the 

Notice indicated that the issue of mass 

digitization should be treated separately 

from the issue of orphan works, it also 

is important to understand whether 

mass digitization fits into an orphan 

works solution. 

The Copyright Office would like to 

discuss the intersection of mass 

digitization and orphan works at the 

public roundtable meetings. As a 

preliminary matter, the Office is 

interested in discussing what types of 

digitization projects should be covered 

by any legislative proposal, including 

the scope of activities that can be 

accurately described as ‘‘mass 

digitization.’’ Additionally, it is 

important to review the relative risks 

and benefits of mass digitization 

projects. The Office would like to 

discuss the types of entities that might 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

19See Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 

2013, c. 24, § 77, available at http://

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. In extended collective licensing models, 

representatives of copyright owners and 

representatives of users negotiate terms that are 

binding on all members of the group by operation 

of law (e.g., all textbook publishers), unless a 

particular copyright owner opts out. Extended 

collective licensing regimes authorize the grant of 

broad licenses to make specified uses of incopyright works for which it would be unduly 

expensive to clear rights on a work-by-work basis 

(e.g., mass digitization of in-copyright works, 

photocopying in-copyright articles in library 

settings). The government or a trusted designee 

typically administers payments. It is not quite 

compulsory licensing in that the parties (rather than 

the government) negotiate the rates, but it 

nevertheless requires a legislative framework and 

often involves some degree of government 

oversight. See Notice, 77 FR 64559. 

23Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 at 

Section 77. 

24 100/2009 (V. 8) Korm. rendelet az a ́rva mu ̈

egyes felhaszna ́la ́sainak engede ́lyeze ́se ́re vonatkozo ́

re ́szletes szaba ́lyokro ́l (Government Regulation on 

the Detailed Rules Related to the Licensing of 

Certain Use of Orphan Works), arts. 2(1), 2(2), 3 

(Hung.), available at http://www.hipo.gov.hu/

English/jogforras/100_2009.pdf. 

25See, e.g., Consolidated Act on Copyright 2010, 

No. 202, Art. 50–51 (2010) (Denmark); see also 

Copyright Act, No. 404, §§ 13–14 (2010) (Finland). 

be able to engage in such activities 

under any legislative proposal, and the 

types or categories of works that should 

be covered. Moreover, under what 

circumstances should mass digitization 

projects proceed and how may digitized 

materials be used? How might any mass 

digitization solution differ from that of 

a general orphan works solution? Would 

potential solutions developed in the 

context of mass digitization ameliorate 

the issue of orphan works? How might 

these potential solutions interact? 

Session 3: Extended Collective 

Licensing and Mass Digitization 

Several foreign countries have laws 

that address mass digitization in 

different ways. For example, recentlypassed legislation in the United 

Kingdom creates a bifurcated approach 

allowing certain types of individual 

uses of orphan works and mass 

digitization.19 There, individual or 

occasional users of orphan works may 

apply for a non-exclusive license from 

a centralized government or 

government-sanctioned private agency 

on payment of a license fee held in 

escrow should rights holders reemerge.20 Users also must perform a 

diligent search for the rights holder, 

which must be verified by the 

authorizing body before a license will be 

issued.21 Cultural institutions engaging 

in mass digitization, on the other hand, 

may digitize works (including orphan 

works) in their existing collections 

through an extended collective licensing 

regime.22 The licenses granted are not 

exclusive and all rights holders have the 

right to opt out of any license.23

Hungary has adopted a similar two-tier 

orphan works solution.24 Several Nordic 

countries also have adopted extended 

collective licensing regimes for limited 

types of works and uses in the context 

of mass digitization.25

The Office is interesting in reviewing 

the option of extended collective 

licensing for purposes of mass 

digitization in detail. For example, the 

Office is interested in discussing 

whether the United States should look 

abroad to foreign extended collective 

licensing approaches for ideas on 

domestic action on the issue of mass 

digitization. If so, which approach or 

components of any particular approach 

present attractive options for a potential 

U.S. course of action? Should such a 

system include both commercial and 

noncommercial uses, or be limited to 

noncommercial entities? How do 

extended collective licensing systems 

work in practice in the countries where 

they have been adopted? Are there 

statistics or any longitudinal data 

regarding the success of extended 

collective licensing regimes, particularly 

vis-a`-vis orphan works and mass 

digitization, around the world? Further, 

would the U.S. political, legal, and 

market structures, which can be quite 

different from foreign counterparts, 

support an extended collective 

licensing-type solution? 

Session 4: The Structure and Mechanics 

of a Possible Extended Collective 

Licensing System in the United States 

Extended collective licensing systems 

exist where representatives of copyright 

owners and users negotiate terms that 

are binding on both members and 

similarly situated non-members of the 

group by operation of law, unless an 

interested copyright rights holder elects 

to opt out. Collective management 

organizations function by establishing, 

collecting, and distributing these license 

fees. These organizations typically are 

sanctioned or overseen by the 

government. Where these organizations 

collect licensing fees relating to orphan 

works, they typically hold these fees 

until the owner emerges to collect the 

fee or for a statutorily set period of time. 

In this way, extended collective 

licensing may present an option for 

resolving many of the issues inherent in 

mass digitization projects, especially as 

they relate to the incidental digitization 

of orphan works contained in these 

digitized collections. 

While some other countries have 

embraced extended collective licensing, 

the United States currently does not 

have the legal framework for such a 

system. Nevertheless, there has been 

some discussion that extended 

collective licensing might be helpful in 

a mass digitization scenario. It is 

unclear, however, how extended 

collective licensing could integrate with 

the current U.S. legal infrastructure to 

streamline the licensing process, or 

whether it could possibly upset existing 

and well-functioning markets for certain 

copyright-protected works. Moreover, 

the mechanical operation of such a 

system is unclear; for example, 

questions remain regarding procedures 

whereby copyright rights holders may 

‘‘opt out’’ of any extended collective 

licensing regime. 

The Office is interested in discussing 

specific details of an appropriate 

extended collective licensing system in 

the United States for mass digitization 

purposes. How might an extended 

collective licensing regime be structured 

in the United States? Could an extended 

collective licensing system be 

compatible with U.S. copyright laws, 

legal norms, and industry practices? 

How much direct oversight should the 

Office or any other governmental entity 

have over the establishment, 

authorization, and/or operation of 

collective management organizations? 

Are any existing collective management 

organizations in the United States 

capable of administering an extended 

collective licensing regime for mass 

digitization? If new collective 

management organizations are created, 

should they be structured as 

government entities, nonprofit entities 

licensed and/or funded by the 

government, or commercial entities 

licensed and/or funded privately or by 

the government? 

Additionally, the Office recognizes 

that the opt-out and orphan works 

issues inherent in mass digitization 

projects are ripe for further discussion. 

For example, should rights holders be 

permitted to opt out of any extended 

collective licensing system at any time? 

How would rights holders’ ability to opt 

out affect licensees who may have made 

significant investments in the use of 

licensed works? How should orphan 

works ‘‘incidentally’’ included in a mass 

digitization project be handled? Should 

the collective management organization 

be responsible for attempting to locate 

all rights holders and, if so, should a 

‘‘reasonably diligent search’’ standard 

be applied to the organization? How 

should license fees be calculated and 

how should remuneration of authors 

and authors’ groups be handled? What 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7711 

types of entities should be able to utilize 

an extended collective licensing system 

for mass digitization? 

Dated: February 5, 2014. 

Karyn A. Temple Claggett, 

Associate Register of Copyrights and Director 

of Policy and International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02830 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Information Security Oversight Office 

[NARA–2014–015] 

National Industrial Security Program 

Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

Meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

U.S.C. app 2) and implementing 

regulation 41 CFR 101–6, NARA 

announces an upcoming meeting of the 

National Industrial Security Program 

Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

March 19, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 

12:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: National Archives and 

Records Administration; 700 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist’s 

Reception Room, Room 105; 

Washington, DC 20408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David O. Best, Senior Program Analyst, 

ISOO, by mail at the above address, 

telephone (202) 357–5123, or email 

david.best@nara.gov. Contact ISOO at 

ISOO@nara.gov and the NISPPAC at 

NISPPAC@nara.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

meeting will be open to the public. 

However, due to space limitations and 

access procedures, the name and 

telephone number of individuals 

planning to attend must be submitted to 

the Information Security Oversight 

Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, 

March 14, 2014. ISOO will provide 

additional instructions for gaining 

access to the location of the meeting. 

Dated: February 5, 2014. 

Patrice Little Murray, 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02816 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. NRC–2013–0239] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 

information collection and solicitation 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has recently 

submitted to OMB for review the 

following proposal for the collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby 

informs potential respondents that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

that a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The NRC published a Federal 

Register notice with a 60-day comment 

period on this information collection on 

November 8, 2013 (78 FR 67204). 

1. Type of submission, new, revision, 

or extension: Extension. 

2. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR part 70, ‘‘Domestic 

Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.’’ 

3. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0009. 

4. The form number if applicable: Not 

applicable. 

5. How often the collection is 

required: On occasion. Required reports 

are collected and evaluated on a 

continuing basis as events occur. 

Applications for new licenses and 

amendments may be submitted at any 

time. Generally, renewal applications 

are submitted every 10 years and for 

major fuel cycle facilities updates of the 

safety demonstration section are 

submitted every 2 years. Nuclear 

material control and accounting 

information is submitted in accordance 

with specified instructions. 

6. Who will be required or asked to 

report: Applicants for and holders of 

specific NRC licenses to receive title to, 

own, acquire, deliver, receive, possess, 

use, or initially transfer special nuclear 

material. 

7. An estimate of the number of 

annual responses: 1,620 responses. 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 606. 

9. An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: 89.240.6 hours 

(81,791.1 hours reporting + 7379.4 

hours recordkeeping + 70.1 hours third 

party disclosure). 

10. Abstract: Part 70 of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

establishes requirements for licenses to 

own, acquire, receive, possess, use, and 

transfer special nuclear material. The 

information in the applications, reports, 

and records is used by NRC to make 

licensing and other regulatory 

determinations concerning the use of 

special nuclear material. 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly-available 

documents, including the final 

supporting statement, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

OMB clearance requests are available at 

the NRC’s Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/ 

public-involve/doc-comment/omb/. The 

document will be available on the 

NRC’s home page site for 60 days after 

the signature date of this notice. 

Comments and questions should be 

directed to the OMB reviewer listed 

below by March 12, 2014. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

assurance of consideration cannot be 

given to comments received after this 

date. 

Danielle Y. Jones, Desk Officer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(3150–0009), NEOB–10202, Office of 

Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

Comments can also be emailed to 

Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov or 

submitted by telephone at 202–395– 

1741. 

The Acting NRC Clearance Officer is 

Kristen Benney, telephone: 301–415– 

6355. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of February, 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kristen Benney, 

Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of 

Information Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02748 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

DATE: Weeks of February 10, 17, 24, 

March 3, 10, 17, 2014. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES