Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/02/10/2014-02830/orphan-works-and-mass-digitization-request-for-additional-comments-and-announcement-of-public
Timestamp: 2018-11-16 07:20:02
Document Index: 596205202

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009514', 'art. 1', '§\u2009514', '§\u200977', 'Art. 50', '§\u200913']

Federal Register :: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization; Request for Additional Comments and Announcement of Public Roundtables
A Notice by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 02/10/2014
7706-7711 (6 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-02830 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-02830
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 Start Printed Page 7707comments 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.
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.
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 Start Printed Page 7708ruled 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.
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?
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 Start Printed Page 7709information 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?
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'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 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 Start Printed Page 7710be 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?
Several foreign countries have laws that address mass digitization in different ways. For example, recently-passed 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 re-emerge.[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]
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 Start Printed Page 7711types of entities should be able to utilize an extended collective licensing system for mass digitization?
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.
2. U.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.
4. U.S. Copyright Office, Report on Orphan Works (2006), available at http://www.copyright.gov/​orphan/​orphan-report-full.pdf.
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.
14. H.R. 5889, 110th Cong. sec. 2(a), § 514(b)(3) (2008).
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).
18. S. 2913, 110th Cong. sec. 2(a) § 514(c)(1)(B), 514(b)(1)(A) (2008).
19. See Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013, c. 24, § 77, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/​ukpga/​2013/​24/​section/​77.
24. 100/2009 (V. 8) Korm. rendelet az árva mü egyes felhasználásainak engedélyezésére vonatkozó részletes szabályokról (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.
25. See, e.g., Consolidated Act on Copyright 2010, No. 202, Art. 50-51 (2010) (Denmark); see also Copyright Act, No. 404, §§ 13-14 (2010) (Finland).