Talk:Orphan work

message: I believe the second paragraph of the current article contains a factually incorrect statement.
The first sentence of the paragraph ("The USDSBIIP opines that compulsory license schemes...") is correct, although I think it's about compulsory license schemes rather than orphan works.  However, the second sentence is false or at best highly misleading when it says, "In the opinion of the USDSBIIP, such schemes are only worthy of consideration when there are more significant concerns than orphan works, ...".  I read the original report, and the publication does not talk about compulsory licenses in the context of orphan works at all.
Also, the URL listed for the publication in footnote 1 no longer works.  It seems to currently be located at http://www.america.gov/publications/books/ipr.html. Leovitch (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Quotation from State Department Report 

message: This article only seems to mention the opposing organizations and their viewpoints.  This will only spread the misinformation that is being passed around the Internet.  For instance, there are a number of art licensing businesses that support the bill, but only the opposing are mentioned.   A list of associations that do support the bill and their viewpoints is needed to make this an objective entry. --Kljdip (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article

message: This is a very interesting article (I was unaware of "orphan works" before reading it). I think the article would be served well by including a few examples of works that have become orphaned. If there's an online database of orphaned works, that would be a great link to include. 23skidoo 00:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A list would be nice

message: The US Copyright office uses the form without the s. --Gbleem 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved "Orphaned works" to "Orphaned work". --h2g2bob 22:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The most common term is actually "orphan works", which is what the US Copyright Office uses. --Otterfan 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  work or works 

message: "The copyright owners are often willing to have their work used with minimal compensation if they are discovered." This is a claim about the intentions of people who by their very definition can't be identified, so until it can be supported by citing a reputable secondary source, it should be removed. --Otterfan 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still unsupported, but would this wording open the way for someone to document the idea? "The copyright owners, once discovered, are often willing to grant use of their work for only a minimal fee." TaoPhoenix (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still unsupported, but in my experience, a better word be "rarely".  As in, "The copyright owners, once discovered are rarely willing to grant use of their work for only a minimal fee." ButteredToast (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported Statement 

message: I'm removing much of the section on the compulsory license and transferring the rest of it to the section on the United States. The compulsory license does not create orphan works, but it does address the problem of orphan works in some cases.
Could someone with a better understanding of the statutory license (Section 115(b) of the Copyright Act) add a section?
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying section on compulsory license in the US 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support per nom. Appears uncontroversial. –  Anþony  talk  11:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It seems that some artists are pretty mad about this.  I think that this article could use some expansion... Esn (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. 80.195.13.164 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People can get by the act by signing their artwork, which is what artists should do in the first place. Iyeru42 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  The Holland-Turner comments against orphaned-works cite several very realistic possibilities (such as removal of watermarks) in which a copyrighted work could be wrongly labelled as "orphaned", resulting in an irreperable loss of exclusivity for the owner's rights.  --Stratadrake (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the status of NPOV on a group such as the IPA?  I've heard that they are not unlike ASCAP/RIAA when it comes to distorting the facts... --Nobuyuki (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Corporations can easily crop your photo so watermarks are removed, print and scan your photo so all extra infos are removed. And when you find out and sue them, they can lie that the version they saw is this one, and they've done efforts in searching you. In which case, they'll just need to pay you, not to say in many cases you will not find out at all. Signing is useful.--87.230.56.35 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, Animation World Magazine isn't a blog.  That was a printed editorial. Esn (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  It seems he was a bit excited when he wrote that I will send him an email about the inaccuracies.--BirgitteSB 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guy has posted a response, and it seems that he's not backing down. Esn (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is he even responding to? His refuting unnamed blogs calling him crazy and/or saying any orphan works bill is a myth is irrelevant to the inaccuracies in his editorial.  Maybe he will still issue a correction about those problems or his editors when the next issue prints.  In any event I not certain this person's opinion is notable on the subject of orphan works and I am certain his understanding is lacking on this subject.  The best way to handle this topic in the article would be to use statements by organizations like Illustrators' Partnership of America as well as statements by other organizations with a different advocacy on the issue.  But looking at the actual statement by IPA it includes things like "Many potential users of orphan works have asserted that these works have little or no commercial value. While this may be true of real orphaned work, it is not true of the numberless managed copyrights that will be caught in an orphan works net."  So we need to be careful of not turning the focus onto these managed copyright some feel are in danger as this is the Orphan Works article. Even the organizations writing against the 2006 Bill acknowledge that there is a situation with real orphaned works.  Be careful not to describe arguments against a specific proposed solution as arguments against any solution or arguments against the existence of a problem with orphan works. This article needs to focus on the big picture of orphan works and I am not sure that an internet controversy over some proposed legislation yet to be released in one country deserves much attention. That said I could be convinced, but I would need actual text. not general discussion, to evaluate. Make sure to cover all significant points of view and avoid giving undue weight to any of the extreme hypothetical results being thrown around.--BirgitteSB 03:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Shouldn't this go under the statuary law stubs? Because it affects the entire public. Iyeru42 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Stub 

message: Externals links section is growing rather large and a bit off-focus from the article.  Let's try to keep this section relevant and balanced.--BirgitteSB 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: previously the addition to the article was removed as there were copyright concerns. The three added section are not copyright infringement and should comply with the wikipolicy on paraphrasing. If any improvements can be made, please discuss on the talk page. ta--LakeT (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Extension of article

message: For some odd reason, a video of a Wikimedia conference found its way in this article. Though the video was about intellectual property, it was nonetheless focused on how it applied to Wikimedia and thus was pretty narrow. Being rickrolled would be considerably more rewarding and informative. I hope I didn't bug anyone with this exclusion. MgWd (talk)MgWd  —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Self-Promotion 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hostage work. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  –  Uanfala (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostage work listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]