It seems rather clear that most on the copyfuture blog are unhappy with the current term and conditions of copyright law. (see posts by Jon Wallace, Trine Jensen, and Ryan Friedl) As noted in other posts, in 1998, the term of copyright was extended again to life of the author, plus 70 years. According to a group of digital archivists who are suing the government, these stringent laws are burying valuable resources for students, researchers, and historians. As noted in an article by Katie Dean, "These resources -- older books, films and music -- are often out of print and considered no longer commercially viable, but are still locked up under copyright. Locating copyright owners is a formidable challenge because Congress no longer requires that owners register or renew their copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office." Furthermore, Dean points out that the "copyright structure has changed so people no longer have to actively register and renew their work, meaning valuable historical resources stay protected by copyright, even though no one is marketing them. In the past, the scope of copyright was much narrower. When copyright expired, those works could then be used and built upon by future creators and were available to the public."
In light of these changes to copyright law, Brewster Kahle wants permission to digitize these so-called orphan works to create online libraries for free public access. In a suit filed in March, the plaintiffs in Kahle v. Ashcroft argue that multiple changes to copyright law have essentially made it impossible for works to return to the public domain. They want to have these changes declared unconstitutional.
"Because of the indiscriminate nature of copyright today, the burden of copyright regulation extends to work whether or not the original author has any need for continuing protection," the lawsuit reads. "That unnecessary burden blocks the cultivation of our culture and the spread of knowledge."
The government recently filed a motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion, and the government will file its reply in October. Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California will hear arguments on the case on Oct. 29.To further their case, the plaintiffs are currently collecting samples of these orphan works. The registration and renewel issues are at the center of this dispute. What will eventually be ruled is yet to be seen. Until then, however, these orphan works have been lost in the shuffle of modern copyright law. It seems the benefit of having valuable works in the public domain as policy has been all but defeated by the special interests of authors maintaining control of their works for so called "limited times". These recent extensions to "limited times" are depriving the public in general, and most likely stifling more creative work in the process. With all the changes to copyright law, maybe we should just amend the copyright clause of the constitution to read “....to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for not-so limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Comments