Policy Blog Entries by Alex Curtis

I’m the sucker who just over a year ago got up at 5AM to sit in a line until 6PM to buy an iPhone. There are a lot of people like me, I met many of them in line that long day. It was actually a lot of fun, but had I known that if I had just shown up at the Apple Store at 7PM that night, I could have walked out with the same iPhone, since there was plenty of supply, I think I would have done the latter. Since June 29, 2007, I have been incredibly in love with this new computing platform called the iPhone, and I’ve written about it a bit before.

Is this video fair use?

You shouldn’t have to have a lawyer to know whether or not a user is fair. The good folks at the American University’s Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic and Center for Social Media have done it again and developed a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video. It is a short 16 pages and easy to read, so you have no excuse to go check it out!

In this best practices, the experts go beyond the typical “four factor test”

Here I go again, trying to be constructive. But before I get there…

This Isn’t About You

I’d like to know what it would take to convince you, a visual artist, alive and creating today, that orphan works policy was not meant to apply to you? There are clearly tens of thousands of artists who are being scared out of the woodwork to write their representatives to stop orphan works legislation. If you’re one of these artist, who are savvy enough to know how to go to a website and click a button to write your member of Congress, then more than likely, if someone wants to use your work, they’re going to find you. Why? Because you exist. You’re with-it enough to be part of this debate, which in all likelihood means that after a user puts effort into finding you, you will actually be found.

In the House version of the orphan works bill there is a provision that creates a “notice of use archive,” or NUA. The idea is that after a search, but before use, a user of an orphan work would have to file a statement with the Copyright Office that she intend to use the work.

In this statement, she’d have to include a description of the work, any ownership info that she knows about the work, a summary of the search that was conducted, and her contact information. The Copyright Office would charge a fee for the service, probably at a significant price per page, as it has said in a letter to Congress (PDF).

Problems with NUA

We’ve previously said that this provision is needless and redundant, and for the record, it still is. Both bills already require a user to maintain documentation of their search, and the pleading requirements push that info at the front of discovery. Not only that, but these additional hoops can be expensive—

Disclaimer: I’m an Apple fanatic. I love its hardware, I love its software. I’ve evangelized the Mac platform to my friends, family and coworkers and I’m directly responsible for “switching” at least a dozen of them since becoming a believer myself in 2002. So, after you read this post, don’t try to claim I’m an Apple hater, because nothing could be further from the truth.

So, yesterday the iPhone 2.0 software and iPhone 3G were announced at Apple’s World Wide Developer Conference, and both will hit the streets sometime in early July. Both software and hardware get some significant upgrades: faster connectivity, more services to connect to, 3rd party applications, true geolocation with A-GPS, etc. These upgrades come at a significantly lower upfront cost to consumers: $199 and $299 for the different memory capacities, 8GB and 16GB respectively.

New Hardware Business Models

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is spread by those who would rather see the orphan works legislation fail. This is our third Myths and Facts report on orphan works.

Before today’s Myth and Fact, I wanted to let you know we have a new Orphan Works Overview page to give those new to the issue an 30,000 foot view, and we also have a page that lists out the Myths and Facts we’ve collected so far. On to today’s Myth and Fact…

MYTH: Unavailability of statutory damages means that owners cannot get compensated.

This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up their version of the orphan works bill, S. 2319, The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008. I live twittered the markup, but in the off chance you weren’t following my tweets, the markup was fairly uneventful.

The line was quite long for a markup. The usual characters (read: those who probably had line-standers) were at the front of the line nearest the entrance to the Judiciary Committee Hearing room. That didn’t include us. The room filled up so we were directed to the overflow room to watch the happenings on closed-circuit tv.

There’s a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) being spread by some who are opposed to orphan works legislation. This is our second Myths and Facts report about orphan works:

MYTH: The bills would take away copyright protection from every work a visual artist ever created!

FACT: The bills do not take away artists’ rights. The bills set a limit on damages for users of a copyrighted work where the copyright owner could not be found, despite a search conducted in accordance with detailed guidelines that the bills lays out. Under these guidelines, lack of identifying information on a work would not be an excuse to use a work. After such a diligent search, in the unlikely event that an owner came forward after the use had started, the user would have to pay him a “reasonable compensation” for the use. The owner would also be entitled to an injunction in situations where the work was not incorporated into a new work. The bottom line is that good faith users are shielded from liability, and owners are paid if they surface.

If you haven’t seen our previous FUD reports, check them out here.

There’s a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) being spread by some who are opposed to orphan works legislation. Here’s a quick Myth and Fact about orphan works:

MYTH: The bills would mandate registration of all visual arts in expensive, private registries.

FACT: Neither bill contains such a mandate. Owners’ failure to register would not absolve users of their search obligations. The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works and to help users find owners. In order to achieve this purpose, the bills contemplate the development of electronic databases of visual works in the market place. However, these registries do not have to be expensive. The bills do not require artists to use these services, nor do they require the services to charge a registration fee. Services that operate in the current marketplace, and provide services free of cost, could easily evolve into the visual registries contemplated by the bills. The bottom line is that the bills aim to encourage the market to solve a problem to help owners be found, but the bills do not require owners to register with these services.

In case you missed it, you can write your Congressional representatives and ask for their support of orphan works here. You can stay up to date on the Facebook Cause: Rescue Orphan Works as well. We need your support for this important legislation.

So, in the past week we’ve had a House Subcommittee markup of the House bill and the Senate was to mark up the bill on Thursday but they held the bill over until the following week. A markup hearing is a hearing without witnesses where the members propose amendments to the bill they’re considering. Those amendments are voted on by the committee or subcommittee members, and then the amended bill is voted on as a whole to be moved out of the subcommittee to the full committee and then the full committee to the full body for further consideration (House or Senate).