This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
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)
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. [1] 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)
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)
The US Copyright office uses the form without the s. -- Gbleem 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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 result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned work → Orphan works — "Orphan works" is the preferred term, as used by the US Copyright Office ( http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/), relevant publications (Chronicle of Higher Ed, Library Journal) and popular press (The Guardian, NY Times). Currently orphan works redirects to orphaned work, but it should be the other way around. Otterfan 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Shouldn't this go under the statuary law stubs? Because it affects the entire public. Iyeru42 ( talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
This bill recieved negative reception from the public before it was even passed. As far as YouTube posters & Deviant Artists have put it, this bill makes it so that you no longer have any intillectual property claim to your works unless you purchase a copyright for every single thing. It's also easy to lie about not being able to contact the author. People are afraid that sue-happy companies like Viacom have already taken gross advantage of this & are sueing people for using their own stuff. There are online petitions to get the bill revoked.
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)
I had come to this article looking for a balanced analysis on this issue and a discussion of arguments on both sides, but what I find here has a very pro "orphan works" bias (in favor of allowing use of works labeled as such without compensation). The article discusses this posistion only as something beneficial, but it fails to discuss some very serious concerns - in particular for amatur content artists who lack the time and resources to actively register and keep watch over every piece of content they create. A big corporation could then use their work and make large profits without the artist receiving any compensation. This article here discusses these sorts of issues, and there are numerous others online which do the same. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab Hopefully this article can be changed to express a more balnanced view of the issue. - Helvetica ( talk) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Nemo - I'm familiar with the Berne Convention and the current laws. My comments here address the "orphan"/"abandonded" works movement and efforts to *change* copyright laws, some of which, as AVRS noted above, would require more active efforts to attain and/or maintain copyright protection. In particular, the article reports the views of a pro-OW activist who discusses as a problem the fact that "that copyright is automatically conferred without registration or renewal," implying that he'd like to see that changed.
On a personal level, as an amateur photographer, I wouldn't really mind if some obscure blogger used a picture of mine that was circulating on the net, but if a big corporation like BP were to use it in an ad campaign then I would certainly object, and I wouldn't want them to be legally allowed to do that simply because I hadn't gone to the effort of registering my work in some database or because they weren't able to track me down. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
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)
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. [1] 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)
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)
The US Copyright office uses the form without the s. -- Gbleem 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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 result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned work → Orphan works — "Orphan works" is the preferred term, as used by the US Copyright Office ( http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/), relevant publications (Chronicle of Higher Ed, Library Journal) and popular press (The Guardian, NY Times). Currently orphan works redirects to orphaned work, but it should be the other way around. Otterfan 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Shouldn't this go under the statuary law stubs? Because it affects the entire public. Iyeru42 ( talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
This bill recieved negative reception from the public before it was even passed. As far as YouTube posters & Deviant Artists have put it, this bill makes it so that you no longer have any intillectual property claim to your works unless you purchase a copyright for every single thing. It's also easy to lie about not being able to contact the author. People are afraid that sue-happy companies like Viacom have already taken gross advantage of this & are sueing people for using their own stuff. There are online petitions to get the bill revoked.
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)
I had come to this article looking for a balanced analysis on this issue and a discussion of arguments on both sides, but what I find here has a very pro "orphan works" bias (in favor of allowing use of works labeled as such without compensation). The article discusses this posistion only as something beneficial, but it fails to discuss some very serious concerns - in particular for amatur content artists who lack the time and resources to actively register and keep watch over every piece of content they create. A big corporation could then use their work and make large profits without the artist receiving any compensation. This article here discusses these sorts of issues, and there are numerous others online which do the same. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab Hopefully this article can be changed to express a more balnanced view of the issue. - Helvetica ( talk) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Nemo - I'm familiar with the Berne Convention and the current laws. My comments here address the "orphan"/"abandonded" works movement and efforts to *change* copyright laws, some of which, as AVRS noted above, would require more active efforts to attain and/or maintain copyright protection. In particular, the article reports the views of a pro-OW activist who discusses as a problem the fact that "that copyright is automatically conferred without registration or renewal," implying that he'd like to see that changed.
On a personal level, as an amateur photographer, I wouldn't really mind if some obscure blogger used a picture of mine that was circulating on the net, but if a big corporation like BP were to use it in an ad campaign then I would certainly object, and I wouldn't want them to be legally allowed to do that simply because I hadn't gone to the effort of registering my work in some database or because they weren't able to track me down. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)