Comments for Action on Authors' Rights

Comment on Hargreaves Review: Extended Collective Licensing and Orphan Works by Andrew Orlowski » Blog Archive » The bureaucratic elite and the Google Review. The story continues…

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:11:48 +0000

[...] ever posted a photo to Flickr, you should take note. There’s a good layman’s discussion here. It concludes: …in sectors where an ECL scheme is imposed, authors will lose the right to control [...]

Comment on Hargreaves Review: Extended Collective Licensing and Orphan Works by john walker

john walker — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:50:25 +0000

The Hargreaves proposal is for , the compulsory collectivization of creatives and massive violations of millions of individual property rights. That such a radical, somewhat ‘Marxist’ , upending of basic English speaking common law concepts of property/individual rights is being even considered by a government that is ‘labeled’ a Conservative – Liberal government is simply mind boggling .

When did they start taking advice from neo-marxist academics?

Comment on Hargreaves Review: Extended Collective Licensing and Orphan Works by john walker

john walker — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:18:04 +0000

The three-step test to determine allowable exceptions and limitations was
introduced during the Stockholm Intellectual Property Conference in 196756 and
was incorporated in several international agreements, including the Berne
Convention,57 the WIPO Copyright Treaty,58 and the TRIPS Agreement.59 The
expression “three-step test” is generally used in reference to these international
treaties. From the point of view of U.S. common law, exceptions and limitations to
the rightsholder’s exclusive rights to a work often translate into “fair use,”60 which is
an open-ended, catch-all clause for situations not supposed to harm the rightsholder
significantly. There are, however, a number of other specific limitations on exclusive
rights which are listed in the treaties and in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 (the
“Copyright Act”) to allow exploitation of works by non-rightsholders in specific
situations.61 The three-step test is a balancing test to be used by courts and legislative
bodies to determine if proposed exceptions and limitations to the rightsholder’s
exclusive rights to a work are allowable under these international treaties.62
The three criteria imposed by the test are that: (1) the exception or limitation is
restricted to a special case; (2) it does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the
work; and (3) it does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
The three-step test specifies that exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights are
for special cases: orphan works can certainly be seen as a special case because an
orphan work characterizes a limited subset of works in a situation that is detrimental
to all interested parties, and that is likely not to be known to, or desired by, the
concerned rightsholders. However, the idea that an exception should be limited to a
special case indicates that it should be motivated by that special case, and that the
motivations should be explicit or obvious—otherwise anything could be construed as
a special case.63 This also implies that the exception should be minimal, i.e., limited
to whatever steps are necessary to meet the need that motivates the exception. The
other two steps of the test also indicate that disruption of the interests of rightsholders
should be minimal. Those interests should be assessed in the context of the exception,
taking into account the nature of the exception and the situations or issues that
justify it.
These principles
56. World Intellectual Property Organization, Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of
Stockholm 1144 (1967).
57. Berne Convention, supra note 10, art. 9(2).
58. WIPO Copyright Treaty, supra note 15, art. 10(2).
59. TRIPS Agreement, supra note 16, art. 13.
60. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2006 & Supp. 2010). Note that fair use is about the free use of works in specific ways
and circumstances. Exceptions and limitation have the same open-ended logic controlled by a balancing
test, but not necessarily for free, non-paying uses. Id.
61. Id. §§ 108–12, 117, 119–21, 122.
62. See generally Jennifer Suzanne Bresson Bisk, Book Search is Beautiful?: An Analysis of Whether Google Book
Search Violates

From
Orphan Works and the Google Book Search Settlement: An International Perspective , By Bernard Lang

This proposal;is clearly a (triple )violation of the Berne convention

Comment on Hargreaves Review: Extended Collective Licensing and Orphan Works by Hargreaves Review: Extended Collective Licensing and Orphan Works (via Action on Authors' Rights) « variations on the theme of photography

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:33:23 +0000

[...] Hargreaves Review: Extended Collective Licensing and Orphan Works (via Action on Authors' Rights) June 9, 2011 This is the third (and most important) of a series of posts on the Hargreaves Review into copyright. See also: 1. Hargreaves Review: Fair Use and Fair Dealing 2. Hargreaves Review: Proposals for a Digital Copyright Exchange All non-specific references are to the main report document, Digital Opportunity. A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth [PDF]. References preceded by Econ. Impact are to Supporting Document EE. Economic Impact of Recomm … Read More [...]

Comment on Hargreaves Review: Proposals for a Digital Copyright Exchange by Hargreaves Review: Proposals for a Digital Copyright Exchange (via Action on Authors' Rights) « variations on the theme of photography

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:33:19 +0000

[...] Hargreaves Review: Proposals for a Digital Copyright Exchange (via Action on Authors' Rights) June 9, 2011 This is the second of a series of posts on the Hargreaves Report. The first post is on Fair Use and Fair Dealing. All non-specific references are to the main report document, Digital Opportunity. A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. References preceded by Econ. Impact are to Supporting Document EE. Economic Impact of Recommendations. 5. Digital Copyright Exchange This is Hargreaves' big idea, an elaborate multi-purpose scheme intended to … Read More [...]

Comment on Hargreaves Review: Fair Use and Fair Dealing by Hargreaves Review: Fair Use and Fair Dealing (via Action on Authors' Rights) « variations on the theme of photography

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:33:15 +0000

[...] Hargreaves Review: Fair Use and Fair Dealing (via Action on Authors' Rights) June 9, 2011 In March we put in a submission to the Independent Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, led by Ian Hargreaves. Hargreaves' report was published on 18 May. This is the first in a series of posts which will summarise and examine Hargreaves' recommendations on copyright. It will cover his proposals on fair dealing. All non-specific references are to the main report document, Digital Opportunity. A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. R … Read More [...]

Comment on Authors and the Google Book Settlement by Nick Dunmur

Nick Dunmur — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:29:09 +0000

Agreed Richard and yes, it is an excellent article.

We, as creators, have a problem in that we are seen to be part of ‘culture’ and because widening access to ‘culture’ is deemed a good thing (and of course so it should be, but mindfully so), we are seen as the bad guys when we try and control what we create.

Without copyright and a means to earn from what we make, there would be no incentive for people to continue to do so and our ‘culture’ would be the much poorer for it.

Comment on Authors and the Google Book Settlement by Richard Kenward

Richard Kenward — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 21:05:27 +0000

I am staggered that this excellent article has so far not attracted any comments since it was put here in February of this year.

It clearly highlights what is going to be a ever increasingly important issue for not only writers but all people who create for a living from which we all benefit.

Why is it that some in big business, spurred on by some politicians appear to think that it is perfectly OK to profit at the expense of our writers, photographers, designers and composers to name but a few. Why is it that these ‘small’ people are somehow thought to be doing the public a disservice by wanting to retain copyright to their work? Many of these people will be self employed individuals who have in all probability not had a particularly comfortable living perusing their creative instincts; so what is so wrong with their expecting to retain the copyright to their work, and possibly obtaining some monetary reward?

Kind regards

Richard Kenward

Comment on Manifesto by Tony Sleep

Tony Sleep — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:44:48 +0000

Hi Gillian,

First may I thank you for your superb critique of the DEB.

I am the admin of Copyrightaction and one of the moderators of Editorial Photographers UK http://www.epuk.org. We also run http://www.stop43.org.uk because we see no practical chance of amending the Bill. It has to go. We are lobbying intensively and gaining some traction with Libdem and Tory shadow departments. In the Lords Viscount Bridgeman and Lord Clement Jones were particularly responsive to lobbying by photographers. However the IPO appear determined not to understand the problems, and continue to misinform MP’s.

The aspects you highlight are many times worse for photographers for numerous reasons – ease of orphaning, impossibility of diligent search, profligate distribution and a culture of infringement with impunity that extends to mainstream publishers, all in the context of a market wrecked by oversupply and de-professionalisation. We see ECL as a terminal disease for most pro photographers, who will simply be unable to prevent use or maintain viable rates. Opt-out will effectively mean opting out of the market in exactly the same way that refusing rights-grabbing and exploitive contracts has meant excommunication.

Comment on The Digital Economy Bill demands full democratic scrutiny by Digital Economy and Vulture Funds - Gwyneth's personal blog

Digital Economy and Vulture Funds - Gwyneth's personal blog — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:52:35 +0000

[...] news of another Bill that's going to be law before you know it: a link to Gill Spraggs' post on the Digital Economy Bill. An issue that definitely wants watching. Plus her detailed take on Clause 43 Small item in New [...]