SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
26–410 PDF
2006
REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS BY THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET,
AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 8, 2006
Serial No. 109–94
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BLAINE MERRITT, Chief Counsel
DAVID WHITNEY, Counsel
JOE KEELEY, Counsel
RYAN VISCO, Counsel
SHANNA WINTERS, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
MARCH 8, 2006
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESSES
Mr. Jule L. Sigall, Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, Copyright Office of the United States, The Library of Congress
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Allan Adler, Vice President for Legal and Government Affairs, Association of American Publishers, Inc.
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. David P. Trust, Chief Executive Officer, Professional Photographers of America, Inc.
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Ms. Maria A. Pallante, Associate General Counsel and Director of Licensing, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Howard Berman, a Representative in Congress From the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Prepred Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Amended ''Appendix'' to the Prepared Statement of Maria A. Pallante, Associate General Counsel and Director of Licensing, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation
Letter and accompanying paper from the Advertising Photographers of America (APA)
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
Letter and proposed legislative revision from the Artists Rights Alliance (ARS)
Prepared Statement of Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement of Reed Stager, Executive Vice President, Digimarc Corporation
Prepared Statement of the Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Letter from the Graphic Artists Guild
Letter from the Illustrators' Partnership
Prepared Statement of Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers (AIVF), Doculink, Film Arts Foundation, FIND (Film Independent), International Documentary Association (IDA), IFP (Independent Feature Project), National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC), National Video Resources (NVR), and Public Knowledge0
Letter to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property from Lawrence Lessig
Prepared Statement of Jerry Brito, Legal Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and Bridget Dooling, Editor-in-Chief, Federal Circuit Bar Journal
Prepared Statement of Gerard Colby, President, National Writers Union
Letter from David Sanger, President, the Stock Artists Alliance (SAA)
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS BY THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Lamar Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will come to order.
Thank you all for your interest and for your in presence in being here. We will open with opening statements and then proceed directly to hear from our witnesses today as well.
I recognize myself.
Today's hearing is an oversight hearing on the Copyright Office Report on Orphan Work. The orphan works issue arises when someone who wants to use a copyrighted work cannot find the owner no matter how diligently they search. The owner may have moved several times, died, or in the case of corporate owners may have changed names or been bought out. This leaves the potential user with no options even though they want to do the right thing by paying a reasonable royalty to the copyright owner of a photograph, book, or other work.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Responding to this issue, the Copyright Office has released the adjusted statutory language that they believe will address the orphan works issue in a balanced manner. I have heard from a number of interested parties on the orphan works issue and the language suggested by the Copyright Office from potential owners and users of orphan works to others who are merely concerned about the impact of any new orphan works legislation on existing statutes.
I have long been a proponent of strong copyright protections. So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today who are seeking to address the orphan works issue by limiting the remedies for specific uses of orphan works. It is important that copyright owners still receive a fair royalty under an effective system if the owner does reappear to claim ownership of his work.
Some copyright owners, such as photographers, illustrators, and artists have unique business issues that are different from those of other copyright owners. I look forward to hearing of their specific concerns and whether or not this adjusted language has adequately addressed them or can be modified to do so in either statutory or report language. Numerous interested parties have been meeting in numerous areas to develop modifications to the copyright office language in order to better protect their interests. The successful completion of such negotiations will enable us to move an orphan works bill in the coming weeks.
Moving a bill in Congress does not require unanimity. Parties who feel that they can simply stop the legislative process by failing to negotiate in good faith or at all tend to be ignored. Maybe I should say left behind.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to working with other Members of the Committee and interested parties to advance a near consensus bill on the issue at hand.
That concludes my testimony. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman is recognized for his.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling the hearing on the Copyright Office's report on orphan works. Unfortunately for me, perhaps fortunately for you and the other Members, I am going to have to leave a little early because of another hearing in a different Committee. So I would like to use the opening statement to raise some questions.
I want to start out by commending the Copyright Office on their legislative proposal. It's united a number of owner and user groups in search of a solution to the orphan works problem. The recommendation goes a long way to meeting users' concerns of making beneficial uses of works when copyright owners can't be found. This allows our society to be enriched by access to works that otherwise and most likely would be lost. All of this must coexist against the backdrop of continuing to maintain the incentive for creators to pursue their art.
So when it comes specifically to the category of owners of visual arts work such as photographers and illustrators, which seems to be a group that is most concerned about this proposal, I want to raise some questions about the affect of the Copyright Office proposal on an orphan works provision.
Currently, a user can begin a search by typing in search terms in a registry, be it in the Copyright Office or from musical works by contacting BMI or ASGAP. There is no collective registry, however, for photographic or illustration information which makes owner information in many instances almost impossible to find. According to this proposal, if a reasonable search and attribution allows one to qualify for a limitation of on remedies, will most owners of photographs be required to forego their normal remedies when the information can't be found? That issue shy is to me the large elephant remaining in the room.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Is the current copyright system layered by the orphan works provision adequate to protect visual arts owners. The most basic question seems unanswerable. Where does one even begin the process of finding the owner information for most illustrations or photographs? No doubt this question may be addressed in part by some non-legislative solutions or possibly legislative in that an appropriation is required.
For example, when I wrote to the Copyright Office about the orphan works issue, I requested that they explore the viability of creating an accurate, updated, and electronically searchable data base of copyright ownership, how much would such a data base cost. Currently on the Copyright Office's search file, unless one has a registration number, the title, or the author's name, one can't search for the work. Even with that all that information, the search feature is extremely rudimentary. With photographs, however, where often times there is no title of the work, there is currently no mechanism to search a description of the work and the possibility of matching the work is limited since there is no thumbnail of the photograph.
Granted, part of the problem has been exacerbated by attempts to accommodate the needs of the photographers by allowing group registration; however, if the orphan works provision limits an owner's right to reasonable compensation without access to statutory damages or attorneys fees, what's the motivation for photographers to register their works in the first place which gives them the opportunity to get those remedies?
While some have stated that this issue should be resolved outside the scope of this orphan works solution, I think we have to be somewhat wary of going down a road that small copyright owners claim will isolate them from the benefits of the copyright system and potentially harm them. Currently, copyright owners can use the threat of litigation with the possibility of statutory damages and attorneys fees to hinder unauthorized uses of their works. Under this orphan works provision, while the use is still considered infringement, the remedies are so limited that the likelihood of recovery of even reasonable compensation becomes questionable. The cost of litigation to determine reasonable compensation would often times far exceed the actual reasonable compensation.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To discuss the orphan works recommendation without addressing a core problem for major stakeholders in the process alters the balance in maintaining the exclusive rights for locatable copyright owners. Where but for the fact that there is no adequate data base, some of these children could be matched with their parents.
So the issues, I just wanted to raise. I know I'm taking a little longer, but I'll make up for it on the other end. I would hope the witnesses could address a few of these questions.
For cases in which the Copyright Office has a registration for a work with locatable information on its face, should there be an exception or carve-out to the orphan works provision? Should an owner, if able to show a registration, be able to reclaim his right to statutory damage or attorneys fees? What if the work was not only registered, but the owner took steps to make his work locatable by providing a description of the work? Would this make a difference? If the Copyright Office is proposing that this data base be a voluntary data base established by the photographers, should it we look at a later enactment date to allow time for the photographers to acclimate to this new scheme or perhaps provide a transition period? Finally, would the witness be amenable to having the option of a resolution of the orphan works issue in a small claims court to reduce the cost to small copyright owners?
There are some other issues to consider, but it is in this particular area that I thought that I would hope the witnesses might address this discrete problem that I see in the proposal, which I generally commend and appreciate the Copyright Office submitting to us in response to our request.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for an opening statement.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record.
Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. LOFGREN. To save time, I would just like to mention how interested I am in the Copyright Office proposal. I think that, as you know, I introduced a bill, H.R. 2408, that took a somewhat different approach than the one proposed by the Copyright Office. In my bill, I set forward a concept of a national registry system to avoid their works becoming orphaned. Under my bill, copyright holders would register their works in a national registry after 50 years.
I recently received a letter from Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School in support of a registry system. I would like to make that a part of the record. It is not my proposal, but I am interested in what the witnesses might think. I think it's been on the web.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Without objection, that proposal will be made a part of the record as well as any other items that the gentlewoman wants to submit as a part of her opening statement.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you.
I would just like to note that one of the values that I had hoped for in a registration approach is certainty on the of all parties. On the other hand, the Copyright Office's proposal has some benefits because it doesn't have the arbitrary 50-year date, and I think there's value in that. On the other hand, I'm not sure the certainty principle is there. So I'm interested in all of the witnesses talking about what further efforts could be made to provide certainty, and then certainly if you expend money, time, and effort on an orphan work, you want to have some level of certainty that you are doing so on firm ground. I'm not sure that the proposal before us really gives that level of certainty, and perhaps there is some way to do absent a registry system or maybe that is the better system.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me. I don't generally do opening statements, but I appreciate the opportunity to do so today.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll put my written statement into the record to save time.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I just want to compliment and echo Mr. Berman's comments by saying that if I can find what is unfindable on the Government site by going to Google, then, in fact, we're not living up to the expectations of the public, and I would hope that as we go through this legislation or proposal and in the future that we recognize that in a digital age, there should be nothing unsearchable including, to be honest, a digital image from a picture being matched with the entire data base of pictures. That technology exists today, and I would hope during the statements, we could discuss if not today, then when would we have those capabilities so that there would not be a true orphan of intellectual property, copyright property, particularly in the Government's hands.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Would our panelists stand so that you all can be sworn in?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. SMITH. Our first witness is Jule Sigall, the Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Copyright Office. Mr. Sigall is the head of the Office of Policy and International Affairs which assists the Register of Copyrights in advising Congress and Executive Branch agencies on domestic and international copyright policy matters. Mr. Sigall is also an adjunct professor of law at the George Washington University Law School where he teaches copyright. Mr. Sigall is a graduate of Duke University and a suma cum laude graduate of the Catholic university School of Law.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our next witness is Allan Adler, Vice President for Legal and Governmental Affairs for the Association of American Publishers which represents book and journal publishing industries. He deals with intellectual property, freedom of speech, new technology, and other industry-related issues. Mr. Adler holds a B.A. in history from the State University of New York at Binghamton and a J.D. from the George Washington University Law School.
Our next witness is David Trust, the Chief Executive Officer of the Professor Photographers of America. Founded in 1880, the PPA is the world's largest nonprofit trade association for professional photographers with 15,000 members. Mr. Trust is also the CEO of the Alliance of Visual Artists. The AVA is an umbrella group representing the interests of photographer organizations which also represents the International Association of Professional Event Photographers, Commercial Photographers International, and the Student Photographic Society as well. Mr. Trust graduated with a B.S. in journalism from the University of Georgia.
Our final witness is Maria Pallante, the Associate General Counsel and Director of Licensing at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation where she has managed intellectual property and related business affairs since 1999. Ms. Pallante received her J.D. from the George Washington University Law School, and her B.A. from College Misericordia.
In closing, we should note, Mr. Trust, that you are at a slight disadvantage today since you are the only one with no connection to George Washington University School of Law. I don't remember coming this close, I think, before to a clean sweep by one law school with three having graduated from one. You may be outnumbered, but not out testimonied, but we'll find out.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Okay. Mr. Sigall we'll begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF JULE L. SIGALL, ASSOCIATE REGISTER FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Mr. SIGALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith, Mr. Berman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Copyright Office to testify about our report on orphan works. We would like to thank Chairman Smith and Mr. Berman for supporting our study in the report which we published at the end of January.
As you summarized, Mr. Chairman, the term ''orphan works'' describes the situation where someone would like to use a copyrighted work, but cannot identify and locate the copyright owner. Even where the user makes a diligent effort to find the owner, if the owner is not found, the user faces a dilemma. She cannot determine whether the owner would permit the use. Where the proposed use is infringing, the user cannot reduce the risk of copyright liability because there is the possibility that a copyright owner could bring an infringement action after that use has begun.
In each situation, the productive and beneficial use may be forestalled, not because the owner has asserted exclusive rights or because the user and owner cannot agree on the terms of a license, but merely because the user cannot locate the owner. For many users, the risk of infringement liability even though remote is enough to prompt them not to make use of the work. This outcome is not in the public interest, especially where the owner no longer exists or otherwise does not care to restrain the use of the work.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based on our study of this issue, we concluded the following: The orphan works problem is real, but it is illusive to quantify and describe comprehensively. Some orphan work situations may be addressed by existing law, but many are not, and legislation is necessary to provide a meaningful solution to the orphan works problem as we know it today. The report recommends with specific legislative language an amendment to the Copyright Act's remedy section.
Our proposal is motivated by two primary goals. First, any system to deal with orphan works should seek to make it more likely a user finds the relevant owner in the first instance and negotiates a voluntary agreement over the use of the work. Second, where the user cannot identify and locate the owner after a reasonably diligent search, then the system should permit that user to make use of the work subject to provisions that resolve issues that arise if the owner surfaces after the use has commenced.
Our proposed amendment follows the core concept that many participants favor as an orphan works solution. If the user has performed a reasonably diligent search but does not locate that copyright owner, then the remedies for infringement by that user should be limited. Both our written testimony and the report go into the specifics of a recommendation. So I won't spend much time on those details now. I would like to focus my remarks today on the reactions that interested parties have given to our report.
By and large, that reaction has been quite positive. A diverse array of copyright owners and users, book publishers, authors, libraries, archives, museums, motion picture studios, record companies, educational institutions, documentary film-makers and others all agree with our conclusion that the orphan works issue is real and needs to be addressed and they agree with the basic concept and structure of our proposed legislation. Some of these groups have made constructive suggestions for changes to the specific provisions, and we are confident that further discussion among the interested parties can resolve any remaining issues.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certain groups representing individual copyright owners, however, such as photographers, illustrators, and graphic artists oppose our proposal. They argue that many of their works will be inaccurately labeled orphan works because it is often difficult to find the owner of a visual image, usually because the name of the creator is not on copies of the work. As Mr. Berman pointed out, the Copyright Office records are text based and in many cases do not contain much, if any, description of the subject matter of the image in part because we have eased the registration requirements for photographers at that request. So even if a photographer has registered his works, a user may not be able to locate that owner.
In other words, these groups concede the very problem at the heart of the report. A user seeking to locate a photographer of an image that has no identifying information on it faces a daunting challenge. Our proposal provides safeguards for this problem in a number of ways. First, in most cases, including all commercial uses, the user of an orphan work must pay the copyright owner reasonable compensation if the owner resurfaces. Also, the user will not be able to continue making the use after the owner asserts his copyright except in defined circumstances and even in that case must pay reasonable compensation for that future use. So when critics say that our proposal would strip thousands of photographers and other visual artists of their rights, that is simply not true.
Photographers claim that bringing a lawsuit to collect reasonable compensation will be prohibitively expensive. We agree that legal actions to enforce copyrights are expensive just as any access to our court system is costly. However, this problem exists for visual images today regardless of whether orphan works legislation is passed or not. More over, there are nonlegal actions that photographers and others can take to protect their copyrights. These steps include consistent marking copies of their works, development of collective licensing mechanisms, and employing technology to allow effective searches where the user only has the image and no contextual information for the work. Steps like these will also ensure that visual images are locatable and that their works do not become orphan works.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the expense of litigation, we noted in the report that a new small claims procedure might also help individual owners protect their copyright generally and also allow them to obtain reasonable compensation if their work falls into the orphan category. We will be pleased to work with the Subcommittee and interested parties in exploring possible new procedures; however, the key to enhancing copyright protection in visual images is not increased litigation, but making it easier for owners and users to find each other, which our orphan work proposal encourages.
In conclusion, many users, especially cultural institutions like libraries, museums, and archives, made clear that any orphan work solution must include photograph and other visual images given the persistent orphan works problems that exist with these works. In fact, orphan works legislation may be the catalyst needed to prompt the nonlegal marketplace reforms that will most efficiently address the problems identified by these creators. For this reason and others, Congress should not delay its consideration and enactment of orphan works legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to answering any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sigall follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULE L. SIGALL
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Berman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you on behalf of the Copyright Office to testify about our Report on Orphan Works, published in January of this year. In this testimony, we provide a description of the orphan works issue and the contents of the Report, as well as a discussion of some of the reactions to the Report we have received from interested parties since its publication.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By and large the reaction has been quite positive. A broad and diverse array of interests from both copyright owner and user communities including book publishers, authors, libraries, archives, museums, motion picture studios, record companies, educational institutions, documentary filmmakers and others agree with the Copyright Office's conclusion that the orphan works issue is real and needs to be addressed, and they also agree in basic concept and structure with the legislative solution proposed by the Report. Some of these groups have made constructive suggestions for changes to specific provisions of our proposal, and we are confident that issues raised by these comments can be resolved with further discussion among the interested parties.
Some individual authors and creators, however, primarily in the photography and visual image industries, are opposed to our effort to solve the orphan works problem, despite the fact that the proposal does not remove copyright for orphan works, and requires, in most cases, that the user pay the copyright owner reasonable compensation for the use of the work. Their concerns stem mostly from the fact that legal action to enforce their copyrights is expensive, often prohibitively so. As described below and in the Report, the enforcement problems faced by these creators are real and should be addressed, but they exist whether or not orphan works legislation is passed. As a result, these concerns do not justify any delay in addressing the orphan works problem. In fact, enactment of orphan works legislation may be the catalyst necessary to prompt the non-legal, marketplace reforms that will most efficiently address the problems identified by photographers and creators of visual images.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORT
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A. Introduction and Background
The Report addresses the important issue of ''orphan works,'' a term used to describe the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner. Even where the user has made a reasonably diligent effort to find the owner, if the owner is not found, the user faces uncertainty—she cannot determine whether or under what conditions the owner would permit use. Where the proposed use goes beyond an exemption or limitation to copyright, the user cannot reduce the risk of copyright liability for such use, because there is always a possibility, however remote, that a copyright owner could bring an infringement action after that use has begun.
Concerns have been raised that in such a situation, a productive and beneficial use of the work is forestalled—not because the copyright owner has asserted his exclusive rights in the work, or because the user and owner cannot agree on the terms of a license—but merely because the user cannot locate the owner. Many users of copyrighted works have indicated that the risk of liability for copyright infringement, however remote, is enough to prompt them not to make use of the work. Such an outcome is not in the public interest, particularly where the copyright owner is not locatable because he no longer exists or otherwise does not care to restrain the use of his work.
The Copyright Office has long shared these concerns, and considered the issue of orphan works to be worthy of further study. The Office was pleased that in January 2005, Chairman Smith and Mr. Berman expressed interest in the issue and supported the request from Senators Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy to study the orphan works issue in detail, and to provide a report with the Office's recommendations.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After that request, in January 2005, the Office issued a Notice of Inquiry initiating this study. We received over 850 written initial and reply comments from the public, and held three days of roundtable discussions in late July in Washington, D.C. and Berkeley, California. The Office subsequently met informally with various organizations separately, in a effort to explore more specific issues raised in the comments and roundtables; they were also invited to further express their individual concerns. Our Report is the culmination of those efforts.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ORPHAN WORKS SITUATIONS
Section III of the Report catalogs and organizes the various situations described in the comments as ''orphan work'' situations. The written initial and reply comments, most of which were authored by individuals, described an enormous variety of problems and proposed uses. It is difficult, however, to quantify the extent and scope of the orphan works problems from these comments, for several reasons. First, about 40% of the comments do not identify an instance in which someone could not locate a copyright owner, and another significant portion identified situations that were clearly not orphan work situations. Still, about 50% of the comments identified a situation that could fairly be categorized as an orphan works situation, and even more instances were collected in comments filed by trade associations and other groups. Thus, there is good evidence that the orphan works problem is real and warrants attention, and none of the commenters made any serious argument questioning that conclusion.
The Report describes the most common obstacles to successfully identifying and locating the copyright owner, such as (1) inadequate identifying information on a copy of the work itself; (2) inadequate information about copyright ownership because of a change of ownership or a change in the circumstances of the owner; (3) limitations of existing copyright ownership information sources; and (4) difficulties researching copyright information.(see footnote 1) It then describes other situations raised by commenters that were alleged to be ''orphan work'' situations but upon closer inspection were outside the scope of the inquiry. These included situations where the user contacted the owner, but did not receive permission to use the work, either because the owner did not respond to the request, refused the request, or required a license fee that the user felt was too high. Other such problems included general difficulties determining the status of copyright protection for a given work, and problems related to the legal protection accorded pre-1972 sound recordings.(see footnote 2)
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the Report catalogs the proposed uses that the commenters indicated were most affected by the orphan works situations. In our view these uses fall into one of four general categories: (1) uses by subsequent creators who add some degree of their own expression to existing works to create a derivative work; (2) large-scale ''access'' uses where users primarily wish to bring large quantities of works to the public, usually via the Internet; (3) ''enthusiast'' or hobbyist uses, which usually involve specialized or niche works, and also appear frequently to involve posting works on the Internet; and (4) private uses among a limited number of people.(see footnote 3)
III. LEGAL BACKGROUND
Section IV of the Report provides the legal backdrop for consideration of the orphan works issue.(see footnote 4) First, it sets out the historical factors that affect the orphan works problem by describing how the issue is, in some respects, a result of the omnibus revision to the Copyright Act in 1976. Specifically, the 1976 Act made obtaining and maintaining copyright protection substantially easier than the 1909 Act. Copyrighted works are protected the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and do not need to be registered with the Copyright Office. Also, the 1976 Act changed the basic term of copyright from a term of fixed years from publication to a term of life of the author plus 50 (now 70) years. In so doing, the requirement that a copyright owner file a renewal registration in the 28th year of the term of copyright was essentially eliminated.
These changes were important steps toward the United States' assumption of a more prominent role in the international copyright community, specifically through accession to the Berne Convention, which prohibits formalities like registration and renewal as a condition on the enjoyment and exercise of copyright. Moreover, there was substantial evidence presented during consideration of the 1976 Act that the formalities such as renewal and notice, when combined with drastic penalties like forfeiture of copyright, served as a ''trap for the unwary'' and caused the loss of many valuable copyrights. These changes, however, exacerbate the orphan works issue, in that a user generally must assume that a work he wishes to use is subject to copyright protection, and often cannot confirm whether a work has fallen into the public domain by consulting the registration records of the Copyright Office.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Section IV of the Report then goes on to describe existing provisions of copyright law that might address the orphan works situation in certain circumstances. While U.S. copyright law does not contain an omnibus provision addressing all orphan works as such, it does contain a few provisions that permit certain users to make certain uses of certain classes of orphan works, and other provisions that reduce the risk in using an orphan work. These provisions include section 108(h), section 115(b), section 504(c)(2), and the termination provisions (sections 203, 304(c), and 304(d)). These existing sections provide models that may be useful in the development of an omnibus orphan works provision.
This discussion demonstrates that the current Copyright Act does not contain provision designed to address the orphan works situation that is the subject of the Report. While some provisions, like section 108(h), might address the question for some users in certain situations, in general a user faced with an orphan works situation will not find a specific section or other provision of the Act on which he might rely to make use of the work.
Nevertheless, we believe that the focus on developing legislative text to address orphan works should not obscure the fact that the Copyright Act and the marketplace for copyrighted works provide several alternatives to a user who is frustrated by the orphan works situation. Indeed, assessing whether the situations described to use in the comments were true ''orphan works'' situations was difficult, in part because there is often more than meets the eye in a circumstance presented as an ''orphan works'' problem.
For purposes of developing a legislative solution we have defined the ''orphan works'' situation to be one where the use goes beyond any limitation or exemption to copyright, such as fair use. However, in practice, most cases will not be so neatly defined, and a user may have a real choice among several alternatives that allow her to go forward with her project: making noninfringing use of the work, such as by copying only elements not covered by copyright; making fair use; seeking a substitute work for which she has permission to use; or a combination of these alternatives. Indeed, evidence presented to us indicates that users in the orphan works situation make exactly these types of choices. Section IV of the Report describes some of those alternatives and how they might be applicable to different scenarios described in the comments.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, Section IV of the Report sets out the international law context for consideration of an orphan works solution. Specifically, it describes the obligations that the various international copyright treaties impose on the United States with respect to imposition of formalities to copyright, limitations and exceptions to copyright and copyright remedies.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
Numerous comments received in the orphan works proceeding proposed solutions to the orphan works problem, and Section V of the Report catalogs and describes them. These solutions can be grouped into four categories:
Solutions that already exist under current law and practice. These were usually noted only in passing; commenters (even commenters opposed to any orphan works provision) did not take the position that the existing law is sufficient to solve the orphan works problem.(see footnote 5)
Non-legislative solutions. An example of a solution in this category is a proposal for improved databases for locating owners of works. These solutions were also usually noted only in passing, and were not advanced as sufficient to fix the problem.(see footnote 6)
Legislative solutions that involve a limitation on remedies when a user uses an orphan work. The most substantive comments fell into this category, and most of the comments by professional organizations or academics fell into this category.(see footnote 7)
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other legislative solutions. Examples of proposed solutions in this category are deeming all orphaned works to be in the public domain, or changing the tax or bankruptcy codes to reduce the factors that cause orphan works to come into existence in the first place.(see footnote 8)
As explained in Section V, most of the comments focused on various aspects of the third category, legislative proposals involving a limitation on remedies. Almost every commenter who advocated a limitation-on-remedies system agreed that a fundamental requirement for designation of a work as orphaned is that the prospective user have conducted a search for the owner of the work, and that the search results in the owner not being located. The commenters differed in the types of searches they would consider adequate.
Many commenters were in favor of determining whether a search was reasonable on an ''ad hoc'' or case-by-case basis, whereby each search is evaluated according to its circumstances. This approach was offered as having the advantage of flexibility to cover the wide variety of situations that depend on the type of work and type of use involved. Several others were in favor of a ''formal'' approach, whereby the copyright owner is required to maintain his contact information in a centralized location, and a user need only search those centralized locations to perform a reasonable search. That approach was offered as being more certain than the ''ad hoc'' approach.
The commenters also discussed the role that registries would play in an orphan works system. Some proposed a mandatory registry for owner information, which was opposed by several commenters as reinstating the problematic features of the pre-1976 copyright law, and might violate international obligations related to formalities. Many commenters expressed support for voluntary registries of owner information that could be consulted by users in performing their reasonable searches. Some copyright owners expressed concern about even voluntary registries as not offering much efficiency in certain cases, such as photographs. Some commenters proposed that user registries be established in which a user would file a notice that he intends to use a work for which he cannot locate an owner. Both voluntary and mandatory user registries were proposed. Concerns were raised as to whether user registries were unnecessarily burdensome on owners, who might have to consult the registry frequently to monitor use of their copyrights.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other issues discussed by the commenters and described in Section V include whether the orphan works system should be limited based on the age of the work, on whether the work is unpublished, and on whether the work is of foreign origin. Many commenters expressed the view that none of these characteristics should disqualify any particular work; rather, these aspects of a work should be considered in the determination of whether the search for the owner was reasonable. Some commenters also proposed that the use of orphan works be limited to non-profit educational or cultural institutions.
Once a work has been designated as an orphan work, several comments addressed whether the user would have to pay any fees for the use of the work. A common suggestion was that the user be obligated to pay a reasonable license fee if the copyright owner surfaced after use began. Others proposed a low fixed statutory fee, such as $100 per work used, and another suggestion was the actual damages caused by the use be limited by a low statutory cap. Some participants favored the use of an escrow that users would pay into upon use of the orphan work, with that money distributed to owners if they surfaced.
If an owner does appear and claim infringement, most commenters agreed that some limitation on the remedies for infringement is essential to enabling the use of the work. Most agreed that statutory damages and attorneys fees should not be available, because those remedies create the most uncertainty in the minds of users. With respect to injunctive relief, many commenters proposed that the orphan work user be permitted to continue the use he had been making before the owner surfaced, but that new uses of the work remain subject to injunction and full copyright remedies.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Section VI of the Report contains the Copyright Office's conclusions and recommendations.(see footnote 9) Our conclusions are:
The orphan works problem is real.
The orphan works problem is elusive to quantify and describe comprehensively.
Some orphan works situations may be addressed by existing copyright law, but many are not.
Legislation is necessary to provide a meaningful solution to the orphan works problem as we know it today.
The Report recommends that the orphan works issue be addressed by an amendment to the Copyright Act's remedies section. The specific language we recommend is provided at the end of the Report.(see footnote 10)
In considering the orphan works issue and potential solutions, the Office has kept in mind three overarching and related goals. First, any system to deal with orphan works should seek primarily to make it more likely that a user can find the relevant owner in the first instance, and negotiate a voluntary agreement over permission and payment, if appropriate, for the intended use of the work. Second, where the user cannot identify and locate the copyright owner after a reasonably diligent search, then the system should permit that specific user to make use of the work, subject to provisions that would resolve issues that might arise if the owner surfaces after the use has commenced. In the roundtable discussions, there seemed to be a clear consensus that these two goals were appropriate objectives in addressing the orphan works issues. Finally, efficiency is another overarching consideration we have attempted to reflect, in that we believe our proposed orphan works solution is the least burdensome on all the relevant stakeholders, such as copyright owners, users and the federal government.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The proposed amendment follows the core concept that many commenters favored as a solution to the orphan works problem: if the user has performed a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner but is unable to locate that owner, then that user should enjoy the benefit of limitations on the remedies that a copyright owner could obtain against him if the owner showed up at a later date and sued for infringement. The recommendation has two main components:
the threshold requirements of a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner and attribution to the author and copyright owner; and
the limitation of remedies that would be available if the user proves that he conducted a reasonably diligent search.
The details of the recommendation are set out in Section VI, followed by a discussion of some other proposals that we considered carefully, but ultimately decided not to recommend.(see footnote 11)
A. The Reasonably Diligent Search Requirement
Subsection (a) sets out the basic qualification the user of the orphan work must meet—he must perform a ''reasonably diligent search'' and have been unable to locate the owner of the copyright in the work. Such a search must be completed before the use of the work that constitutes infringement begins. The user has the burden of proving the search that was performed and that it was reasonable, and each user must perform a search, although it may be reasonable under the circumstances for one user to rely in part on the search efforts of another user.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several commenters complained of the situation where a user identifies and locates the owner and tries to contact the owner for permission, but receives no response from the owner. They suggested that works in these situations should be considered orphan works. We have concluded that such a solution is not warranted, as it touches upon some fundamental principles of copyright, namely, the right of an author or owner to say no to a particular permission request, including the right to ignore permission requests. For this reason, once an owner is located, the orphan works provision becomes inapplicable.
The proposal adopts a very general standard for reasonably diligent search that will have to be applied on a case-by-case basis, accounting for all of the circumstances of the particular use. Such a standard is needed because of the wide variety of works and uses identified as being potentially subject to the orphan works issues, from an untitled photograph to an old magazine advertisement to an out-of-print novel to an antique postcard to an obsolete computer program. It was not possible for our Report to craft a standard that could be specific to all or even many of these circumstances. Moreover, the resources, techniques and technologies used to investigate the status of a work also differ among industry sectors and change over time, making it hard to specify the steps a user must take with any particularity.
Section VI contains a discussion of several factors that commenters identified as being relevant to the reasonableness of a search, including:
The amount of identifying information on the copy of the work itself, such as an author's name, copyright notice, or title;
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Whether the work had been made available to the public;
The age of the work, or the dates on which it was created and made available to the public;
Whether information about the work can be found in publicly available records, such as the Copyright Office records or other resources;
Whether the author is still alive, or the corporate copyright owner still exists, and whether a record of any transfer of the copyright exists and is available to the user; and
The nature and extent of the use, such as whether the use is commercial or noncommercial, and how prominently the work figures into the activity of the user.
Importantly, our recommendation does not exclude any particular type of work from its scope, such as unpublished works or foreign works. Section VI explains why we believe that unpublished works should not be excluded from this recommendation, and how the unpublished nature of a work might figure into a reasonable search determination.
Our recommendation permits, and we encourage, interested parties to develop guidelines for searches in different industry sectors and for different types of works. Most commentators were supportive of voluntary development of such guidelines. When asked whether the Copyright Office should have authority to embody guidelines in more formal, binding regulations to provide certainty, we were surprised to hear that most user groups—whom we thought would desire more certain rules for searches—opposed the Copyright Office issuing rules related to search criteria. Based on our desire to maintain flexibility in the reasonable search standard and this expressed opposition to formal rulemaking, we have not proposed that the orphan works legislation provide the Office with any rulemaking authority.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
B. The Attribution Requirement
We also recommend one other threshold requirement for a user to qualify for the orphan works limitations on remedies: throughout the use of the work, the user must provide attribution to the author and copyright owner of the work if such attribution is possible and as is reasonably appropriate under the circumstances. The idea is that the user, in the course of using a work for which he has not received explicit permission, should make it clear to the public that the work is the product of another author, and that the copyright in the work is owned by another. While only a handful of commenters proposed a requirement along these lines, we found several good reasons to support this requirement, described in Section VI, including the notion that attribution is critically important to authors, even those who consent to free use of their works. The requirement of attribution should be a flexible rule, and should not be interpreted in a strict way to create unnecessarily another obstacle to the use of orphan works.
C. Other Alternatives Considered
There were two other mechanisms proposed to help address the orphan works issue that we considered but ultimately concluded would not be appropriate to recommend at this time. First, as noted above, some commenters suggested that users should be required to file with the Copyright Office some public notice that they have conducted a reasonable search and intend to use an orphan work. While a centralized registry of user certifications or notice of intent to use sounds promising on the surface, upon closer examination there are potential pitfalls that outweigh the benefits at this time, for reasons that we describe in Section VI.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other mechanism proposed by some commenters is a requirement that orphan works users pay into an escrow before commencing use. In our view, an escrow requirement in an ''ad hoc'' reasonable search system like we recommend would be highly inefficient. Every user would be required to make payment, but in the vast majority of cases, no copyright owner would resurface to claim the funds, which means the system would not in most cases actually facilitate payments between owners and users of orphan works. We are sympathetic to the concerns of individual authors about the high cost of litigation and how, in many cases, the individual creator may have little practical recourse in obtaining relief through the court system. We believe that consideration of new procedures to address this situation, such as establishment of a ''small claims'' or other inexpensive dispute resolution procedure, would be an important issue for further study by Congress.
D. Limitation on Remedies
If a user meets his burden of demonstrating that he performed a reasonably diligent search and provided reasonable attribution to the author and copyright owner, then the recommended amendment would limit the remedies available in that infringement action in two primary ways: First, it would limit monetary relief to only reasonable compensation for the use, with an elimination of any monetary relief where the use was noncommercial and the user ceases the infringement expeditiously upon notice. Second, the proposal would limit the ability of the copyright owner to obtain full injunctive relief in cases where the user has transformed the orphan work into a derivative work like a motion picture or book, preserving the user's ability to continue to exploit that derivative work. In all other cases, the court would be instructed to minimize the harm to the user that an injunction might impose, to protect the user's interests in relying on the orphan works provision in making use of the work.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Monetary Relief
A vast majority of the commenters in our study agreed that the prospect of a large monetary award from an infringement claim, such as an award of statutory damages and attorneys' fees, was a substantial deterrent to users who wanted to make use of an orphan work, even where the likelihood of a claim being brought was extremely low. Most of the proposals for addressing the orphan works problem called for clear limitations on the statutory damages and attorneys' fees remedies in cases involving orphan works. Our recommendation follows this suggestion by limiting the possible monetary relief in these cases to only ''reasonable compensation,'' which is intended to represent the amount the user would have paid to the owner had they engaged in negotiations before the infringing use commenced. In most cases it would equal a reasonable license fee, as that concept is discussed in recent copyright case law.
While many commenters supported a general remedy like ''reasonable compensation,'' some expressed concern about the impact that any monetary remedy at all might have on their ability to go forward and use orphan works. For example, museum representatives explained that they would like to use hundreds or even thousands of orphan works in their collections, so the potential of even a minimal monetary award for each work, would, in their view, be prohibitive. Libraries and archives made similar observations, noting their desire to make large collections of orphan works accessible.
In our view, a general standard of reasonable compensation is the right solution to this problem, for several reasons. First, with respect to the concern about a chilling effect of any monetary remedy, it must be noted that in nearly all cases where a diligent search has been performed, the likelihood of a copyright owner resurfacing should be very low, so that no claim for compensation is ever made. Second, it should be clear that ''reasonable compensation'' may, in appropriate circumstances, be found to be zero, or a royalty-free license, if the comparable transactions in the marketplace support such a finding. Our discussions with museums, universities and libraries indicated that in many orphan works situations a low or zero royalty is likely to be the reasonable compensation.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, to make absolutely sure that the concerns of nonprofit institutions like libraries, museums and universities about monetary relief are assuaged, we recommend an additional limitation on monetary relief where the user is making a non-commercial use of the work and expeditiously ceases the infringement after receiving notice of the infringement claim. In that case, there should be no monetary relief at all. Libraries, archives and museums indicated that posting material on the Internet was a primary use they would like to make of orphan works, and that they would take down any material if a copyright owner resurfaced. This additional provision provides certainty about their exposure in that circumstance. If the organization wishes to continue making use of the work, it would have to pay reasonable compensation for its past use, and, as described below, for future use of the work.
2. Injunctive Relief
In addition to the limits on monetary relief, several commenters in this proceeding suggested that limitations on injunctive relief were needed as well. Most specifically, users who would like to create derivative works based on orphan works, most notably filmmakers and book publishers, stressed that the fear of an untimely injunction—brought just as the book was heading to stores, or just before release of the film—provides enough uncertainty that many choose not use the work, even though the likelihood of such injunction is small.
In light of these comments, we recommend that injunctive relief for infringement of an orphan work be limited in two ways. First, where the orphan work has been incorporated into a derivative work that also includes significant expression of the user, then injunctive relief will not be available to stop the use of the derivative work, provided the user pays reasonable compensation to the copyright owner. Second, in all other cases, full injunctive relief is available, but the court must account for and accommodate any reliance interest of the user that might be harmed by an injunction. For example a full injunction will still be available where a user simply republishes an orphan work, or posts it on the Internet without transformation of the content.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
E. Administrative Provisions
We also recommend two other administrative provisions. First, a savings clause that makes clear that nothing in the new section on orphan works affects rights and limitations to copyright elsewhere in the Copyright Act, which is consistent with the structural approach of placing the provision in the remedies chapter. Second, we recommend that the provision sunset after ten years, which will allow Congress to examine whether and how the orphan works provision is working in practice, and whether any changes are needed.
F. International Context
The Notice of Inquiry asked questions about how any proposed solution to the orphan works issue would comport with the United States' international obligations in the various copyright treaties. Our recommendation does not exclude foreign works from its scope, so it must comport with the United States' international copyright obligations. We believe that one of the primary advantages of the ad hoc, reasonably diligent search approach is that it is fully compliant with international obligations.
G. Application to Types of Uses
To further explain how our recommendation would work in practice, Section VI takes the four general categories of users described in Section III and describes how the recommended limitation on remedies would apply in each scenario.(see footnote 12) The Section describes how the Subsequent Creator, Large-Scale Access User, Enthusiast User and Personal User would proceed under the recommendation. We believe that nearly all orphan work situations are encompassed by one of those four categories, so that if our recommendation resolves these users' concerns in a satisfactory way, it will likely be a comprehensive solution to the orphan works situation.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
VI. REACTIONS TO THE REPORT
The reactions we have heard to our Report, for the most part, have been overwhelmingly positive. A broad array of copyright owners and copyright users: book publishers, libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions, record companies, motion picture studios, independent filmmakers, software publishers and others, have praised the Report and support the basic concept and structure of the proposed legislation. Several of these groups have pointed out specific features of our recommendation that might create unintended consequences, or suggested modifications to the language to address specific concerns.
In this section of the testimony, we comment on some of these reactions and suggestions. As noted in the Report, we proposed specific legislative language to help clarify our conclusions and recommendations by giving interested parties a more concrete understanding of what our conclusions entail. We also recognized that interested parties might have suggested revisions that would improve the clarity of the text or avoid unintended consequences of the language that we proposed.(see footnote 13) In other words, we recognize that our proposal is likely a starting point for legislation to address orphan works, and would be pleased to work with the Committee, its staff and interested parties on modifying that language. In general, however, these groups are supportive of the overall approach, and the proposed changes are issues that very likely can be resolved with further discussion, and which will result in compromise draft legislation supported by the vast majority of copyright owner and user interests.
A. The Problem of Photographs and Other Visual Images
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The one exception to the broad support for our proposed legislation involves certain groups representing individual copyright owners of visual works, such as photographers, illustrators, and graphic artists. They oppose our proposal, which was not unexpected, as many of them filed comments in our proceeding recommending that no change be made to the law to address the orphan works problem. They argue that many, if not most, of their works will be inaccurately labeled orphan works, because it is difficult and often impossible to find the copyright owner of a visual image, usually because the name of the creator is not on the copies of the works distributed to the public. Moreover, existing sources of ownership information are text-based and often not useful if the user only has the work, and not any other information about the work, before him.
In other words, these groups concede the very problem that is at the heart of the Report—a user seeking to locate a photographer or illustrator of an image that has no identifying information on the work itself faces a daunting challenge. The Copyright Office registration records are text-based, and in most cases registration records do not contain much, if any, description of the subject matter of the image. Indeed, efforts by the Office to accommodate photographers by making it easier to register photographs (e.g., the recent regulations permitting group registration of published photographs), while responding to complaints from photographers about the difficulties they have had in registering their works, have probably made the registration system less useful for determining copyright ownership of particular photographs. So even if a photographer has registered his works with the Copyright Office, it may be the case that a user will not be able locate that owner.
Our proposal anticipates and provides safeguards for this situation in a number of ways, primarily by preserving meaningful remedies for owners of works that might be subject to the orphan works legislation. First, in most cases, including all commercial uses, the user of an orphan work is obligated to pay the copyright owner ''reasonable compensation'' for the use prior to the time the owner resurfaces. Also, the user will not generally not be able to continue making the use after the owner asserts his copyright, unless the user meets the requirements of Section 514(b)(2)(A), and even in that case will be required to pay reasonable compensation to the owner going forward. And in order for noncommercial users to avoid the requirement of reasonable compensation, they must cease the infringement expeditiously after the owner assert his rights, thus preserving future exploitation to the owner's exclusive rights.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite being entitled to ''reasonable compensation'' and these remedies in most orphan work cases, photographers oppose the proposal because they claim that bringing a lawsuit to collect this compensation will be prohibitively expensive. We agree that legal actions to enforce copyrights in visual images are expensive for individual creators, just as any access to our court system is costly. However, this problem exists for copyrighted visual images regardless of whether orphan works legislation is passed or not. Moreover, there are non-legal actions that the photographers, illustrators and similar creators can take to enforce and exploit their copyrights, and at the same time, help eliminate the possibility that their works would fall into the orphan works system.
As a practical matter, a marketplace of licenses and permissions for use of photographs simply cannot exist where potential buyers cannot find the sellers of rights in visual images. Creators of visual images need to address the problem first and foremost, and primarily through non-legal actions—through more consistent marking of copies of their works, through development of mechanisms like collective licensing organizations that can provide ownership and licensing information to users, and by deploying technology to allow searches for owners where the user only has the image and no contextual information. Steps like these will help individual owners enforce and receive payment for their copyrighted images, and, at the same time, ensure that they are locatable and that their works do not become orphan works. It is important that any legislative solution to address orphan works include photographs and other visual images within its scope to resolve the numerous orphan works problems that exist with these types of works. Moreover, failing to include such works in the scope of the legislation would likely allow visual image copyright owners to avoid resolving these more fundamental problems with non-legal, marketplace reforms.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As to the legal actions that individual creators can take to enforce their rights, our Report acknowledges the real obstacle faced by photographers and other individual copyright owners from the expense of infringement lawsuits. We agree that a more efficient dispute resolution procedure, such as a ''small claims'' procedure for copyright infringement claims involving relatively small damage amounts, would offer individual owners better access to legal protection of their rights. Such a procedure would also allow these owners to obtain the ''reasonable compensation'' they would be due under our orphan works proposal even if their works fall into the orphan category. We would be pleased to work with the Subcommittee and interested parties in exploring possible new procedures. It should be noted, however, that the key to creating a more efficient marketplace for copyrighted visual images is not increased litigation, but making it easier for owners and users to find each other, which our orphan works proposal encourages.
In sum, we understand the concerns of photographers and other visual image creators. They face difficulties exploiting their copyright, particularly in light of new technology like the Internet, and solutions to those problems, both legal and non-legal, should be explored and developed. That fact, however, does not deny that there is a very real problem of orphan works that needs to be addressed, and those issues should not delay Congress in its consideration and enactment of orphan works legislation.
B. Other Comments and Suggestions
The other comments and suggestions we have received concern specific provisions in the Report's proposed language. First, some groups remain concerned that a general standard of ''reasonable compensation'' might result in high damage awards that would discourage use of orphan works. For reasons set out in the Report, we think this concern is unfounded, particularly in light of the exception that limits monetary relief to no compensation where the use is noncommercial and the user ceases the infringement when the owner resurfaces.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One suggestion made to address this issue is for the statute to define ''reasonable compensation'' with language from the Report that specifies that it ''would equal what a reasonable willing buyer and reasonable willing seller in the positions of the owner and user would have agreed to at the time the use commenced, based predominantly by reference to evidence of comparable marketplace transactions.''(see footnote 14) We agree that including language like this in the legislation would be a helpful clarification. We also believe that legislative history providing examples of how reasonable compensation would be determined in different circumstances would also be helpful.
On the related question of whether the orphan work user's activity is done ''without direct or indirect commercial advantage,'' which would make that user potentially eligible for no monetary relief, our Report attempts to recognize that some non-profit organizations engage in different types of activity, some of which is commercial and some non-commercial. Museums and other nonprofit organizations have asserted that their activities involving the sale of books or other items using copyrighted materials are simply a matter of ''cost recovery'' and should not be considered commercial for the purposes of our proposal. We cannot accept that proposition categorically, especially where the institution has paid other located copyright owners for the use of their works in the same book or product that contains the orphan work. Nevertheless, we agree the drawing lines between situations is difficult, and look forward to working with museums and others on illustrative examples that can be used in the legislative history to help draw those lines.
Second, some groups have expressed concern with our requirement that the orphan work user attribute the author and copyright owner during their use of the work. Specifically, museums and others have said that determining the copyright owner, as opposed to the author, is often difficult and confusing, and therefore it should not be required. In our view, however, as the Report explains, attributing the copyright owner, if possible, is an important piece of information that other users and the public should be able to learn from the orphan work user. It also will increase the likelihood that the owner will surface after use begins and voluntary agreement over the use can be reached. If the user is unsure of who owns the copyright, then it may not be possible for him to attribute the copyright owner. Also, the manner of attribution should be determined as is reasonable under the circumstances. These two considerations, embodied in our proposal, account for the concerns expressed about attributing the copyright owner, and thus it should remain a requirement.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, with respect to injunctive relief provision of proposed Section 514(b)(2)(A), some have expressed concern about what types of works would be included in that provision. Specifically, some are concerned that the use of the term ''derivative work'' might not be broad enough to encompass works that our Report explains should be included—the historical book which includes photographs or the inclusion of a sculpture in a scene of a motion picture—because these works do not necessarily ''transform'' or alter the underlying orphan work. As we note in the Report, the concept behind this provision—with which we have not heard disagreement—was to capture the situation where the user creates a new work that relies to a significant extent on the underlying orphan work, as contrasted with the situation where the user merely republishes the orphan work, either alone or as part of a compilation. We agree that the language in this section could be more clear, and would be pleased to work with interested parties on ways it could be amended to better reflect the concept that underlies it.
Fourth, several groups have expressed concerned about the sunset provision, and have questioned how it applies where a use begins before the 10-year period is over but continues afterward. It was our intent to allow any user who begins use in reliance on the proposed Section 514 before the 10-year period is over to be able to benefit from the provision, even after the 10-year period ends. Changing the word ''occurring'' to ''commencing'' would help make that clear, and we would be pleased to discuss further changes to clarify this point. As to whether a sunset provision is appropriate, it is likely that at least some minor—and perhaps some major—adjustments to the orphan works legislation will be advisable after we have had a few years' worth of experience with it.(see footnote 15) We certainly do not believe that the provisions of the orphan works legislation should actually expire. But without a sunset provision, it may be difficult to persuade a future Congress to modify the existing legislation if it is deemed to be ''good enough.'' Requiring reauthorization after a reasonable number of years will ensure that Congress will, as a practical matter, have little choice but to ask itself at that point whether and how the existing regime can be improved.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As noted above, we would be pleased to work with the Committee, its staff and the interested parties on these or any other issues related to our proposal. We have been greatly encouraged by the generally positive reaction so far, and hope that balanced, comprehensive and effective legislation to address this important issue can be introduced and enacted in the near future.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Sigall.
Mr. Adler.
TESTIMONY OF ALLAN ADLER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR LEGAL AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC.
Mr. ADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berman, Ms. Lofgren.
As both users and producers of copyrighted works, book publishers have considerable experience with the frustration caused by the orphan works problem in seeing necessary permissions to incorporate photos, illustrations, and other discrete third-party copyrighted works into the histories, biographies, and other kinds of literary works they publish. AAP was gratified to learn that the Copyright Office report recommended the same basic framework that the book publishing community has proposed, and we have been hopeful of reaching a consensus since learning that representatives of the library, higher education, museums, and scholarly society communities have endorsed an initiative that was strikingly similar to the AAP proposal in almost all key respects.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In general, we think the Copyright Office did an excellent job in its report, wisely rejecting a variety of orphan work proposals that seemed excessively complex, discriminatory, costly, or bureaucratic in favor of advocating a relatively straightforward flexible and self-executing scheme. By its terms, the Copyright Office proposal may be viewed as a fine-tuning of statutory law because it would not impose any new prerequisites for registration or enforcement of copyright or in any way affect the duration of copyright, the scope of copyright liability, or the applicability of fair use or other defenses against infringement.
However, AAP, like other orphan works stakeholders, does have some concerns about the Copyright Office's draft statutory language to implement its recommendations. With respect to the important issue of the conduct of a reasonably diligent search, AAP generally agrees with the Copyright Office approach and we think that the Copyright Office has provided helpful explanations and examples in its report which should be included in legislative history to inform how the analysis and factors will be employed in determining whether a particular search satisfies the statutory standard, but we have some questions regarding when it should be appropriate for an orphan work user to qualify for the statutory limitation on remedies in reliance on the results of a previous third-party search rather than a user's own reasonably diligent search, and we think that we need further detail in the statutory language and explanations and legislative history on three sets of issues:
First, clarifying that a reasonably diligent search conducted by the user's employees acting within the scope of their employment or by a third-party acting in an agency capacity on behalf of the user should qualify the user for statutory limitation on remedies in the same way as would a search conducted by a user.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, we want to clarify that any person who engages in a related infringing use of the same work as the user who conducted a reasonably diligent search should qualify for the statutory limitations on remedies based on the user's search without conducting their own reasonably diligent search at least where the related infringing use occurs pursuant to a license from the user or the user's licensee. The example in our industry would be if an author has conducted the reasonably diligent search, we would hope that the publisher, the printer, the licensee who is authorized to do paperback versions of the book would not all have to do their own separate reasonably diligent searches in order to rely on the limitation of remedies.
Third, there is the important other situation of so-called piggybacking on a previously conducted search, but in those instances, there would be a second user of the work who is not tied in any way to the original user by a license or other basis for asserting the claim of legal privity and the use of the work by the second user would be different from and unrelated to the use of the work by the original user. Our concern there is that if the standard is simply one of reasonableness under the circumstances, that may lead second users to do nothing other than determine whether a previous reasonably diligent search has been conducted by another user in which case they would perpetuate a mistaken notion that orphan works is a designation which adheres to the work in question and creates a status for the work that governs all of its future uses by any users. This would be contrary to the more accurate and appropriate view that orphan works designation actually applies to the work only in connection with a particular use by particular user or users.
The attribution requirement that the Copyright Office would also require in order for the user to be able to rely upon the statutory limitation of remedies is somewhat troubling. The attribution requirement, predictably in these kinds of cases if we are trying to identify the author and the copyright owner, will be not terribly reliable, and in those circumstances, we are concerned that requiring attribution as a condition for obtaining the limitation on remedies is likely to mean that an emerging copyright owner will sue and basically attack the attribution to make the individual user not subject to the limitation on remedies. So we would hope that this could be clarified.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are other respects in which we would hope to be able to clarify the plan proposed by the Copyright Office. We would hope most of that could be done through examples and illustrations contained in legislative history while retaining a fairly simple statutory framework for orphan works treatment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adler follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLAN ADLER
Thank you for inviting me to appear here today on behalf of the Association of American Publishers (''AAP'') to discuss the U.S. Copyright Office ''Report on Orphan Works.''
As you may know, AAP is the principal national trade association of the U.S. book publishing industry, representing some 300 member companies and organizations that include most of the major commercial book and journal publishers in the United States, as well as many small and non-profit publishers, university presses and scholarly societies. AAP members publish hardcover and paperback books and journals in every field of human interest. In addition to publishing print materials, many AAP members are active in the emerging market for ebooks, and also produce computer programs, databases, Web sites and a variety of multimedia works for use in online and other digital formats.
BACKGROUND
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
AAP has been on the public record urging the need to resolve the problem of ''orphan works'' at least since the proceedings that resulted in the issuance of the Copyright Office ''Report on Copyright and Digital Distance Education'' in May 1999. Book publishers understand the central issue to concern how U.S. copyright law might permit uses of a copyrighted work that implicate the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, when the uses are not authorized by any of the statutory limitations or exceptions applicable to such rights and the would-be users cannot locate the copyright owner in order to obtain required permission.
As both users and producers of copyrighted works, book publishers have a fundamental interest in advocating the widespread availability and use of copyrighted works consistent with established principles of copyright law. They also have considerable experience in seeking necessary permissions to incorporate photographs, illustrations and other discrete, third-party copyrighted works into the histories, biographies and other kinds of copyrighted literary works they publish.
For these reasons, book publishers fully understand the frustration that can arise when the desire to incorporate a third-party work as part of a new work being prepared for publication is thwarted by a concern over potential infringement liability based not on the copyright owner's refusal to authorize such use of the third-party work but on the inability of the publisher—or author—of the new work to locate that copyright owner in order to request the permission that is necessary to legally make the intended use.
When the Copyright Office invited public comment on ''orphan works'' in a ''Notice of Inquiry'' published early last year, AAP (working jointly with the Association of American University Presses and the Software and Information Industry Association) submitted Comments and Reply Comments that urged modest revisions in copyright law to mitigate the risk of infringement liability, and thereby encourage otherwise infringing uses of copyrighted works, in the typical ''orphan works'' situation where permission for use is required by law but cannot be obtained due to the user's inability to locate the copyright owner. AAP and several member publishers subsequently participated in the public roundtable discussions of ''orphan works'' that were conducted by the Copyright Office.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS
When the Copyright Office published its ''Report on Orphan Works'' in January of this year, AAP was gratified to learn that the Report recommended the same basic framework that the book publishing community had proposed for dealing with the ''orphan works'' problem. AAP had been hopeful that a consensus would grow around that basic framework after its review of submitted Comments and Reply Comments made clear that numerous representatives of the library, higher education, museum and scholarly society communities had endorsed a proposal from the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic at American University that was strikingly similar to the AAP proposal in almost all key aspects.
In general, AAP believes that the Copyright Office did an excellent job of evaluating the diverse ideas that were proposed in submitted Comments and Reply Comments regarding how the uncertain status of ''orphan works'' might be addressed so that users of such works will not be needlessly discouraged from incorporating them in new creative efforts or making them available to the public.
From the perspective of the book publishing community, the Copyright Office wisely rejected a variety of proposed ''orphan works'' schemes that seemed excessively complex, discriminatory, costly or bureaucratic, in favor of advocating a relatively simple, uniform, flexible and self-executing way of addressing the problem. Its minimalist approach seems calculated to require the fewest possible changes to current U.S. copyright law, no impact on U.S. obligations under international copyright agreements, and the least possible bureaucratic impact on governmental entities, as well as on owners and users of copyrighted works. By its terms, it may be characterized as a ''fine tuning'' of statutory law that would not impose any new prerequisites for registration or enforcement of copyright, or in any way affect the duration of copyright, the scope of copyright liability, or the applicability of ''fair use'' or other defenses against infringement.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The core concept of the Copyright Office recommendation, which also constitutes the basic premise of the proposal advanced by AAP, is fairly straightforward:
If the infringing user of a copyrighted work has first performed a reasonably diligent but, ultimately, unsuccessful search to locate the copyright owner to obtain permission before engaging in an infringing use of the work, then that infringing user generally would be entitled to have the benefit of limitations on the compensation and injunctive remedies that the copyright owner could obtain if the owner turns up subsequent to the commencement of such infringing use and sues on the grounds of infringement.
Clearly, however, the Copyright Office draft legislative language, despite or, perhaps, because of its relative brevity, is already generating concerns regarding the potential implications of an enacted statutory scheme for different ''orphan works'' stakeholders, including book publishers.
For example:
Reasonably Diligent Search: AAP generally agrees with the Copyright Office that its requirement for the user to conduct a ''good faith, reasonably diligent search'' to locate the copyright owner, as one of two threshold eligibility requirements to qualify for the limitations on remedies, should be deermined on a case-by-case basis measured against a flexible standard of reasonableness in the totality of the circumstances. Moreover, in our view, the Copyright Office Report contains a number of helpful explanations and examples that clarify the kind of analysis and factors to be employed in determining whether a particular ''search'' satisfies the statutory standard. The inclusion of this guidance in the legislative history of the related statutory language, combined with the prospect that private stakeholders will develop and highlight the availability of voluntary guidelines and ownership information resources on a sector-by-sector basis within the communities that use and produce copyrighted works, should make it unnecessary for Congress to provide a more detailed treatment of the standard in statutory language, especially if the legislative history is further developed to address other issues related to the meaning of the standard issue.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, with respect to the question of when it should be appropriate for a would-be user to be eligible for the limitations on remedies in reliance upon the results of a previous third-party search, rather than the user's own search efforts, AAP believes further detail in the statutory language, as well as explanations in the legislative history, may be warranted to address three sets of issues.
First, it should be made clear that a reasonably diligent search conducted by a would-be user's employees acting within the scope of their employment, or by a third-party acting in an agency capacity on behalf of the user, will qualify the user for the statutory limitations on remedies in the same way as would such a search conducted by the user. Enactment of the proposed ''orphan works'' scheme will create new business opportunities in the marketplace for third parties offering professional search services, and AAP believes the statutory language itself should anticipate such a development.
Second, it should be made clear that any person who engages in a related infringing use of the same work as the user who conducted a reasonably diligent search, should be able to qualify for the limitations on remedies based on the user's search where the related infringing use occurs pursuant to a license from the user or the user's licensee. For example, if the original user of the ''orphan work'' is an author who incorporates the work into a new work pursuant to conducting a search that meets the statutory standard, then the publisher of the new work, as well as the publisher's distributors and licensees, would also qualify for the limitations on remedies without having to each conduct their own search for the copyright owner of the original work. AAP urges that this form of ''piggybacking'' on a previously-conducted search should be addressed in the statutory language, with legislative history providing additional explanation and examples to clarify the kind of ''related'' infringing uses and users that would qualify for such reliance.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, if possible, the statutory language should address other instances of potential ''piggybacking'' on previously-conducted searches that will arise in situations where the second user of the work is not tied to the original user by any license or other basis for asserting a claim of legal privity, and the use of the work by the second user is different from and unrelated to the use of the work by the original user.
In its consideration of permissible reliance in the context of unrelated uses, the Copyright Office has taken the view that ''the test is whether it was reasonable under the circumstances for that second user to do so—there should not be any per se rule preventing or permitting one user's 'piggybacking' on another's search.'' See Report, p. 96–97. While AAP is sympathetic to the idea of applying an objective ''reasonableness'' standard in these determinations, there is a real danger that this view of the second user's ability to use the work under the protection of the limitations on remedies may lead such users, as a matter of practice, to not make any independent effort to locate the copyright owner other than to determine whether a previous search was conducted by another user. This could have the unfortunate effect of perpetuating the mistaken notion that ''orphan work'' is a designation which, once applied, adheres to the work in question and creates a status for that work that governs all of its future uses by all users, instead of reflecting the more accurate and appropriate notion that the designation applies to the work only in connection with a particular use by a particular user or users.
AAP does not suggest that a subsequent unrelated user should never be permitted to reasonably rely on the results of a previous search conducted by another user. However, we urge that any treatment of this issue should avoid conveying the idea that a subsequent user would qualify for the limitations on remedies simply by reference to the previous search efforts of another user. The statutory language and supporting legislative history should make clear that, as a general rule, the responsibility to conduct a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner prior to using an ''orphan work'' attaches to each use of the work, rather than to each user. This will help to ensure that a reasonable legal process established to provide for the use of ''orphan works'' without undue risks of infringement liability will not degenerate into a means by which such works are treated, in common practice, as though they were no longer subject to copyright protection.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Attribution: In addition to conducting a ''good faith, reasonably diligent search'' for the copyright owner, the Copyright Office recommendation requires that an infringing user of an ''orphan work'' must, ''throughout the course of the infringement, provide attribution to the author and copyright owner of the work, if possible and as appropriate under the circumstances,'' in order to qualify for the limitations on remedies. Insofar as U.S. copyright law contains no general requirement for attribution when third-party works are used, it is unclear why attribution should be required for a use under ''orphan work'' treatment, especially since the ''orphan work'' situation will predictably be one in which the accuracy of any attribution to the copyright owner frequently will be inherently suspect.
In justifying its attribution requirement as a condition for obtaining the limitations on remedies, the Copyright Office claims that such notice will facilitate market transactions by alerting the author and copyright owner to the use of their work; preserve the author's ability to pursue ''moral rights''-type interests in the work; curb abusive use of such works under the ''orphan works'' scheme; and not impose undue burdens on the user. But, given the circumstances in which such notice will be provided, it is likely that the provided attribution in many instances may be more misleading than informative.
The Copyright Office explains in its Report that the purpose of the attribution is not so much to identify the actual author or copyright owner, but to ''make it as clear as possible to the public that the work is the product of another author, and that the copyright is owned by another.'' See Report, p. 110. It also urges that the attribution requirement ''should be a flexible rule, and should not be interpreted in a strict way to unnecessarily create another obstacle'' to an ''orphan works'' use. See Report, p. 112. But, while the inclusion of such comments in the legislative history will be helpful to ensure that, as the Copyright Office states, ''formalistic errors or similar omissions in the attribution should not be cause to disqualify the user from the orphan works category,'' AAP remains concerned that requiring attribution as a condition for obtaining the limitations on remedies could make a questionable attribution a litigation target for an emergent copyright owner who may want to challenge the infringing user's entitlement to such protection, notwithstanding the user's satisfaction of the ''reasonably diligent search'' requirement. Congress should consider whether, in light of these concerns, if attribution is to be required at all pursuant to the ''reasonable under the circumstances'' standard urged by the Copyright Office, it should not be made a condition for obtaining the limitations on remedies.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Limitations on Remedies: Overall, AAP believes the Copyright Office has done a good job in developing and articulating proposed ''limitations on remedies'' policies. Its handling of the availability of ''reasonable compensation'' for the copyright owner who comes forward subsequent to the commencement of a qualifying ''orphan work'' use seems fair and reasonable in most respects, as does its approach to the availability of injunctive relief. However, AAP does have a few concerns about the Copyright Office recommendations.
Limitation on Remedies—Monetary Relief: Inherent in the very concept of ''orphan work'' treatment, as urged by AAP and recommended by the Copyright Office, is the expectation that the issue of ''reasonable compensation'' is unlikely to arise in the vast majority of cases. If the ''reasonably diligent search'' requirements for obtaining limitations of remedies are implemented in good faith by would-be users of ''orphan works,'' such users will seldom, if ever, subsequently encounter a claim for monetary relief by the copyright owner. Nevertheless, in those cases where a copyright owner does subsequently surface, the point of the ''reasonable compensation'' provision is to put the owner and user, to the greatest extent possible, in the respective positions they would have occupied in an ordinary marketplace negotiation occurring prior to the infringing use, where the amount paid to the owner by the user would represent what a reasonable willing user would have paid a reasonable willing owner based on knowledge and evidence of comparable marketplace transactions.
However, the copyright owners of certain types of works are apparently concerned that the proposed implementation of the limitations-on-remedies principle, which would eliminate the availability of an award of attorney fees and costs to the emergent copyright owner, as well as the availability of actual or statutory damages, may not provide sufficient economic incentive for them to pursue a claim of infringement in circumstances where the infringing user unreasonably refuses to pay reasonable compensation to the owner. For this reason, in the interest of fairness, AAP would support a revision of the Copyright Office's proposed statutory language that would give the federal courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff-owner if the court finds that such fees and costs were incurred as the result of bad faith or other unreasonable behavior on the part of the infringing user in dealing with an owner's request for reasonable compensation.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, even if they are not defined in statutory language, AAP would urge Congress to make sure that the practical meaning and application of ''reasonable compensation,'' ''direct or indirect commercial advantage,'' and other key terms that establish the limitations on monetary relief in the statutory scheme are fully explained in legislative history. Among other things, the legislative history should make clear that actions by the infringing user other than selling copies of the infringed work may constitute ''commercial advantage,'' and that the provision's purpose in providing a safe harbor for infringing uses ''performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage'' is not to lay a foundation for the assertion of a general ''personal use'' or ''private use'' exemption from infringement liability but only to effectuate the limitations on remedies for non-profit infringing uses that qualify for ''orphan work'' treatment, regardless of whether the user is an individual or an entity.
Limitation on Remedies—Injunctive Relief: AAP generally supports the distinctions that are drawn in the Copyright Office proposed statutory language regarding the availability of injunctive relief. However, AAP believes that the attempt by the Copyright Office to use the concept of ''derivative works'' in describing the circumstances where injunctive relief may not be awarded to ''restrain the infringer's continued preparation and use'' of a new work that ''recasts, transforms or adapts'' the infringed work is awkward, confusing and inconsistent with the kind of results that the Copyright Office seeks to effectuate as described in its Report. For example, although the discussion in the body of the Report clearly contemplates that this limitation shall apply where the infringed work is a photo or manuscript that the infringing user incorporates into a new literary work, such a use of the infringed work does not constitute the creation of a ''derivative work'' based on that infringed work. Moreover, it is questionable as to whether the concept of ''incorporation'' of the infringed work into a new work is in any meaningful way captured by the terms in the draft statutory language that characterize how the use of the infringed work in connection with the new work affects the infringed work (i.e., it is not clear that such use ''recasts, transforms or adapts'' the infringed work).
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
AAP believes that these issues are more drafting problems than disagreements over the concept of limiting injunctive relief, and believes they can be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the Copyright Office recommendation in this area. However, there is another issue regarding the limitation on injunctive relief that was not addressed in the Copyright Office report but warrants your consideration.
AAP believes that a serious problem of unfairness to copyright owners and, potentially, for U.S. adherence to its international treaty obligations will arise if State entities are permitted to claim the proposed ''limitation of remedies'' protection for their attempts to engage in ''orphan works'' use.
As the result of a series of federal court decisions on the sovereign immunity of States under the Eleventh Amendment, State entities cannot be liable for monetary damages resulting from their acts of copyright infringement. They may, however, be subject to injunctions prohibiting further infringing use of copyrighted works. Since the proposed ''orphan work'' scheme would, in some circumstances, allow the copyright owner of the infringed work to obtain monetary damages (in terms of court-determined ''reasonable compensation'') but not injunctions, letting State entities avail themselves of the ''orphan work'' scheme would mean that a copyright owner who comes forward to confront a State entity that is an infringing user would be unable to get either an injunction (under the ''orphan works'' scheme) or, if the State entity balks at providing ''reasonable compensation,'' a monetary award (under the existing case law) and, thus, would be left with no recourse. This would be a patently unfair result, which almost certainly would violate U.S. obligations under the TRIPs Agreement, among others. Accordingly, in order to avoid this situation, the ''orphan work'' scheme should not be available to limit injunctive relief against a State entity unless the State is willing to waive its sovereign immunity in connection with its entities' ''orphan works'' uses.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sunset: The Copyright Office recommendation would ''sunset'' the ''orphan works'' scheme 10 years after the date of enactment. This makes no sense to AAP because the impact of such a ''sunset'' requirement is likely to be extremely disruptive to infringing users who have relied on the protection of the statutory ''orphan works'' scheme for ongoing infringing uses of infringed works. If the goal of the ''sunset'' requirement is to permit Congress to evaluate the way in which the ''orphan works'' scheme has operated, it makes more sense to impose a ''Report to Congress'' requirement whereby the Copyright Office can conduct its evaluation and report its findings to Congress without creating problems for infringing users in their reliance on ''orphan works'' treatment of their infringements.
Effective Date: Although the issue of an effective date for implementation of the statutory ''orphan works'' scheme was not addressed by the Copyright Office, AAP believes the effective date should be the date of enactment. However, we understand that some stakeholders may want to delay the effective date for implementation in order to provide time for their communities to become familiar with the intended operation of the enacted scheme, and to develop the voluntary guidelines and owner information resources that will help facilitate a fair and efficient implementation of ''orphan works'' treatment. Accordingly, AAP would not be opposed to a delayed effective date of one year after the date of enactment.
Conclusion
AAP is aware of problems that photographers, museums and certain other users and producers of copyrighted works claim the Copyright Office proposal will cause for their constituencies. Some of these stakeholder concerns may require only a tweaking of the Copyright Office draft legislative language so that it more accurately reflects and properly implements certain policy and operational objectives that are specifically discussed in the body of the Report; others, however, may require dealing with more organic complaints regarding the overall Copyright Office proposal and its alleged inadequacies from the perspective of these and other communities of users or producers of copyrighted works.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Book publishers are ready, willing and able to work with Congress, the Copyright Office and all interested stakeholders to refine the Copyright Office draft legislative language and implement its underlying core concept for addressing the ''orphan works'' problem. In the interest of avoiding the pitfalls of attempting to craft unnecessarily lengthy and detailed statutory language, AAP urges that efforts to resolve outstanding issues should focus, wherever appropriate and to the greatest extent possible, on the creation of a negotiated consensus legislative history that incorporates specific examples and illustrations to clarify the purpose and intended operation of the ''orphan works'' statutory scheme.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to present AAP's views on the Copyright Office ''Report on Orphan Works.''
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Adler.
Mr. Trust.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID TRUST, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. TRUST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Berman and Members of the Committee, we thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the Copyright's report on orphan works. As you mentioned, I'm here representing Professional Photographers of America. We have also received endorsement or support from the American Society of Media Photographers, our good friends there. The Picture Archives Council of America, and the American Society of Picture Professionals have each contacted us separately to endorse the statement that we are about to make.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The 130,000 professional photographers in the United States are quite literally the copyright owner next door, earning on average less than $35,000 a year. They are middle class American entrepreneurs found in every congressional district. While they are among the smallest copyright-owning businesses, photographers can easily create more than 20,000 works a year, each one having a relatively modest dollar value. They are the group most likely to have their works fall into the orphan category.
Now, some would have you believe that all orphan works are willfully abandoned, that photographers don't value those works. It indicates a lack of understanding about the photographic industry. The truth is that an artist who marks his work and takes every reasonable step to make herself known can still have her images labeled as orphan. In the commercial context, this occurs at alarming frequency when editorial or advertising images are not properly credited or have metatags removed before publication to the internet.
For the retail photographer, the threat comes from both unauthorized copies that do not contain attribution as well as from clients who make the photographer's contact information inaccessible by doing perfectly innocent things like gluing images into albums. Quite contrary to the Copyright Office's statement, 90 percent of our members mark their work. They are available.
Now, because of their position in the marketplace and the ease with which their work falls into orphan status, a change in the law that might only cause a ripple for a large corporation is enough to capsize the person earning power of photographers and other visual artists. Unfortunately, it is our feeling that the Copyright Office proposal on orphan works while well-intended effectively tosses independent visual artists over the side of the copyright boat. It attempts to correct a bad situation by creating another bad situation.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of particular concern with the proposal is the limitation on and in some cases the elimination of monetary damages, the denial of any monetary relief if the infringer's use of the orphan work is not for commercial advantage and if the infringer stops the use when notified by the rightful owner. The proposal fails to recognize that for the vast majority of professional photographers, noncommercial personal use copying undermines the entire market for their work. In addition, most photography infringements have long been completed by the time they are discovered. So requiring that an infringer cease the infringement is at best meaningless.
If enacted, this provision would create the perverse result of a copyright owner proving infringement but receiving no monetary award at all, no compensation, no legal fees, no costs, no reasonable royalty, just a congratulatory handshake and a bill from her attorney. We find this to be patently unfair.
Now, we do understand that this elimination of damages for certain orphan infringements was included to address the concerns of nonprofit museums, libraries, and archives. We want to be part of finding a solution. However, we implore the Committee to use a scalpel rather than a chain saw when carving out an exemption for such uses. The standard in the proposal is simply too broad. Even in cases where reasonable royalty is called for, the Copyright Office proposal will not work in the real world. For almost all visual artists, and orphan works infringement will never generate enough in damages to make a suit economically viable or even to make a threat of such a lawsuit credible. There is no incentive for individuals of ill will not to claim every work is an orphan work.
Some creators have suggested making attorney fees available in order to solve this problem. While we believe this to be a reasonable solution, our friends in the user community don't. This apparent impasse points to a larger problem. The fact is individual copyright owners, whether of regular or orphan works, find it economically impossible to gain any sort of meaningful relief through the courts. Without access to statutory damages and attorney fees, enforcing rights in Federal District Court simply is not a real option.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to solve the damages issue for orphan works and to provide relief for individual copyright owners, we propose the creation of an optional administrative proceeding to decide low value copyright cases, a small claims-type procedure. Elements of our proposal were include