LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2014

ARSCLIST November 2014

Subject:

Re: "UK opens access to 91 million Orphan Works"

From:

John Haley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:12:07 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (176 lines)

Hi, James.  I understand where you are coming from.  If Shakespeare said
"the law is an ass" (at least putatively), that may be so, but it is still
the law.  Courts do what they do and everybody else just has to deal with
it.  LOC is an arm of government and cannot pick and chose what law it
likes and wants to follow, although technically speaking, it should
probably not be bound by state law.  But that leads directly into another
legal swamp, the law of federal preemption of state law, when that doctrine
applies and when it doesn't.

Best,
John Haley






On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Wolf, James L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thank you for your response, John. My view of this issue has definitely
> been shaped by the position of the General Counsel here at the Library.
> Since before I arrived in 1992, it has been the Library's position that
> that the most restrictive of the state copyright laws has applied to our
> activities. I can understand that this is the safest and simplest position
> for the institution, but may not necessarily be accurate from a more
> experienced legal point of view. I take it as at least a little bit of good
> news that the scope of the state laws is not as simple as I thought it was.
> But I can also see that this subtlety may have been lost in the Naxos
> decision.
>
> James
>
> All opinions personal and do not reflect Library policy or positions, etc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 1:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "UK opens access to 91 million Orphan Works"
>
> Thanks, James.  As a NY lawyer myself, I of course read the Naxos decision
> with great interest when it first came out.  It is neither fair nor
> accurate.  The NY Court of Appeals (where I myself have argued and won an
> important case) went to great lengths to justify its nutty decision (it
> finds NY state law copyright protection applicable to Casals recordings
> made in the 1930's in London, which had long been in public domain in the
> UK--the recordings themselves had nothing to do with NY) by citing a lot of
> precedent, but when you examine that precedent, you see that it has not
> been accurately cited or characterized, having been substantially
> "reinterpreted" to justify the desired result.  Frankly, what happened here
> was that Naxos seems to have got way "out-lawyered."  I don't know any of
> the lawyers involved in that case.
>
> State law has existed since the states have existed, and the body of
> mostly property law, but also tort law, that has been applied to state law
> copyright issues is anything but consistent from state to state.  There is
> no uniform body of pre-existing state law copyright law as applied to
> recordings.  In fact, existing decisions are fairly few, and the existing
> precedents applied in contexts that have little relation to today's
> technology.  What is happening today, with state courts rendering decisions
> regarding rights involved in pre-1972 recordings, does not fall back on any
> kind of existing, well understood legal concepts relating to recordings,
> and thus mostly represents new application of old concepts in a new
> setting, although, as with the NY Court of Appeals, courts will go to great
> lengths in their decisions to make it appear otherwise.  What is happening
> is in fact creating worse chaos from what is already chaos.  Patents and
> copyrights are properly subject matter for the federal government, not
> state courts getting all creative.  My pessimism is fully justified, I am
> afraid.
>
> Best,
> John Haley
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Wolf, James L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > While I agree with the overall pessimism expressed here, I don't think
> > the characterization of state copyright laws is accurate. These have
> > existed for a very long time and have explicitly applied to pre-1972
> > recordings since the dawn of federal sound recording copyright in 1972
> > . The ruling in the EMI v. Naxos case was, IMO, a fair reading of the
> > law as it stands. The problem is that the current state of the law is
> > actually that bad, and incentives for legislators to change it hardly
> > exist, especially in these post-Citizens United days.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > All opinions personal, no reflection of Library policy or position, etc.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 12:32 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "UK opens access to 91 million Orphan Works"
> >
> > Thanks very much for posting that, Stephen.  What a totally
> > enlightened, simple good idea that is.  Orphaned works still under
> > copyright can be licensed for a fee (hopefully a small one) by the
> > government, and then if someone comes forward claiming ownership
> > (which as we know from ARSC research, is never going to happen 99.99%
> > of the time), that person's rights can be established and
> > acknowledged, and payment duly made.  I presume that this person
> claiming ownership must provide adequate proof.
> > Simple, fair and elegant.  A "win" for everyone, including most of all
> > the public.
> >
> > This system shows such decency and good sense that it probably has no
> > chance of being considered in a country such as ours (US), where
> > obfuscation and deliberate confusion of all copyright law seems to be
> > our national goals.  What is currently going on in US state courts
> > with the active creation of new state copyright law for pre-1972
> > recordings that are not covered by federal copyright law, spurred on
> > by New York's making up new state law some years back in the EMI v.
> Naxos case (in which "new"
> > precedents are cut from whole cloth), is truly insane, exacerbating an
> > already hopeless crazy quilt of wildly various state law.  ARSC has
> > been the only bright light on the horizon in offering real solutions.
> > It becomes obvious that there are heavily vested businesses and
> > institutions that prefer things the way they are.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Haley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Leggett, Stephen C <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-opens-access-to-91-million-orp
> > > ha
> > > n-works
> > >
> > >
> > > "A new licensing scheme launched today (29 October 2014) could give
> > > wider access to at least 91 million culturally valuable creative
> > > works
> > > - including diaries, photographs, oral history recordings and
> > > documentary films.
> > >
> > > These works are covered by copyright, but rights holders cannot be
> > > found by those who need to seek permission to reproduce them. Under
> > > the new scheme, a licence can be granted by the Intellectual
> > > Property Office so that these works can be reproduced on websites,
> > > in books and on TV without breaking the law, while protecting the
> > > rights of owners so they can be remunerated if they come forward.
> > >
> > > Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property said:
> > >
> > > The UK's trailblazing orphan works licensing scheme enables access
> > > to a wider range of our culturally important works.
> > >
> > > The scheme has been designed to protect right holders and give them
> > > a proper return if they reappear, while ensuring that citizens and
> > > consumers will be able to access more of our country's great
> > > creations,
> > more easily.
> > >
> > > The scheme also aims to reunite copyright holders with their works
> > > and ensure they are paid for their creations, by requiring the
> > > applicant to conduct a diligent search and allowing the right holder
> > > to search the register of granted licences. "
> > >
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager