Orphan Works “will likely be a priority...this spring” for the House Judiciary Committee, writes Andrew Noyes in the National Journal, Feb. 21, 2008
According to Noyes, “American Library Association copyright specialist Carrie Russell said her members are ‘excited about having orphan works legislation’ move this session,” adding that if it does, "’we'll be dancing in the streets.’" But the article notes that “last time around,” artists did a different kind of dance:
“The Illustrators' Partnership of America argued in letters to lawmakers last time around that the bill was written too broadly and would have exposed artists' work to infringement upon creation.”
And so it would have.
While we won’t judge the new bill until we’ve seen it, we’re still concerned that it may be written so broadly as to force artists to rely on registries or other formalities as a condition of protecting their copyrights. Forcing artists to rely on registries by exposing unregistered work to infringement is coerced registration. And coerced registration is at the heart of the orphan works debate.
Coerced registration violates the spirit of international copyright laws and trade agreements. It invites retaliation from overseas. It would turn artists into bookkeepers. It would force us to spend countless hours filing and maintaining countless copyright registrations in a futile effort to monitor infringements — futile because no registry can ever protect artists from infringement, which can occur anytime, anywhere in the world.
Since 2006, when the first bill was called back to the shop for repairs, registries have become a hot topic among those wishing to sugarcoat it for quick passage this fall. We’ll have more to say about coerced registration in future emails. We think it will be central to the debate over Orphan Works this time around.
— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership