Orphan works

Google is not the only one thinking about the digitization of all – or at least part – of the human written knowledge. The European Union is promoting a project for the digitization of the European culture in order to keep it safe for future generations and make it freely accessible to everyone.

Obviously, they are facing part of the same problems Google is already facing. And one of the main issues highlighted in the final report of the group of experts appointed by the Commission is the legal certainty on their activity for both right holders and cultural institutions.

Some of the issues identified as critical by the Copyright subgroup are: the right to make preservation copies of copyrighted material by certain institutions, the necessity of coordination among the different initiatives and the costs related to some types of media (pictures and audiovisuals in particular).

Of particular interest – and somehow linked to the subject of my last post – is the problem of “orphan works”. I think that this is the perfect example of how western culture is different from India, since speaking about works that have no “father/mother” is the best index of how much we need a proprietor for creative works.

In some cases, in fact, right holders cannot be identified or located; as a result, works can be classified as “orphan”. This is one of the main obstacles to the free diffusion of contents trough the digital networks. Therefore, Copyright Subgroup recommends, alternatively, some non-legislative or soft legislative solutions that enhance transparency and/or prevent further expansions of the phenomenon of orphan works. From a non-legislative stand point, dedicated databases concerning information on orphan works and improved inclusion of metadata (information on right holders) in digital material are invoked, while, from a legislative point of view, the subgroup proposes a “soft law approach” achievable through contractual arrangements, combined with some support mechanism for voluntarily negotiated contracts.
The document is really interesting and opens a new window on problems related to the identification of the author, a milestone of our intellectual property laws but, as seen in the previous post, not always a big problem all around the world.