EPUK Editorial Photographers United Kingdom and Ireland. The private mailing list and public resource for editorial photographers

Why the Orphan Works Act is Uncle Sam's thieves' charter

27 April 2008 - EPUK

The proposed US Orphan Works Act would dramatically shift the balance away from copyright holders, in favour of those who would like to use creative work without permission, argues EPUK moderator Tony Sleep

Imagine this: anyone in the USA can use your copyright work without asking, and should you somehow find out they’ve robbed you, they can escape all legal liability by claiming they didn’t know who they were stealing from, and then only paying you whatever they consider reasonable.

On Thursday the ‘Shaun Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008’ was placed before the US Senate and House of Congress. Ostensibly intended to permit the legal use of orphaned works – works whose copyright status and ownership cannot be traced – the bill will have these astounding consequences for photographers around the world.

If this Bill passes into law as it is currently written, it will potentially strip copyright control from every photograph that has not been registered with the privatised commmercial registries that the Bill proposes to create. It allows infringers the defence that any work that is unregistered with these agencies is an orphan and may be used.

Should the copyright holder subsequently find out about the usage, they must send a written notice to the user of the image who is then obliged to pay a ‘reasonable’ amount. In practical terms all other legal redress for infringement is removed.

Two-tier nature of US copyright law

Although the Bill provides for other means of establishing ownership that would disallow the ‘orphan’ defence, such as metadata, databases and context, the real problem lies in the two-tier nature of US copyright law.

At present, international copyright law is defined by the Berne convention which makes copyright purely a passive right : if you create something, you own copyright by right, without having to do anything, and it is up to would-be users of your copyright material to trace ownership and negotiate usage.

The Bentley Bill stands this principle on its head by requiring the creator to take costly and time consuming steps to obtain registration, and by limiting liability for infringement for any unregistered work that can plausibly be described as an orphan. Whilst the USA is a signatory to Berne and cannot diverge from its principles, supporters of the Bill claim that copyright remains passive, it’s just that if you want the protection of legal remedies you may optionally register work.

This has of course long been the situation in the USA where registration with the Copyright Office permits far higher levels of damages (‘statutory damages’) to be awarded where registered works are involved. Statutory damages are punitive and may be as much as 70x the actual losses. This has made the orphan rights issue particularly difficult in the USA, since the penalties for using an ‘orphan’ that turns out to be registered can be ruinous, and it is this problem that the proposed Bill sets out to resolve.

But what the Bentley Bill will do in practice is to downgrade protection of any unregistered work so that infringement has no consequence at all, save what the infringer cares to pay for it if unlucky enough to be caught. For the convenience of the the would-be infringer they can check for registration online, and if the work is unregistered can proceed with impunity safe in the knowledge that any bogus claim of orphan status and infringing use are simply not worth sueing over.

Taking advantage of a copyright weakness

If there is any doubt on this, consult this Copyright Office report of early 2007 which concluded ‘While corporate copyright owners were generally in favor of a reasonable compensation approach, individual authors like photographers, illustrators and graphic artists noted that under current conditions, obtaining a lawyer to even file an infringement case is prohibitively expensive, so much so that only where statutory damages are available is it possible to file a case. If compensation were limited to only a reasonable royalty, they fear that it will likewise be practically impossible even to recover that compensation given the cost of litigation.’

Clearly, if court action is impractical for damages, it is equally impractical for challenging spurious claims of orphan rights. The Bentley Bill takes maximum advantage of this weakness, the only means of challenging either the reasonableness of the sum offered, or the legitimacy of the orphan claim is via the court. The risk, inconvenience and minimal reward of court action seems certain to ensure most copyright holders will be obliged to settle for whatever the infringer offers.

Even the Copyright Office agrees that registration will be essential. Brad Holland of Illustrators Partnership reports that on January 29 2007, twenty visual arts groups met in Washington D.C. with attorneys from the Copyright Office. Holland asked the Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs, :

Holland: If a user can’t find a registered work at the Copyright Office, hasn’t the Copyright Office facilitated the creation of an orphaned work?

Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries.

Holland: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register?

Carson: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest! – From my notes of the meeting

Catastrophic problem

As Holland says, this exchange suggests that if Copyright Office proposals become law unregistered work will be considered a potential orphan from the moment you create it, and in the U.S., copyright will no longer be the exclusive right of the copyright holder.

This catastrophic problem appears to escape the supporters of the Bill, who maintain quite correctly that unregistered works are still copyright material and that the law is merely creating a limitation of liability for orphan works. Whilst true, this defies all that we know about global copyright abuse in practice and how aggregators and publishers will exploit any loophole or opportunity. 99% of the literal billions of photographs on the internet will never become registered, and a large majority either never had ownership metadata or have had it stripped by accident, software shortcomings or design.

That fact places 99% of photos on the web at infringers’ disposal as a freely exploitable resource as ‘orphans’, with no legal consequence, and the ability to impose the price they’d like to pay in the unlikely circumstance that they are found out.


Prohibitively expensive registration

The cost of registering with the proposed registries is unknown, but photography is such a profligate medium that registration of more than a tiny minority of works is bound to be prohibitively expensive and practically impossible.

It seems clear that what is driving this legislation is a mix of idealistic free culture objectives aimed at minimising creators’ copyright, in conjunction with the massive financial potential of privatised registries and publishing of orphan works (some genuinely so) that could not previously be exploited.

A new Orphan Works bill has been on the cards since the 2006 version was stopped by protests led by the Illustrators Partnership. IP have been warning recently that a new bill was imminent, but the precise nature of the proposals was unclear until now. IP’s Brad Holland has published an audio interview detailing how the Bill affects every artist and photographer in the world. In the interview Holland says “‘It is not what it appears to be, it is a Trojan horse… Under this orphan works legislation, nothing you do would be protected unless it is registered with these commercial registries… they are orphaning all unregistered work’”

Tsunami of IP theft

It seems likely that if the Bill becomes law it will generate a veritable tsunami of IP theft. Any unregistered work, anywhere on the web could potentially be grabbed and registered by anyone who has done a cursory search and failed to identify the owner so able to claim it is an orphan.

The legitimate owner will then have to prove the work is theirs, issue a written notice, and either accept what the thief cares to pay or commence an expensive and risky infringement case in the US courts. For unregistered work, no significant damages will be available. This will simply be impossible for non-US-based photographers, and expensively futile for those who live in the US. In other words, the Bill is a thief’s charter.

To quote from the Copyright Clearance Center “Since this is an election year, and re-election campaigns will be in full swing by late summer, new orphan works legislation will probably be fast-tracked to reach the floor of the House by mid-May”. This gives photographers in the USA and worldwide a very brief window of opportunity, perhaps less than a month, to challenge the proposals.

EPUK’s sister site Copyright Action has published some further details and initial reaction at http://copyrightaction.com/forum/orphan-works-bills-introduced-in-usa

Want to contact the EPUK Website editor? editor@epuk.org


Has anyone noticed the number of photo organisation admin people who also sit on bodies which might have the highly profitable job of being registries?

Bob Croxford

Comment 1: Bob Croxford, 28 April 2008, 10:08 AM

The Plus! initiative, which involves Adobe, is known to be working on a registry.

Plus! has links with the DOI Federation, and a DOI based registry should be a good thing because it is an open system and that should oppose monopoly pricing. However US monopoly could still be achieved by the Copyright Office certification required by the Bill. Although competing similar registries could be established in, for example, India or Korea and compete on price, they would be unrecognised by US law and hence useless for protection from US infringers.

So I think you can be sure Adobe, directly or indirectly, will be one of the registrars.

Comment 2: Tony Sleep, 28 April 2008, 12:42 PM

Dear Tony

What happens when the EU passes similar Acts? Do we then have to have multiple language registrars? Multiple fees to protect our work?

PLUS have had a long time to come up with any proposals.

Comment 3: Bob Croxford, 29 April 2008, 10:08 AM

It depends. The DOI system works in very much the same way as the DNS system, so you only need one authoritative entry on one registry for it to be accessible anywhere.

In theory this should mean you have only to register an image once, but the Bentley Bill’s requirement for US certification means that the registry you choose will have to be a US-approved one, if you want to ensure your images are not de facto orphans as far as US jurisidicton is concerned.

If the DOI system is used, the US is here annexing an open-standard based registry system for the purpose of constructing a US monopoly. Or it is possible that they will propose and develop an entirely different scheme which is incompatible with DOI. Neither outcome looks good.

PLUS! have mainly been preoccupied with their RM license-pricing matrix, but latterly they are working on a registry. http://www.useplus.com/useplus/registry.asp
You will note that the form contains a PLUS-ID field, which is a membership ID. Membership starts at $125/yr, but the registry is not yet operational.

That’s as much as I know : David Riecks went quiet when I asked whether it was DOI based. However the DOI Federation is listed elsewhere on the site.

What will UK government do? Orphan works and registries are certainly on the menu since Gowers recommended both. My guess is that they’ll pretty much copy this Bill and copy the registry spec, but get it built by EDS or Capita which will take 10 years and go 400% over budget. It will be costly and unusable.

Effectively all this may just result in US law becoming the global framework for IP. If US registries allow access to statutory damages for foreign nationals and most publishers/infringers with assets are US-based, then why not?

Well, one reason may be that this Bill is unconstitutional and will quickly be struck down if it ever does get into law, as outlined by John Harrington at Photo Business News http://tinyurl.com/5cz5bt
That’s probably our best hope really. Registries are a great idea, but not if their purpose is to check who it’s safe to rob.

Comment 4: Tony Sleep, 29 April 2008, 01:40 PM

Comment on this article

(Your email will not appear on your comment, but we cannot accept your comment without one. We won't give your email address to anyone else)
(You don't need to enter your website address, but if you do, your post will link to it)

EPUK reserves the right to edit or delete posts which the moderators feel are irrelevant, offensive, libelous, untrue or just plain nutty; and in extreme cases, to ban those who make them.

EPUK is discussing:

Copyright infringements and how to manage them Right of panorama Hargreaves - again Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert exhibiting at the National Gallery of Scotland Taylor Swift

What is EPUK?

EPUK is an email group for professional editorial photographers who want to talk business. We don’t do techie stuff or in-crowd gossip. We don’t talk cameras or computers. What we talk about are the nuts and bolts of being in business - like copyright, licensing, fees and insurance.

Donate to EPUK

EPUK is run on a not-for-profit basis, funded solely by advertising, donations and hosting other lists. You can make a donation to EPUK through Paypal here:

Donate Now with PayPal

Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors.