Earlier quoted context omitted.
In ‘orphan work’ situations as long as a person had made a good faith effort to locate the copyright owner, and therefore isn’t infringing someone’s copyright wilfully; criminal liability won’t apply. The worst you’ll realistically face is an after the fact civil suit
Lol who on earth is talking about criminal prosecution of copyright? Copyright is a strict liability civil offense.
Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
111–115 of 115 posts
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol who on earth is talking about criminal prosecution of copyright? Copyright is a strict liability civil offense.
think there’s a misunderstanding. in my jurisdiction we use the word offence to refer to criminal actions. If the penalty is only civil, then this bolsters the case for being bold toward omens treatment of orphan works
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#113Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends f…
> rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) This would drastically change our current copyright regime. As it stands, everything you write has automatic copyright, and doesn't require even the smallest, brokest artist to do anything—or pay anything—in order to ensure that their creations cannot profit others without their consent. Requiring every work to be registered i…
Re: Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyright claim
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered In a sane, rational world that would probably be the case. Too bad we don't live on one!
We need orphan work legislation to clarify the law in this area