Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Orphaned Works and the Requirement To Preserve Metadata 129

An anonymous reader writes "Orphaned works legislation promises to open older forgotten works to new uses and audiences. Groups like ASMP think it's inevitable. But it comes with the risk of defanging protection for current work when the creator cannot be located. Photographer Mark Meyer wonders if orphaned works legislation also needs language to compel organizations like Facebook to stop their practice of stripping metadata from user content in order to keep new work from becoming orphans to begin with. Should we have laws to make stripping metadata illegal?" The author notes that excessive copyright terms may be to blame; if that's the case why lobby for Orphaned Works legislation? On a related note, Rick Falkvinge asks if we should revisit the purpose of the copyright monopoly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Orphaned Works and the Requirement To Preserve Metadata

Comments Filter:
  • by Stirling Newberry ( 848268 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @06:23AM (#42177425) Homepage Journal
    You are confusing damages with punishment. And your assertion that because we have a prison industrial complex now, that we should extend it, does not stand up to scrutiny. Fundamentally your position that society exists to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, at threat of gun point, shows that the use to which the law is being put is no longer beneficial to society as a whole.

    IP is a concept, like prohibition, which has run its course as public policy. Both accomplished the same result: to turn ordinary people into criminals, and to make criminals into enterprises.

  • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @06:40AM (#42177505)

    Not intentionally so, but rather a consequence of an entirely different copyright law. European union copyright directive:

    1. Member States shall provide for adequate legal protection against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts:
    (a) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights-management information;
    (b) the distribution, importation for distribution, broadcasting, communication or making available to the public of works or other subject-matter protected under this Directive or under Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC from which electronic rights-management information has been removed or altered without authority, if such person knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of any copyright or any rights related to copyright as provided by law, or of the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.

    2. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "rights-management information" means any information provided by rightholders which identifies the work or other subject-matter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, the author or any other rightholder, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work or other subject-matter, and any numbers or codes that represent such information. The first subparagraph shall apply when any of these items of information is associated with a copy of, or appears in connection with the communication to the public of, a work or other subjectmatter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.

    Exact details will vary by country. The EU directives say what a country must achieve, it's up to them how they will do it.

  • by Tapewolf ( 1639955 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @06:52AM (#42177541)

    So you think because the image might have some fraction of relevance to you that you have the right to use it even if you don't know who the person who took the picture is? Entitled much?

    The system in this regard isn't broken. You just think you have more claim to something than you really do just because someone in the picture is a family member.

    Yet you are arguing that the photographer's descendants should be entitled to a continual cut for something their grandfather did, and that the photograph must not be preserved if there are no descendants.

    I might just about buy the descendants-get-a-cut part if it was something like a major film that benefited many, but in the example you're arguing with, the photo is only important to that one family and it's essentially being held hostage by the photographer's descendants. The essential point of being able to record media is to allow a creator's works to survive after they are gone, after all...

  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @07:47AM (#42177781)

    Are you going to ban hex edditors or text edditors?


    What about file systems that don't support metadata like fat?

    How is that relevant to file formats which have their own metadata built into them?

    Or what about when people don't like your naming/notation conventions will that be banned to?

    No. It's about conveying basic ownership information, but you already knew that...

    How will they deal with faulty programs like that will they be liable for removal of metadata?

    iTunes removes metadata on your personal files. Facebook is a completely different case. Anyone who puts two brain cells into it can see a fundamental difference in liability between software meant to organize a personal collection and software meant to facilitate public consumption of media. It would not be hard to pass a law requiring the preservation of copyright ownership metadata in file formats which support that metadata in software intended to be used for the public dissemination of media.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.