Correlation of terms «orphan work» and «public domain work» in the modern copyright law

L. Mamchur, Valerii Syttsevoi
{"title":"Correlation of terms «orphan work» and «public domain work» in the modern copyright law","authors":"L. Mamchur, Valerii Syttsevoi","doi":"10.33731/52021.244512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: orphan work, copyright, work digitization, public domain, propertyrights of the author, term of copyright \nThe authors insist on the need todifferentiate the terms «orphan work» and «public domain work». It is connected withthe necessity to follow reasonable balance between the property interest of the authoror his successors and the public interest in reasonable use of the work in order to improvethe current legal field.It is substantiated that the existing copyright system, which provides to pay royaltyfor every use of the work for its author for 70 years or more, conflicts with theneeds of society in modern digital age. It is necessary to get permission from the copyrightholder to digitize a work to make it available. For orphan works it is difficult.The traditional copyright system should provide an exception for orphan works. It isformulated that permission to use such works must be granted by a specially authorizedstate body if there is any evidence that the user has taken all possible measuresto find the copyright holder, but has not been successful.Analysis of the content of theoretical and legal definitions of the terms «orphanwork» and «public domain work» shows that the presence or absence of ongoing protectionof property rights of the author is a key factor in the difference. Such rightsare still valid for orphan works, and therefore the permission of the right holder touse such a work is required. Meanwhile, the «public domain work» includes workswhich the term of copyright has expired. Therefore, the work can be used without permission.So, the approach that an orphan work becomes public domain is incorrect.On a basis of analysis of legislation conclusions is drawn that it is inexpedient touse too voluminous definition of the term «orphan work». It is argued that the systemof issuing permits for use of orphan works by the state bodies at request of a potentialuser must be defined in legislation.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"49 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33731/52021.244512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Keywords: orphan work, copyright, work digitization, public domain, propertyrights of the author, term of copyright The authors insist on the need todifferentiate the terms «orphan work» and «public domain work». It is connected withthe necessity to follow reasonable balance between the property interest of the authoror his successors and the public interest in reasonable use of the work in order to improvethe current legal field.It is substantiated that the existing copyright system, which provides to pay royaltyfor every use of the work for its author for 70 years or more, conflicts with theneeds of society in modern digital age. It is necessary to get permission from the copyrightholder to digitize a work to make it available. For orphan works it is difficult.The traditional copyright system should provide an exception for orphan works. It isformulated that permission to use such works must be granted by a specially authorizedstate body if there is any evidence that the user has taken all possible measuresto find the copyright holder, but has not been successful.Analysis of the content of theoretical and legal definitions of the terms «orphanwork» and «public domain work» shows that the presence or absence of ongoing protectionof property rights of the author is a key factor in the difference. Such rightsare still valid for orphan works, and therefore the permission of the right holder touse such a work is required. Meanwhile, the «public domain work» includes workswhich the term of copyright has expired. Therefore, the work can be used without permission.So, the approach that an orphan work becomes public domain is incorrect.On a basis of analysis of legislation conclusions is drawn that it is inexpedient touse too voluminous definition of the term «orphan work». It is argued that the systemof issuing permits for use of orphan works by the state bodies at request of a potentialuser must be defined in legislation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现代版权法中“孤儿作品”与“公共领域作品”的关系
关键词:孤儿作品,版权,作品数字化,公共领域,作者的财产权,版权期限作者坚持需要区分“孤儿作品”和“公共领域作品”。这与作者的财产利益及其继承人的财产利益与合理使用作品的公共利益之间的合理平衡,以完善现行法律领域的必要性有关。事实证明,现行的版权制度规定,在70年以上的时间里,作者每次使用作品都要支付版税,这与现代数字时代的社会需求相冲突。必须获得版权所有者的许可才能将作品数字化以使其可用。对于孤儿作品来说,这是困难的。传统的著作权制度应该为孤儿作品提供例外。如果有证据表明用户已经采取了所有可能的措施来寻找版权所有者,但没有成功,则必须由特别授权的国家机构授予使用此类作品的许可。对“孤儿作品”和“公共领域作品”这两个术语的理论和法律定义内容的分析表明,是否存在对作者的财产权的持续保护是造成差异的关键因素。这些权利仍然对孤儿作品有效,因此使用这些作品需要权利人的许可。同时,“公共领域作品”包括版权期限已过的作品。因此,该作品可以未经许可使用。因此,将孤儿作品变成公共领域的做法是不正确的。在对立法进行分析的基础上得出结论,认为使用过于繁复的“孤儿工作”一词的定义是不妥当的。有人认为,应潜在使用者的要求,国家机构对孤儿作品的使用发放许可的制度必须在立法中加以规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Accelerated examination of patent applications for «green» technologies: foreign experience for Ukraine Draft Regulation of the European Union about artificial intelligence and related initiatives Intellectual property rights in the context of biology, medicine and pharmacy: a look into the future The sui generis right to non-original objects generated by a computer program: novelties of legal regulation ABUSE OF PATENTABILITY CRITERIA WHEN PATENTING INVENTIONS RELATED TO MEDICINES
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1