Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Just released today. 2mb PDF of report downloadable at the site, or I'll attach a bookmarked, tagged version here. (Which, because this is a release of the US gov't, is in the public domain.)
Excerpt from the overview section of the report:
Whether copyright owners are in a position to offer market solutions for mass digitization projects is an important part of the equation. It is possible that direct licensing, collective licensing, and other emerging business models will be capable of balancing the needs of user groups and the interests of copyright owners. This raises practical questions about how copyright owners should be compensated for the use of their works in mass digitization projects, and legal questions about the applicability of exclusive rights and limitations and exceptions under copyright law. Is the existing copyright framework sufficiently responsive to these concerns? If not, are there important public or private goals that might warrant legislative action in this area? Some stakeholders may suggest that Congress should facilitate mass digitization – and possibly dissemination – of books by creating a public registry that could simplify the process of obtaining prior permission from authors and other rights holders. Others may suggest that with guidance and encouragement from Congress, stakeholders could and should be encouraged to explore solutions within the marketplace, including private agreements or memoranda of understanding. |
We went through something like this with journalists/authors working for newspapers before there was online reading of the papers.
The older journalists hadn't signed anything giving the newspaper the digital rights to give or sell to online viewers. The newspapers started to make money by charging to search the online archives and read the articles.
The older journalists and authors said we want our money from the sales of our products. The newspapers said no, that you gave up your rights when you drew a paycheck. The courts more or less went along with the journalists.
The journalist said "we want our money." The papers said well we will come to an agreement on what has already been "sold" but how about the future? How much do you want to settle that. The journalists smelling the blood in the water, said "a whole lot." The newspapers said, "not so fast" and they programmed their search engines to ignore any author/journalist that had not signed on to a "acceptable deal."
The record of these journalists/authors disappeared except perhaps in old stacks at libraries or in old microfilm. They settled.
As for any journalist/author/writer currently employed by the papers, they received new wording in their contracts.
Anyway, I see a long tangled argument here.