Reference: MEMO/11/333 Date: 24/05/2011
"What does the proposal for a Directive on orphan works say?
The Commission's proposal, which takes the form of an EU Directive, rests on three pillars. First, the proposal contains rules on how to identify orphan works. It provides that the user has to conduct a diligent search to find the copyright holder. In this search, the user should rely on sources such as databases and registries. One such tool that exists in the book publishing sector is ARROW, the Accessible Registry of Rights Information and Orphan Works. It is hoped that other sectors will also develop similar central rights information databases. Doing so would greatly simplify and streamline the conduct of a reliable diligent search.
Secondly, the proposal establishes that if the diligent search does not yield the identity or location of the copyright holder, the work shall be recognised as an orphan work. This status shall then, by virtue of mutual recognition, be valid across the European Union. This implies that once a work is recognised as an orphan work, it shall be recognised as such across the European Union. The proposal also foresees that there will be a generally accessible record of all recognised orphan works.
Thirdly, the proposal establishes the uses that can be made of the orphan works and the conditions for such uses depending on their nature. Thus, the current proposal should make a major contribution to the development of various European digital library initiatives and their accessibility for everyone throughout the European Union. Clear rules on what works can be posted online as orphan works will also provide the beneficiaries of the Directive - not only libraries, museums and archives but also film heritage institutions and public service broadcasters - with a sound legal framework that safeguards them against claims of copyright infringement. In this respect, a degree of legal certainty can be achieved that will exceed the one th
" Proposal for a directive
Public consultations and hearings
Public Hearing on Orphan Works (26.10.2009)
Information hearing on the "Google Book Settlement Agreement" (07.09.2009)
Related documents
Proposal for a directive
The Commission has adopted a Proposal for a Directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works with a view to establishing common rules on the digitisation and online display of so-called orphan works. Orphan works are works like books, newspaper and magazine articles, and films that are still protected by copyright but whose authors are not known or cannot be located or contacted to obtain copyright permissions. Orphan works are part of the collections held by European libraries that might remain untouched if no common rules are developed to make their digitisation and online display legally possible. Common rules on how to deal with such works are therefore necessary in order to proceed with large-scale digitisation projects, such as the Commission's Europeana portal.
Text of the proposal PDFdeenfr
Executive Summary PDFdeenfr
Impact assessment PDF
Citizen's summary PDFbgcsdadeetelenesfritlvlthumtnlplptroskslfisv
Frequently asked questions (MEMO/11/333) "
Alexis Boisseau - 21 septembre 2011
"Comment sait-on qu'une œuvre fait désormais partie du domaine public et que, tout en restant une création de son auteur original (ce qu'on appelle le «droit moral», qui est éternel), on peut la rééditer ou réinterpréter sans payer de «droits patrimoniaux»?
La loi est un bon premier guide, mais elle est tellement truffée d'exceptions qu'on ne peut se soustraire à des recherches parfois très longues. Dans la situation la plus courante, quand l'œuvre est «individuelle», les droits subsistent pour les ayants droits 70 ans après le 1er janvier qui suit la mort de l'auteur. Cette règle est née d'une directive européenne qui n'a été transposée en droit français qu'en 1997 et remplace, pour les œuvres qui n'étaient pas dans le domaine public au 31 décembre 1995 la durée de 50 ans de protection qui était en vigueur avant."
"June 26, 2011, 6:16 pm by dotSUB
This is a guest post by Kirti Vashee, VP Enterprise Translation Sales at Asia Online and member of dotSUB's Board of Advisors. You can also read Kirti's blog eMpTy Pages, where he writes about translation technology, localization and collaboration.
The phenomena of a crowd or community stepping forward and doing real translation work, often for no direct financial compensation is something that troubles many in the professional translation world. Mostly because they see this activity as work being taken away from legitimate professionals or they see it as a ploy to reduce prices.
While in some cases their fears may actually be justified, in the most successful uses of this approach I think it is clear that this is not true.If we look at some of the most successful examples of crowdsourced translation in practice, we can see that they have many if not all of the following elements in common."
Peter Walker guardian.co.uk, Sunday 3 July 2011
"Britons could face charges for breaking US copyrights even if they have no link to America and servers are based elsewhere"
"British website owners could face extradition to the US on piracy charges even if their operation has no connection to America and does something which is most probably legal in the UK, the official leading US web anti-piracy efforts has told the Guardian.
The US's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is targeting overseas websites it believes are breaking US copyrights whether or not their servers are based in America or there is another direct US link, said Erik Barnett, the agency's assistant deputy director.
As long as a website's address ends in .com or .net, if it is implicated in the spread of pirated US-made films, TV or other media it is a legitimate target to be closed down or targeted for prosecution, Barnett said."
"In the summer of 2010, Peter Mosinskis from CSU Channel Islands assembled a team of approximately fifteen volunteers from seven different CSU campuses and one from the UC system to evaluate the accessibility of Google Apps. The team also recruited student volunteers and screen reader users to assist with the testing. Automated, manual, and screen reader testing began the first week of January 2011 and was completed February 4th.
The report has been completed and posted here for your review. The CSU Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) Staff, ATI Leadership Council, and Google have reviewed the Google Apps Accessibility Evaluation report.
We discovered a number of accessibility issues during our testing. These issues are outlined in the report as well as "workarounds" that can be used to improve the user experience for persons with disabilities. When campuses choose to use Google Apps, they are required to provide an equally effective service for people with disabilities and it is critical for campuses to ensure that the "workarounds" meet the educational needs of the student and/or faculty. The March 15, 2011 USA TODAY online news article "Complaint: Google programs hard for blind students" illustrates possible legal problems that may result from adopting the Google Apps for Education suite.
Questions or Comments about this report may be directed to CSU ATI Staff"
Table of Contents
Print Complete BookPrint This Chapter
Next
ATI Google Apps Accessibility Evaluation
Section 1. Executive Summary
Section 2. About the Project
Section 3. Findings
Section 4. Workarounds, Accommodations and Best Practices
Summary and Conclusions
Authors Note
Appendices A - E
Group items tagged 
