I have written before about the PRO IP bill introduced in Congress in December of 2007; its primary purpose seems to be to dramatically increase the amount of statutory damages available to a copyright owner whose work is infringed. The specific way this is accomplished — by allowing a separate recovery of statutory damages for each individual work contained in an infringed collection — seems carefully crafted to benefit the Recording Industry Association of America and almost nobody else. So unusual is this provision that the Copyright Office convened a roundtable to discuss it. According to this report on the event from Public Knowledge’s Sherwin Siy, the most interesting part of that roundtable was the fact that very few participants seemed very strongly in favor of the provision. This seems to be the classic solution in search of a problem, at least to everyone but the RIAA, who simply want larger recoveries from all their litigation. Siy’s long post does an excellent job of explaining the provision, its context and the discussion at the roundtable. This post by Google’s William Patry, another participant in the roundtable, offers his perspective as well.
What I want to focus on is the unintended consequences of this steep increase in statutory damages on the problem of orphan works. For libraries and higher education institutions, the difficulty with using a so-called orphan work (a work whose rights holder either cannot be determined or cannot be found) is that high risk is associated with great uncertainty. One cannot predict if a rights holder might turn up sometime after your digital display or YouTube video becomes available, but you do know that, if that happens, the potential liability is very great. Thus works that are serving no useful purpose at all remain hidden because statutory damages are so high that they discourage schools from taking even a small risk. Raising those damages as dramatically as PRO IP proposes would magnify this chilling effect, and the result would be a pure social loss — works that are not generating any profit at all for the rights holders will still be locked away from potential users, readers and viewers because of fear.
The Orphan Works legislation introduced in the last Congress was intended to address this fear, so it seems like a good time to consider re-introducing that proposal. The orphan works bill would have made statutory damages unavailable if a user had made a reasonably diligent effort to locate the rights holder and was not able to do so. If a rights holder reappeared after an unauthorized use had been made, they would be entitle to the reasonable licensing fee they could have collected if they had been around to ask in the first place, but not the draconian statutory damages designed to discourage piracy, not scholarship. With a proposal to increase those statutory damages now on the table, it seems like a great time to really press for the reintroduction of orphan works legislation as well. Only if orphan works protection is considered in conjunction with PRO IP can this legislation, which hardly seems to be needed at all, be prevented from doing far more harm than whatever good it is supposed to achieve.
Orphan works is important legislation in its own right; far too much of our cultural past is unavailable because libraries and universities do not dare risk the expensive vagaries of copyright law. A bill to make socially productive uses of this material possible without inhibiting profits at all is worth reintroducing on its merits. But it is absolutely vital at this point, as a corrective to the excessive protectionism of PRO IP. Lets hope someone in Congress sees the obvious connection between these two pieces of legislation, and orphan works protection makes a comeback.