Michael R. Bernstein scripsit: > 2. Large holders and producers of copyrighted works will now be > able to 'mine' orphan works for adaptation with little danger, > creating new works that they can aggressively defend, and possibly > will aggressively discourage others from making competing adaptations > that are 'too similar'.
Even if not, it shifts the rules of consent from "yes means yes" to "absence of 'no' means yes". How safe that will be for small authors depends on how the courts interpret what is meant by due diligence. If the de facto standard is pretty slack, you could find your own out of print books from a few years back being treated as "orphaned" because you didn't see the ad in the _East Grong Grong Sheep Ranchers' Weekly_ asking the author to write to P.O. Box 42 at once. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Today an interactive brochure website, tomorrow a global content management system that leverages collective synergy to drive "outside of the box" thinking and formulate key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. --Alex Papadimoulis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
