On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > I would be very surprised if the defacto standard was that slack, *precisely* because it wouldn't afford large producers of copyrighted works an advantage. I would instead expect the standard to be one that large corporations can routinely comply with but that independent creators/remixers are likely to struggle with, much like the current situation regarding clearing and licensing audio samples. - Michael
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
