3 ms·

I don't understand why this law is needed. If the work is truly orphaned then no one will come after you. Therefore the law is only about the case where it's no

I don't understand why this law is needed. If the work is truly orphaned then no one will come after you. Therefore the law is only about the case where it's not really orphaned. That seems like it completely removes any incentive to obey any kind of copyright on photographs. Just use any photograph you want. When asked, claim you did a diligent search and nothing came up. Take the picture down. No punishment. How is that not a recipe for massively screwing photographers? Without the law orphaned works are still orphaned and safe to use. If you do a truly diligent search and figure out the work is truly orphaned. But, if your search wasn't diligent enough and the owner finds out you get sued as seems proper. Why is this law needed?

SEMW 14y ago
> If the work is truly orphaned then no one will come after you. Of course. But it's almost impossible to know that for sure. The point of orphan works legislation is it lets people use works that they're pretty damned sure are orphaned (and which the licensing body agrees) because they've done a diligent search, in the confidence that they can't be sued for copyright infringement if the author pops up later. (Though they may be asked to stop using the work, depends on how the regs end up being written). Point is: copyright infringement is strict liability. This sort of legislation is the closest we're going to get to a true 'due diligence' defence. > Just use any photograph you want. When asked, claim you did a diligent search and nothing came up. Er, and then be successfully sued by the copyright holder for using the work without a licence? The law provides for the SoS to (by regulations) create licensing bodies, it doesn't let people give themselves licences.