Talk:Orphan work: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
==Controversy== |
==Controversy== |
||
It seems that some artists are [http://mag.awn.com/?&article_no=3605 pretty mad] about this. I think that this article could use some expansion... [[User:Esn|Esn]] ([[User talk:Esn|talk]]) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
It seems that some artists are [http://mag.awn.com/?&article_no=3605 pretty mad] about this. I think that this article could use some expansion... [[User:Esn|Esn]] ([[User talk:Esn|talk]]) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Definitely. [[Special:Contributions/80.195.13.164|80.195.13.164]] ([[User talk:80.195.13.164|talk]]) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:13, 12 April 2008
 | Law Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
A list would be nice
This is a very interesting article (I was unaware of "orphan works" before reading it). I think the article would be served well by including a few examples of works that have become orphaned. If there's an online database of orphaned works, that would be a great link to include. 23skidoo 00:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
work or works
The US Copyright office uses the form without the s. --Gbleem 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Moved "Orphaned works" to "Orphaned work". --h2g2bob 22:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The most common term is actually "orphan works", which is what the US Copyright Office uses. --Otterfan 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Unsupported Statement
"The copyright owners are often willing to have their work used with minimal compensation if they are discovered." This is a claim about the intentions of people who by their very definition can't be identified, so until it can be supported by citing a reputable secondary source, it should be removed. --Otterfan 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Still unsupported, but would this wording open the way for someone to document the idea? "The copyright owners, once discovered, are often willing to grant use of their work for only a minimal fee." TaoPhoenix (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Modifying section on compulsory license in the US
I'm removing much of the section on the compulsory license and transferring the rest of it to the section on the United States. The compulsory license does not create orphan works, but it does address the problem of orphan works in some cases.
Could someone with a better understanding of the statutory license (Section 115(b) of the Copyright Act) add a section?
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Orphaned work → Orphan works — "Orphan works" is the preferred term, as used by the US Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/), relevant publications (Chronicle of Higher Ed, Library Journal) and popular press (The Guardian, NY Times). Currently orphan works redirects to orphaned work, but it should be the other way around. Otterfan 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Survey
- Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Support per nom. Appears uncontroversial. – Anþony talk 11:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Anþony. Andrewa 10:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Controversy
It seems that some artists are pretty mad about this. I think that this article could use some expansion... Esn (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely. 80.195.13.164 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)