I don’t know what exactly this is in response to, but if it was my post, then the answer is simple. The orphan works law would have defined what is an orphan work. It would have required that the putative user of the works meet minimum requirements for attempting to identify and contact and obtain a license from the real copyright owner. If, having taking those steps, there was no reasonable way to identify the owner, or the owner didn’t or couldn’t respond, the putative user would be permitted to do certain things. The legislation also would have set forth what would happen if the copyright owner then later came forward to claim her rights.
Those are all pretty easy questions for a court to settle if there is a dispute over the photograph’s use.
I was addressing the question the OP was asking. He was asking if it was possible to claim ownership of an intellectual property in cases where the original owner had lost or abandoned ownership. I was telling him it isn’t possible.
Your answer was the property wasn’t unclaimed. My answer was the property wasn’t claimable even if it was unclaimed.
When the company that owned the rights folded, there would have been a sale of all of the company’s assets, to pay off as much of the company’s debts as possible. Every asset would have been auctioned off, and the last lot would be for “all other assets”, or words to that effect. If the game in question wasn’t specifically called out in one of the other lots, it’d be in that last one, and so whoever bought that “all other assets” lot would be the owner of the copyright to that game. They might not know they own that game, and they might not care, but own it they do. And really, if they don’t care at all about that game, and you really want to revive it, and you track down the chain of sales and determine that they own it, they probably won’t ask a very high price to sell it to you fair and square.
And I’m saying it would be impossible to enforce, a contradiction in terms - because determining someone had “abandoned” intellectual property is technically impossible and by the very action of doing so draws attention to the fact of ownership.
Your savings account has a simple rule - no activity. Real Estate has a simple rule - failed to pay property taxes. There is no equivalent for intellectual property because there is no trigger that indicates the owner is unaware or uninterested in their property. Owning but doing nothing with intellectual property is probably the situation of 99% of human creativity since it has no revenue potential; and there’s no central registry like the ownership rolls for real estate. (Copyright registration is optional).
I suppose the state could impose a rule - if you haven’t published or sold copies on the open market for X - but that would essentially strip every author’s back catalog and most photographers’ collections, since how often does activity happen, especially once a book is out of print.
You keep pointing at shiny objects. They are not the same objects I am referring to.
Yes, states can claim copyright to certain specified works created (or licensed) by the state that are written into the state’s laws. This page has a map that lists the copyrightable areas state by state.
You didn’t ask that. You asked whether a state could take possession of the copyrighted works of a private citizen without the consent or knowledge of the private citizen. That answer is no. To my knowledge, it has never happened in the history of the U.S. and there is no provision in the Copyright Act that allows for it.
The case of Warm Kitty (aka Soft Kitty) is a good example of how people can crawl out of the woodwork decades later and try and assert a copyright claim. While not an orphan work, the family of the original author tried to sue the publisher and The Big Bang Theory people for their use of the song … 82 years after it was first published! (They lost due to old copyright renewal rules. But nonetheless money was spent on lawyers on both sides.)
All the years in-between the family probably didn’t know and didn’t care about the song.
If you use something orphaned and it gets noticed, you could be in trouble. Legal fees ensue at the least.
You made the statement that a state couldn’t control a copyright. That is demonstrably false. It sounded like you were using that false statement to explain why a state could not take possession of a private citizen’s copyright. If you didn’t mean that, I have no idea why you said it.
You are right! I didn’t ask that. I have no idea why you said that a state couldn’t control a copyright in response.
In other words you are declaring that the answer is no. And we should just accept that because you said it.
What I said was that “to my knowledge” nothing like this has ever happened. That is a factual statement. Whether you accept it or not is meaningless. If you want to research the issue and find evidence to the contrary I’ll be more eager to read it than anybody else here. In the meantime I’m not playing your game any further until you have something more to say.
This is the key as the law stands today: unlike trademark, which has to be defended (but if so, lasts indefinitely), copyright just exists (but only for a fixed, if ever-lengthened, time).
When does a work become orphaned and what is to be done in such cases would need to be legislated. Of course, either way if the rights-holders do not want the work to be released, you are stuck waiting for it to enter public domain. Refusing publication is an active assertion of ownership.
I’m not seeing a workable “orphan” definition. Heisenberg is a good analogy - you can’t prove ownership may be abandoned without alerting the actual owners that they have something that may be of value. Hollywood is not going to allow a “use it or lose it” and any other criteria for abandonment are going to be far too complex.
Think of it as like being an heir. Nobody registers to be an heir, and may be discovered only after a long search. There is no easy bar for a “reasonable effort search” test.
On top of that, the creativity process is often poorly documented, so claims may pop up at any time.
It’s not that complicated. It depends on what you need the definition of “orphan” for. For purposes of the orphan works legislation that was before Congress, it was a simple structure that answered the questions
What reasonable steps must the putative user take to try to identify the rightful copyright holder and obtain permission?
What uses do we think should be allowed if the putative user reasonably tried to do so and failed? What conditions and requirements must be fulfilled?
If the rightful copyright owner makes herself known in the future and wants to secure her rights, what remedies should she be entitled to?
It’s not actually very complicated for copyright law in conception.
This isn’t a hard problem to solve really. After all, when it comes to inheritances, the state does have to have practical rules for the possibility that heirs haven’t been identified. This is actually a very solvable problem for the law.