- Where are the best places to follow this story as it affects Wikipedia and the Internet in general? czar 16:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll copy what Guy comment on the Blackout story (the MWF blog is good too)Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-
- --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I had never heard of "Out of Commerce Works" in copyright context. [1] Jim.henderson (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably what most people call "orphan works". Just an example - a book published in 1927 which sold 1,000 copies, and then went out-of-print in 1929. It's still covered under copyright, but is not part of any commerce now. The relation to copyright is indirect but powerful. Say you find the book in a library and say "this is the greatest book I've ever read" and want to republish it, serialize it, put it on the web, etc. All you need to do is find out who owns the copyright, track them down and negotiate a license. All 3 of those steps are now required and any of the 3 can be impossible for many reasons (e.g. the wife of the author just died without a will and no estate except the copyright and nobody really ever cared who owned the copyright anyway or even remembers about it). So "copyright in general" prevents you from publishing, even though there is (very likely) nobody who claims copyright. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphan works are already covered in the 2012 Orphan Works Directive for much the same actions by cultural institutions. According to the new directive, out-of-commerce works shall be deemed such "when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot be reasonably expected to become so". Each member state should have a register of them, similar to the register of orphan works which should already exist. I think a lot depends on how the new directive is implemented, but once a cultural institution has an agreement with a collective rights management organisation for a type of work, it should be able to assume that the same rules will apply for similar works of which the right-holders are not covered by the organisation (but the right-holders of each work will still be able to veto this). Strobilomyces (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
