Open and the “Next Great Copyright Act” | Open Knowledge Foundation Blog

Director of the U.S. Copyright Office Maria Pallante is expected to call today for updates to U.S. copyright law. Her brief written testimony is already available and a longer speech given two weeks ago (titled 'The Next Great Copyright Act') provides additional flavor. Substantial changes to copyright will take years to play out in the U.S., and similarly around the world. If Open is to impact how copyright and other knowledge regulation plays out over the next years, we must assert how and why, and develop our strategies for making it so. Statements like Pallante’s provide not-to-be-missed opportunities to contextualize and explain the importance of Open to the world.  While Pallante’s calls are at best a mixed bag, two items offer glimmers of hope and are useful for illustrating both the value and strategy of Open: 'Congress also may need to apply fresh eyes to the next great copyright act to ensure that the copyright law remains relevant and functional. This may require some bold adjustments to the general framework. You may want to consider alleviating some of the pressure and gridlock brought about by the long copyright term — for example, by reverting works to the public domain after a period of life plus fifty years unless heirs or successors register their interests with the Copyright Office.'  50 years with an option for more is far from anything that might be considered optimal — OKF’s Rufus Pollock has estimated 15 years and others less, even before accounting for values achieved through openness such as freedom and equality — and is a dangerous place to start new debate, considering that Disney lobbyists have not yet weighed in.  But any possibility of mitigating the heretofore relentless march of copyright term extension and by implication appreciation of the value of the public domain is welcome, and an opportunity ... Pallante: 'And in compelling circumstances, you may wish to reverse the general principle of copyright law that copyright owners should grant prior approval for the reproduction and dissemination of their works — for example, by requiring copyright owners to object or 'opt out' in order to prevent certain uses, whether paid or unpaid, by educational institutions or libraries.'  Openly licensed works — those that all are free to use, reuse, and redistribute subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike — unambiguously permit such uses, right now, and are increasingly becoming expected and even mandated where public funding is provided or public benefit is a primary goal. What better way to make the case for liberal policy where public funding or benefit is at stake than to promote and demonstrate the value of Open works now? Again, we have to talk about our usual pro-openness work’s relevance to policy, loudly! ... "