Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Well, Laz may let someone else take a whack at it at some point. Although I'm not sure who could pull it off.

Laz = Lazeez.

Lazlo is likely no longer alive, unfortunately.

My point was, it's elsewhere been made known that various I&I stories are eligible for being completed by different writers, at Laz's discretion.

My point was, it's elsewhere been made known that various I&I stories are eligible for being completed by different writers, at Laz's discretion.

"Eligible" ??

I don't see how any would be "eligible" unless copyright has expired, which seems unlikely. Until such time, only the copyright owner can grant permission.

Well, Fantasy Lover was allowed to complete one of Warlord's stories, for example...

And honestly, while there've been a few fairly well known writers who've posted here (under pen names) - allegedly - and it's conceivable that they may choose in their wills to have their literary agents exercise their rights over the stories they left here... stories that are mainly erotica (or porn) even with a fair bit of plot, aren't likely to be vigorously defended. Many authors have disappeared because when they died, nobody knew about their posting here, so there was no way to update everyone.
Yeah, there've been people who've vanished for other reasons, likely (my old friend Moghal, for example, just stopped posting at one point, and while it's possible he died suddenly there's other possibilities) but really... if someone 'finishes' someone else's work, and nobody complains, isn't that a good thing?

Now, as far as Lazlo goes... I'd hope that anyone who tried finishing More Magic would contact TeNderLoin and see about getting any notes he may have to try and finish the story in the way it was intended, but...

if someone 'finishes' someone else's work, and nobody complains, isn't that a good thing?

So basically your are saying it is ok to steal if nobody complains.

Laz has already posted entire novels which were copyrighted. Intentionally. They're books where the publishers have folded and the copyrights are held by entities that cannot be traced.

It's a gray area, but generally unprotected copyrights are functionally public domain. Sort of the reverse of all the Disney properties that should've fallen into the public domain years ago, legally, but their lawyers have attempted to evergreen the copyrights on. On the other hand, basically identical to trademarks that have become public domain by becoming indistinguishable from a generic term.

The copyrights Walt at one time personally held (which I believe he transferred to the corp), at the time of his death were to expire long ago. Disney has pushed for US copyrights to be extended, and succeeded. As well, many of their 'classic' movies are scheduled for remastering and rerelease every couple decades in order to reset the countdown on the copyrights.

As well, many of their 'classic' movies are scheduled for remastering and rerelease every couple decades in order to reset the countdown on the copyrights.

Remastering and re-release would not reset the countdown on the original copyrights.

It would create a new copyright that covers only the changes made in the remastering process.

Logically, yes. But anything that can get their team of lawyers into a courtroom is enough to intimidate the hell out of anyone.

But anything that can get their team of lawyers into a courtroom is enough to intimidate the hell out of anyone.

Disney's lawyers don't need a courtroom to intimidate most people. In fact, just about anyone they threaten to sue who is sufficiently not intimidated to even get to a courtroom is unlikely to be intimidated once they get there.

And this has been a large part of their strategy in dealing with the little guy. Make threats that sound plausible to someone with no knowledge of the law but wouldn't stand up in court.

With someone they know has the resources and guts to get to a courtroom, they stick to more meritorious legal claims.

Disney has actually been bit a couple of times because the mistook someone from column B as belonging in column A.

Ayep, that's due to the idiot politicians in the US not having a copyright law that matched that of the rest of the world until they started pushing the rest of the world to match their laws in the 1990s.

Not true. The US synced up with the Berne convention in nearly all respects with the 1976 copyright act.

The 1990s copyright extension pushed US copyright terms BEYOND the Berne Convention but made no other changes. Any where the 1976 copyright law deviates from the Berne Convention US copyright law still deviates from the Berne Convension.

And the extension happened as much because there was an ex-musician/singer (Sunny Bono) in Congress at the time as because of lobbying by Disney.

and in the following decades...

True, but for around 20 years, we mostly matched the Berne Convention (the rest of the world).

And the extension happened as much because there was an ex-musician/singer (Sunny Bono) in Congress at the time as because of lobbying by Disney.

Maybe, just maybe, if Sonny had been a senior senator and chair of a major committee, he would've had the pull to call in enough markers to get a law passed. Maybe.
But not likely. You need serious lobbying money to get a law passed if there isn't already a great deal of support (usually because it's something that will help get those supporting it reelected) already. Disney (and maybe a few others, like Murdoch) bought that legislation.

if Sonny had been a senior senator and chair of a major committee, he would've had the pull to call in enough markers to get a law passed.

No, he just needed a senior senator and chair of a major committee who needed his vote for something on a different issue and was willing to trade.

A lot of horse trading happens in Congress. I'll support your bill if you support mine.

Sony Bono was the sponsor of the bill and it's major proponent. Several news commentators at the time referred to it as the Sonny Bono copyright extension act.

Laz has already posted entire novels which were copyrighted.

Could you provide names to those of us who don't know about them?

Could you provide names to those of us who don't know about them?

Just about anything tagged Novel-Pocketbook.

See this thread for more details: https://storiesonline.net/d/s9/t7224/kathy-andrews

I don't recall the titles. Laz mentioned that he was the one who had posted several erotic novels the copyrights to which had been transferred to the publishing companies which had since gone under, leaving them as orphaned copyrights.
I believe it was mentioned in a thread where someone was asking for reading suggestions.
Also, I believe the stories were all coded with a tag that normal authors can't use. (And that doesn't appear on the category search page). Can't recall if it was 'book' or 'novel'...something like that.

And that doesn't appear on the category search page

Novel-Pocketbook, and the tag is available on category search.it's at the bottom under other.

I don't see how any would be "eligible" unless copyright has expired, which seems unlikely. Until such time, only the copyright owner can grant permission.

IIRC: It's been mentioned before that a couple of authors in ill health had authorized Lazeez to pick someone to finish their works in progress after they were gone.

Copyright is dependent on somebody enforcing it. No heirs, no enforcement, no copyright

Absolutely incorrect.

What I presume you mean, or believe, is that if there is nobody to enforce it then it is ok to flout the copyright laws.

I wonder how much you could afford to defend your copyright and how you would feel if someone applied your standards when stealing your stories?

After all, if you cannot or will not respect the copyright of others, why should anyone respect your rights?

What I presume you mean, or believe, is that if there is nobody to enforce it then it is ok to flout the copyright laws.

Well, at least under US law, the government has no authority to act independently of the copyright owner to enforce a copyright, so this is true, at least from a strictly legal perspective, even if it's ethically problematic.

Rightly or wrongly, there are a lot of people who believe orphaned copyrights should be treated as public domain. Our host is one of them.

and how you would feel if someone applied your standards when stealing your stories?

His stated standard was the author was dead with no heir to inherit the copyright.

So if you are really talking about how he would feel if someone applied his standard, how is he supposed to care one way or the other since he's dead?

Copyright laws are there to protect authors' (and their estate's) financial interest in the work produced, allowing an author to write as a way of earning some (huge or minuscule) living off their work. Awesome thing.

Not exactly correct. Copyright law protects an authors work for a certain time, it does not only apply to the living, nor does it apply only to financial interests. Copyright law is open to interpretation by a court, it is NOT open to interpretation by anyone who decides they can justify flouting it "because". If you truly believe you are legally empowered to arbitrarily decide that you can ignore a law, what is to stop anyone else from deciding to flout a law? Either you respect the law and abide by it, or you choose to break the law. In that case you would be a complete hypocrite to expect anyone to respect your copyright.

If you truly believe you are legally empowered to arbitrarily decide that you can ignore a law, what is to stop anyone else from deciding to flout a law?

Ask the millions of people who exceed the speed limit every day.

Ask the millions of people who exceed the speed limit every day.

Next time you see a speed trap, drive by at excessive speed to ensure you are caught.

When in court, your defence is that you knew the speed limit, you chose to ignore it 'because lots of people do so".

Good luck.

Next time you see a speed trap, drive by at excessive speed to ensure you are caught.

When I drive by a speed trap, I exceed the speed limit by a reasonable amount, and never get pursued. If I was to exceed the limit by some unreasonable amount (as defined as 'far more than everyone else does') then I'd get pulled over.

Not exactly correct. Copyright law protects an authors work for a certain time,

Still not correct. Copyright law does not act proactively to protect anything, nor can the government use copyright law to do so.

Copyright law allows authors and/or their heirs/successors(if the author sold the copyright) to protect their work for a certain time.

it does not only apply to the living

In a sense it does. It does not apply only to living authors, but their must be a living owner (the author, an heir or a successor) to enforce the copyright.

There are 4 distinct cases where copyrights go unenforced.

1. The copyright owner is ignorant of the violation.

2. The copyright owner lacks the resources to enforce their copyright.

3. The Copyright owner chooses not to enforce it for whatever reason.

4. An orphan copyright with no living owner with standing to enforce it.

You are the only person here who sees now moral, ethical, or legal distinctions between these 4 cases.

If you truly believe you are legally empowered to arbitrarily decide that you can ignore a law

And here is where it really goes wrong.

There is nothing particularly arbitrary in someone saying that they don't think that case 4 above, where there is no one who can legally enforce the copyright, even if infinite resources were made available for doing so, is still a valid copyright.

Um, based upon various conversations via email I've had, Laz isn't going to be letting anyone do anything.

Lazlo has passed away. See Lazlo Zalezac for more info.

I'm guessing "The Victorian" was kind of meta - the MC in Fat Farm was working on a novel by that name IIRC. Maybe enough people wanted to see it? (Like so many asked him for the articles from "Millionaire Next Door")

But yeah, ISTR that weather-related issues had done something to More Magic...

How close am I to correct?

Dead on, but orphaned copyrights are a grey area.

As a matter of law only the copyright owner can enforce a copyright.

However, since a copyright can outlive it's owner, it is possible for a live copyright to end up with no owner.

These are called orphaned copyrights. These are a grey area in the law. Technically, it is still a valid copyright, but no person or legal entity(such as a corporation) has standing to enforce it.

The courts in the US (I can't speak for other countries) generally only deal with live cases/controversies with (at least) two parties in dispute, so the courts here will never settle the status of orphaned copyrights.

Congress would have to change the law to do anything specific one way or another with orphaned copyrights.

On the one hand there are people like Joy who argue that orphaned copyrights are still valid copyrights and should be respected.

But there are also people who make a decent argument that orphaned copyrights should be treated as public domain.

But there are also people who make a decent argument that orphaned copyrights should be treated as public domain.

There is a name for such people. It is thieves.

There is a name for such people. It is thieves.

So you think our host is a thief. Why don't you just go away then?

US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Please explain how protecting orphaned copyrights serves this purpose?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Please point out where it states that orphaned copyrights are exempted.

Please point out where it states that orphaned copyrights are exempted.

That doesn't state any specific terms. It only allows Congress to establish copyright law. However, it does so for a specific purpose (promoting the progress of science and the useful arts).

The argument is in part that not only does protecting orphan copyrights not promote the progress of "science and the useful arts", it does the exact opposite, it hinders the progress of science and the useful arts and therefore, protecting them would be unconstitutional.

It only allows Congress to establish copyright law.

And when did Congress decide that orphaned copyrights are exempted?

And when did Congress decide that orphaned copyrights are exempted?

Edited

That's the problem they decided that only the copyright owner(or a designated agent of the owner) can act to enforce a copyright, but then they never decided anything one way or the other about what to do with copyrights that have no owner.

Under the law as it exists now, orphaned copyrights can not be enforced by anyone, even given infinite resources.

If you want to rationally discuss the moral/ethical issues around orphaned copyrights, try thinking about it in terms of abandoned physical property.

You and a friend are walking down the street. Your friend finds a $20 bill lying on the street abandoned and picks it up.

Would you call your friend a thief for claiming an abandoned $20 bill found in a public place?

That is effectively what you are doing in regards to orphaned copyrights.

they never decided anything one way or the other about what to do with copyrights that have no owner.

Which means that copyright is still in force even if "orphaned". How enforceable it is does not change the fact that it exists.

As for your example of a.friend finding an abandoned $20 bill, Think instead of that friend finding an abandoned book. If my friend reads that book, I would hope they enjoy it. If however they copy the book (Presuming copyright hasn't expired) and publish the copies, that is theft and I don't need or want friends who are thieves.

Then you are bound and determined to keep calling our host a thief. So why are you still here?

As for your example of a.friend finding an abandoned $20 bill, Think instead of that friend finding an abandoned book.

No, the book analogy doesn't work. A physical book may be abandoned and can be claimed, but more than likely has a copyright that has an owner. The physical book may be abandoned, but the copyright is not, an abandoned $20 bill would be more like an orphan copyright than an abandoned physical book with a valid copyright that isn't orphaned.

No, the book analogy doesn't work. A physical book may be abandoned and can be claimed, but more than likely has a copyright that has an owner. The physical book may be abandoned, but the copyright is not, an abandoned $20 bill would be more like an orphan copyright than an abandoned physical book with a valid copyright that isn't orphaned.

And if the author of the book is deceased with no heirs?

And if the author of the book is deceased with no heirs?

If the author is dead with no heirs and never sold the copyright to anyone, the copyright is effectively dead, no entity exists that can grant(or refuse) licenses for it and no entity exists who would have standing to enforce it.

This is not a great situation, but it is the situation that existing law creates.

Congress (and legislatures in other countries) need to do something explicit about orphan copyrights.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, though it would be less of a problem with much shorter copyright terms.

If I was making the rules from scratch, I'd go back to the US 1909 copyright act as a starting point. The life+ scheme that started with the Bern Convention is, in my opinion, a problem on several fronts.

The life+ scheme that started with the Bern Convention is, in my opinion, a problem on several fronts.

Ah, but... there are writers who became bestsellers after their death. Their estates, surely, should profit, particularly if they have heirs. If they die without having anyone to pass the copyright to, that's problematic, but by simply specifying in the law that in such a situation the work becomes public domain the problem is solved.

Consider artists whose work only became valuable after their death... yes, if they left enough works unsold during their life, their heirs could profit from their posthumous popularity, but...

Ah, but... there are writers who became bestsellers after their death. Their estates, surely, should profit, particularly if they have heirs.

Why?

Particularly in the US, where Congress is authorized to allow authors to protect their works to promote progress in the arts.

How does it promote progress in the arts to allow an authors heirs, who have written nothing themselves, to sit back and collect royalty checks?

How does it promote progress in the arts to allow an authors heirs, who have written nothing themselves, to sit back and collect royalty checks?

Just as much as people work to support themselves and their dependents, they work to provide for their dependents after their death. So authors can choose to practice their craft, rather than work some other job that will ensure their dependents are provided for after their death, copyrights outliving a author is a reasonable thing. Particularly because really, should the publisher really make all the profit off the death of an author, rather than that author's heirs?

And if the author of the book is deceased with no heirs?

Then unless he previously sold the copyright to a publisher which is a going concern, the book is effectively public domain.

Then unless he previously sold the copyright to a publisher which is a going concern, the book is effectively public domain.

By which you mean that copyright exists but you see fit to ignore the law.

No, I mean that there is no copyright holder, therefor there is no copyright. It's a gray area in the law, which means if it went to court it would be interesting because there's not a lot of precedent. (Mainly because nobody has standing to take legal action.)

By which you mean that copyright exists but you see fit to ignore the law.

He's not actually ignoring the law, he is recognizing that the law as it is has rendered the copyright unenforceable.

So you think our host is a thief. Why don't you just go away then?

I've yet to see joy respond to this, which I'm quite curious about...

I've yet to see joy respond to this, which I'm quite curious about...

I never would have guessed you were into soap opera's :D

No. But throwing gasoline on a fire is always entertaining.

No. But throwing gasoline on a fire is always entertaining.

Ok, for the shit stirring arsonists, my reply is as follows;

Firstly if you have ever bothered to read the section of the site entitled " Posting rules and Author agreement", then you might recall that rule one states;

You are the creator/co-creator of the work or you have explicit written permission from its author to post the work online. ORSubmission is in the public domain (copyright has expired - which you may be asked to prove).

And rule nine states;

Copyright infringement and plagiarism are not tolerated. If complaints are received about copyright/plagiarism on your part, all your work will be removed from the site, and your author account will be closed.
For those vague on the meanings of copyright infringement or plagiarism, it's simple, here it means 'Unauthorized use of the material, partial or complete'. No vague interpretation and your personal views on the issue do not matter, the definition is not up for debate.

since those two rules were presumably written by Lazeez, and it is made plain that he will enforce them, I think it is fair to assume that Lazeez understands the copyright law.

It is also apparent that whilst the site rules are pretty much standard in form, they appear only to apply to the authors and not to the site itself. Admittedly it is not normal practise for any site's rules to specifically state that they apply to the site, one would presume that any site would adhere to the rules it sets out to apply and enforce upon its members.

Whilst I don't know Lazeez, the subject of copyright has been raised in various posts in the past and Lazeez has posted in some of those discussions. From those it seems that Lazeez is somewhat of a conservator of stories and is rather passionate about preserving stories that would otherwise disappear into the ether. Indeed I think this site started out hosted on Lazeez's own computer and so was only accessible when he was online, basically the content began with his own personal collection of stories. He isn't the only one, Eli the bearded did something similar, his efforts grew to become assm/asstr.

Not that I'm old enough to have been online at that time. I do however have a friend who was. In fact she was online when Eli was still clean shaven and IRC and BBS formed the majority of bandwidth usage. Having been able to read some of the stories from those days, tales such as the adventures of a certain nurse who was kinky enough to explore such things as full body plaster cast bondage, I can understand the motivation to conserve such works for the enjoyment of future readers.

So, you might be asking, how does this answer the fuel flame fire fans?

Perhaps Lazeez is content to enforce copyright upon others but flout it himself? Or perhaps he sees a fundamental difference between conservation of stories made available for free and a thief who steals another's work and attempts to 'complete' it, or simply steals the characters and setting to benefit themselves? Not forgetting those who seek to simply steal a story and pass it off as their own work.

Perhaps the real hypocrites are those authors who react with anger when their stories are posted on Amazon etc by a copyright thief, yet see nothing wrong with unauthorised fan fiction, unauthorised continuations of Incomplete stories etc etc. After all, if you condone the theft of another's work, why should you bitch when yours is stolen?

As for the view that orphan stories are fair game. I wonder if those same people realise that a great many people have willingly given or risked their lives to protect those who cannot protect themselves? There is great honour in doing that. There is no honour in stealing just because you can get away with it.

since those two rules were presumably written by Lazeez, and it is made plain that he will enforce them, I think it is fair to assume that Lazeez understands the copyright law.

Yes, he does. Probably better than you do. What you are missing is that Lazeez himself has posted stories to SOL with live but orphaned copyrights.

See this thread, https://storiesonline.net/d/s9/t7224/kathy-andrews, for a direct statement to that effect from Lazeez himself.

As for the view that orphan stories are fair game. I wonder if those same people realise that a great many people have willingly given or risked their lives to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

I wonder how many of those people who have willingly given or risked their lives to protect those who cannot protect themselves have knowingly done so to protect corpses?

I wonder how many of those people who have willingly given or risked their lives to protect those who cannot protect themselves have knowingly done so to protect corpses?

If you bothered to check, you would know that such acts are by no means uncommon. Especially in conflicts where the enemy routinely desecrate the bodies of the dead.

British soldier died trying retrieve body of dead Afghan comrade.

I think it is fair to assume that Lazeez understands the copyright law.

...and according to the tag FAQ page, the following:

Novel-Pocketbook An old published pocketbook novel that is not in circulation any more and the publisher has gone under, so it's not going to be published again

Which certainly implies Laz is more than ok with posting works with orphaned copyright. Especially since, IIRC, he's the only one who can apply that code to a story.

We all know this is an endless and useless discussion that has been had several times before. Can I summarize 'The Problem'?

1 - Copyright infringement? Probably Yes, IANAL.

2 - Does the copyright holder care? No, there is no copyright holder left alive.

3 - Is anyone denied revenue from the copyright? No, there is no one left alive with right to any of the copyright revenue.

Did I miss something?

Did I miss something?

You missed out respecting both the law and the author and replaced both with a purely monetary driven morality.

You missed out respecting both the law and the author and replaced both with a purely monetary driven morality.

"Respecting" has absolutely nothing to do with law. That's a good thing because it's a subjective bias which is totally useless for law. Maybe it does have to do with morality but not monetary driven morality. There's no place or person to send a copyright fee to.
The alternative is that in the long run a copyrighted work without owner is lost for eternity. Is that really a better alternative?

No, a copyrighted story will only be lost if nobody cares enough to re-publish it once the copyright runs out.

You can thank Disney and Bono for that. The time it takes to run out the copyright has become so long that it is causing exactly what this discussion has turned in to. If a copyrighted work is left waiting for so long you might as well consider it lost, especially with works that sort of 'shelf life'. Lots of books become somewhat irrelevant after 50+ years.

There's no place or person to send a copyright fee to.

Copyright law does not apply only to works that generate financial reward. Copyright applies to the work itself.

However, your opinion seems to be that if nobody is around to collect a fee, then copyright can be ignored.

So, yes, your interpretation is based purely on a monetary morality.

Copyright law does not apply only to works that generate financial reward. Copyright applies to the work itself.

However, your opinion seems to be that if nobody is around to collect a fee, then copyright can be ignored.

So, yes, your interpretation is based purely on a monetary morality.

That's not what I intended and you know it, don't try to twist my words. You mentioned "respecting" copyright and my statements can be compiled as "no harm". Who does it harm when there is no copyright owner? There's no money component in that either.
Don't get me wrong, considering the copyright laws you are right and I'm not against it but you seem to forget that those same copyright laws are there to protect the copyright holders. I'm talking about when there's no one to protect.

You missed out respecting both the law and the author

If the author doesn't hold the copyright (often, in these instances, the copyright was sold to the publisher which later ceased to exist) how does republishing the work disrespect the author?

As to the law, obviously you respect only the letter of the law, while others only respect the spirit of the law.

You missed out respecting both the law and the author

Not respecting the law perhaps, but then the law is often an ass and deserves no respect.

As to the author, since we've already declared the revenue stream irrelevant, how does republishing the work 70 years after the author's death respect the author while republishing 20 years after the authors death somehow disrespects the author?

The answer to both your statements is basically the same.

We as writers benefit from the protection that copyright law provides. If you wish to benefit from a law you don't get to cherry pick the parts you want and simply ignore the rest. If you don't like the copyright law, then campaign to get it changed. If your preferred course is to cherry pick, then you weaken the parts you actually like.

I think most people woulds be happy to see certain laws changed or even scrapped, yet most people obey those laws, perhaps due to the punishments if caught, but perhaps because living with imperfect laws is a better alternative to living in anarchy.

I absolutely agree that the changes in time limits brought about by Disney etc are a complete travesty that should never have been allowed. If it burns your balls that much, then campaign to get the law changed, alternatively just break the law, but at least have the balls to admit you are doing so.

I absolutely agree that the changes in time limits brought about by Disney etc are a complete travesty that should never have been allowed.

It's not just the extension of US copyrights in the 1990s that's a problem. The Bern convention (late 19th century) term(the US 1990s extension only adds 20 years to the Bern Convention term) is way to long.

I do not support the corporate owned copyrights being that long (25 years is more than long enough for corporate copyright ownership)

Even if a copyright is sold to a corporation, expiration is still based on the x years after the death of the original author.

For works where the author is legally considered the author in the US (due to work for hire rules), the term was a flat 70 years under the 1976 copyright act and 90 years after the extension in the 1990s.

my $0.02: 25 years is enough whether the owner is a corporation or a natural person. Making the life span of a copyright so long that it is likely to get handed down to the author's grandchildren is just absurd.

If I forced a mutation in a lab, to create a gene which turned out to be extremely useful for some reason, I'd certainly want to get some sort of protection on it. Ideally a trademark (they don't expire) but a copyright would do.

The public domain section does not cover what we are referring to as orphan copyrights.

Subject to other provisions of the Act, a work will fall into the public domain:[67]

50 years after publication, in nearly all cases, if it was subject to Crown copyright.[68]

50 years after the death of its creator.

50 years after publication where the creator is unknown, or (if not published) 75 years after its creation.

if it is a communications signal, 50 years after the signal is broadcast.

We are referring to works where the author is known (or at least there was a known owner of the copyright at publication) but the copyright owner died(or went defunct in the case of a corporation) with no heirs and no successor.

It is less than 50 years after the death of the author, but the copyright has no valid owner.

There was a section that stated you could write to the copyright office on orphaned copyrights to get permission or a license of use from a board inside the copyright office.

As I read it, that was in reference to works where the copyright owner was unknown. We are talking about cases where the owner was known, but has ceased to exist with no heirs or successor.

If a copyright holder doesn't wish to enforce that right, there's no infraction.

Utter bullshit.

If the copyright holder granted permission, there's no infraction.

Utter bullshit.

If the copyright holder granted permission, there's no infraction.

You should go read up on "implied license" issues.

If a copyright holder makes a general statement that he/she/it will not enforce the copyright in a certain circumstance that would otherwise be a violation of the copyright, that statement is not legally sufficient under the law to constitute "permission" or a license in the traditional sense, but the courts may under some circumstances hold the copyright holder (and even an heir or successor) to that statement anyway.

You should go read up on "implied license" issues.

What part of "granted" did you confuse with "implied" ??

What part of "granted" did you confuse with "implied" ??

None. Implied copyright licenses are actually a thing. You should read up on it. Implied here is language actually used by the courts.

None. Implied copyright licenses are actually a thing. You should read up on it. Implied here is language actually used by the courts.

So why when I simply stated "If the copyright holder granted permission, there's no infraction." Did you suggest I look up "implied license".

You lost me for a moment, but I found you in the obtuse section.

So why when I simply stated "If the copyright holder granted permission, there's no infraction." Did you suggest I look up "implied license".

Because the way you said it and the context of what you were replying to implies that you think that there is necessarily a violation without such a grant of permission. That's not true. Even absent fair use, there can be no violation even without an express grant of permission due to implied license issues.

A public expression of the sort of intent not to enforce that bk69 mentioned is exactly the sort of thing that will create an implied license.

If the copyright holder granted permission, there's no infraction.

And if the copyright holder doesn't wish to enforce that right, and makes no secret of that fact, that's considered implied license.

If the copyright holder granted permission, there's no infraction.

The question is what happens when there's nobody to give such permission. If I understand what you are implying it would be, that in absence of anyone to give such permission there's none, even if it is know that it is impossible. I have no legal background and haven't studied the law in question (additionally I'm non-English and thus my terminology may be two-plus-bad), so I would go with your expertise believing it might be so. Still it would be curious result because it would result in a case of permissive law while western law is supposed to be based in Roman rights and thus be restrictive (that is, describe what is prohibited while anything else is allowed versus "eastern" law describing what is allowed while anything else is prohibited.)

Besides that any law only ever have sense as far it is and can be enforced. Laws that cannot be enforced have no meaning, and laws that aren't enforced have no bearing.

"Natural" laws (like gravity) enforce themselves, laws that are nothing but expression of power on a whim (like censorship in an authoritarian regime) depends solely on strength of that power, or are invalid by default. Most social laws (including criminal) are somewhere in the middle. At times (especially in tax) the ultimate resulting goal of the law differs from the letter of it when lawmakers haven't been clever enough to simulate what would happen when majority will inevitably attempt to cheat the law.

You seem not to see or comprehend that there's always a spectrum. Some laws are more "natural" as others. Murder, rape, robbery and blatant theft are punishable by community under even most rudimentary tribal rights because they tend to decrease total wealth available to the society more often than not. And trust me, they are punished (or at least attempted to) even if the law of the land fails totally.

Esoteric laws like copyright are premised on rather sophisticated forms of social interaction. We, as a collective, may be better off obeying it, but at what point such start to resemble dangerous whims?

The question then is, to whom you complain about infringement of the law, and who is the victim of said infringement? If you struggle to find either, is it a law at all?

It's easy to dismiss bank robbery as not truly "victimless" as some attempt to claim because the resulting losses are buried in a long chain of non-trivial interactions; ultimately the loss is offset against society as whole. Similarly, death of endangered species by poachers nobody has no rescue nor willingness to discover and prosecute still is discernible loss. But what is lost in case of orphaned copyright? Artistic purity?

That only applies if the author didn't sell the copyright to a publisher, which is the most common source of orphaned work - when the copyright holder ceases to exist.

The question is what happens when there's nobody to give such permission.

Ok, for example.

You write a novel, you send out a few copies to friends for their opinion. They, their friends and everyone who hears about it instantly recognises your novel to be THE most significant novel written in the 21century.

A plethora of publishers attempt to contact you seeking, nay begging, to publish your novel.

You simply ignore all attempts to contact you, despite their numerous attempts they receive not a single word, verbal or written, from you.

Now. If anyone, friend or publisher, obtained one of those few copies, could they legally ignore the copyright laws and publish it?

If your answer is no, then we agree that inability to contact the author is not grounds for breach of copyright.

If your answer is yes. You are wrong.

We aren't talking about a case where they author/copyright owner refuses contact. We are talking about a case where the author/copyright owner definitively no longer exists, with no heirs or successors.

In stead of trying to make up different cases, why don't you try directly addressing the case where it's not simply lack of contactability, but that the copyright owner provably no longer exists.

The question is not what do you do when there is someone who can grant permission, but you can't contact that person.

The question is what should be done in the case where no person or organization exists with the authority to grant that permission.

In stead of trying to make up different cases, why don't you try directly addressing the case where it's not simply lack of contactability, but that the copyright owner provably no longer exists.

In both cases the author is most definitely uncontactable. Just because you can't justify your position does not mean I'm not addressing the issue.

Ok. In your example, I show up at his house with a sawed off shotgun, and some paperwork. I'm pretty sure he'll sign either a release or a contract or whatever.
Now in his example, whose address do I go to to force the issue?

In both cases the author is most definitely uncontactable.

But they are uncontactable for very different reasons. In one case there is always the possiblity that the author might be contactable in the future. In the other there is not.

Forget for a moment what the law actually requires (or what you imagine it requires).

What do you think should be done with copyrights where the author/copyright owner is dead with no heirs and/or successor, where there is no one you can even attempt to contact for permission?

And again, given our host Lazeez has openly admitted to treating orphan copyrights as if they were public domain, given how you feel about it, why are you even here?

If your answer is no, then we agree that inability to contact the author is not grounds for breach of copyright.

If your answer is yes. You are wrong.

Your example doesn't fit any of the arguments from both sides of the discussion. If the owner of the copyright is living and identified then of course the copyright should be respected. That's not the situation that was discussed. There's shades of gray between black and white.

There's shades of gray between black and white.

Yes, but joy only sees black and white. (Which is odd. I'd much more expect her to see only black and tan.)

After reading this, I'm expecting joy to release her next novel "Fifty Shades of Black and White"

More likely is "How to survive teaching kindergarten".

ETA

No, I take that back, it is much more likely to be "Atlas jerked off"