Examining Orphan Works from the Perspective of Malaysian Copyright Law
Abstract
Orphan works are works that are still protected by copyright but their copyright holders cannot be identified, contacted, or tracked down. Interested parties must obtain permission from the copyright holder before using the latter’s works. However, the consent requirement cannot be met in the context of orphan works, causing issues for users such as individuals, businesses, and cultural and heritage organisations. This paper aims to investigate the challenges and obstacles of using orphan works in Malaysia. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada, as well as the European Union, have already implemented a number of strategies to address this issue. Among them include licensing scheme and specific exemption for the use of orphan works. Malaysia currently lacks a legal and policy framework to address this issue. As a result, this paper aims to examine the strategies used in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the European Union in order to provide some recommendations to the Malaysian Parliament and policymakers. It is hoped that this paper will raise awareness of the legal cladding in the issue of access to orphan works, allowing these works to be used by anyone without fear of legal ramifications.
References
1. Ahmed, Bzhar A., & al-Salihi, Kameran H. (2020). Analysis of the proposed solutions for the use of orphan works across the world. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(34), 350-374.
2. Badrul Isa & Zuraimi Zakaria (2007). Museums and education: Theoretical approaches and implications for Asian universities. Asian Journal of University Education, 3(1), 93-109.
3. Bibb, M. L. (2009). Applying old theories to new problems: How adverse possession can help solve the orphan works crisis. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(1), 149-181.
4. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The New imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
5. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business model: How to Thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Press.
6. Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (Eds.) (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. Oxford University Press.
7. Chon, M. (2011). Sticky knowledge and copyright. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 177-217.
8. Colangelo, G., & Lincesson, I. (2012). Law versus technology: Looking for a solution to the orphan works’ problem. International Journal of Law and Information Technology,20(3), 178-202.
9. Copenhaver, M. S. (2014). Orphan works and the global interplay of democracy, copyright, and access. Dlm. St. Amant, K. & Rife, M. (Eds.). Routledge.
10. Dahlberg, B. (2011). The Orphan Works Problem: Preserving Access to the Cultural History of Disadvantaged Groups. Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice,20(2), 275-314.
11. De Beer, J. & Bouchard, M. (2010). Canada’s orphan works regime: Unlocatable copyright owners and the copyright board. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal,10(2), 215-254.
12. Goldenfein, J. & Hunter, D. (2017). Blockchains, orphan works, and the public domain. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts,41(1), 1-43.
13. Gompel, Stef Van, & Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. (2010). The orphan works problem: The copyright conundrum of digitizing large-scale audiovisual archives, and how to solve it. Popular Communication The International Journal of Media and Culture, 8(1), 61-71.
14. Greismann, L. (2012). The greatest book you will never read: Public access rights and the orphan works dilemma. Duke Law & Technology Review,11(2), 193-211.
15. Guibault, L., & Schroff, S. (2018). Extended Collective licensing for the use of out-of-commerce work in Europe: A matter of legitimacy vis-a-vis rights holders. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,49(8),916-939.
16. Hansen, D. R., Hashimoto, K., Hinze, G., Samuelson, P., & Urban, J. M. (2013). Solving the orphan works problem for the United States. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 37(1), 1-55.
17. Ilie, L. (2014). Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic Approach. Procedia Economics and Finance,16(2014), 548-552.
18. Lerner, J. I., & Donaldson, M. C. (2013). Reply comment of international documentary association et al., In the matter of orphan works and mass digitization, no. 2012-12. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2382426 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2382426
19. Lu, B. (2013). The orphan works copyright issue: suggestions for international response. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,60(3), 255-284.
20. Madison, M. J. (2010). Beyond creativity: Copyright as knowledge law. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(4), 817-851.
21. Marlin-Bennett, R. (2004). Knowledge Power: Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy. Lynne Rienner.
22. Martinez, M., & Terras, M. (2019). Not Adopted: The UK orphan works licensing scheme and how the crisis of copyright in the cultural heritage sector restricts access to digital content. Open Library of Humanities,5(1), 1-51.
23. Meeks, K. M. (2013). Adverse possession of orphan works. Loyola of Los Angeles Enter-tainment Law Review,33(1), 1-37.
24. Ministry of Law Singapore. (2019). Singapore Copyright Review Report.
25. Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair & Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim. (2021). Exploring the suitability of Chesbrough’s open innovation concept for the exploitation and management of orphan works under copyright law. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 11(2), 136-153
26. Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair, Farizah Mohamed Isa & Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim. (2023). Navigating copyright: Strategies for managing orphan works in cultural and memory institutions in Malaysia. ESTEEM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(2), 97-106.
27. Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair, Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim & Maria Anagnostopoulou. (2021). Public good theory: A theoretical justification for permissive licence to use and reuse orphan works. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), 179-197.
28. US Copyright Office. (2015). Orphan works and mass digitization: A report of the registrar of copyrights. U.S Copyright Office.
29. Sarid, E., & Ben-Zvi, O. (2023). A theoretical analysis of orphan works. Cardozo Arts
2. Badrul Isa & Zuraimi Zakaria (2007). Museums and education: Theoretical approaches and implications for Asian universities. Asian Journal of University Education, 3(1), 93-109.
3. Bibb, M. L. (2009). Applying old theories to new problems: How adverse possession can help solve the orphan works crisis. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(1), 149-181.
4. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The New imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
5. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business model: How to Thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Press.
6. Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (Eds.) (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. Oxford University Press.
7. Chon, M. (2011). Sticky knowledge and copyright. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 177-217.
8. Colangelo, G., & Lincesson, I. (2012). Law versus technology: Looking for a solution to the orphan works’ problem. International Journal of Law and Information Technology,20(3), 178-202.
9. Copenhaver, M. S. (2014). Orphan works and the global interplay of democracy, copyright, and access. Dlm. St. Amant, K. & Rife, M. (Eds.). Routledge.
10. Dahlberg, B. (2011). The Orphan Works Problem: Preserving Access to the Cultural History of Disadvantaged Groups. Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice,20(2), 275-314.
11. De Beer, J. & Bouchard, M. (2010). Canada’s orphan works regime: Unlocatable copyright owners and the copyright board. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal,10(2), 215-254.
12. Goldenfein, J. & Hunter, D. (2017). Blockchains, orphan works, and the public domain. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts,41(1), 1-43.
13. Gompel, Stef Van, & Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. (2010). The orphan works problem: The copyright conundrum of digitizing large-scale audiovisual archives, and how to solve it. Popular Communication The International Journal of Media and Culture, 8(1), 61-71.
14. Greismann, L. (2012). The greatest book you will never read: Public access rights and the orphan works dilemma. Duke Law & Technology Review,11(2), 193-211.
15. Guibault, L., & Schroff, S. (2018). Extended Collective licensing for the use of out-of-commerce work in Europe: A matter of legitimacy vis-a-vis rights holders. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,49(8),916-939.
16. Hansen, D. R., Hashimoto, K., Hinze, G., Samuelson, P., & Urban, J. M. (2013). Solving the orphan works problem for the United States. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 37(1), 1-55.
17. Ilie, L. (2014). Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic Approach. Procedia Economics and Finance,16(2014), 548-552.
18. Lerner, J. I., & Donaldson, M. C. (2013). Reply comment of international documentary association et al., In the matter of orphan works and mass digitization, no. 2012-12. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2382426 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2382426
19. Lu, B. (2013). The orphan works copyright issue: suggestions for international response. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,60(3), 255-284.
20. Madison, M. J. (2010). Beyond creativity: Copyright as knowledge law. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(4), 817-851.
21. Marlin-Bennett, R. (2004). Knowledge Power: Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy. Lynne Rienner.
22. Martinez, M., & Terras, M. (2019). Not Adopted: The UK orphan works licensing scheme and how the crisis of copyright in the cultural heritage sector restricts access to digital content. Open Library of Humanities,5(1), 1-51.
23. Meeks, K. M. (2013). Adverse possession of orphan works. Loyola of Los Angeles Enter-tainment Law Review,33(1), 1-37.
24. Ministry of Law Singapore. (2019). Singapore Copyright Review Report.
25. Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair & Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim. (2021). Exploring the suitability of Chesbrough’s open innovation concept for the exploitation and management of orphan works under copyright law. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 11(2), 136-153
26. Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair, Farizah Mohamed Isa & Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim. (2023). Navigating copyright: Strategies for managing orphan works in cultural and memory institutions in Malaysia. ESTEEM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(2), 97-106.
27. Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair, Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim & Maria Anagnostopoulou. (2021). Public good theory: A theoretical justification for permissive licence to use and reuse orphan works. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), 179-197.
28. US Copyright Office. (2015). Orphan works and mass digitization: A report of the registrar of copyrights. U.S Copyright Office.
29. Sarid, E., & Ben-Zvi, O. (2023). A theoretical analysis of orphan works. Cardozo Arts
Published
2023-12-27
How to Cite
MUHAMAD KHAIR, Muhamad Helmi.
Examining Orphan Works from the Perspective of Malaysian Copyright Law.
Kanun: Jurnal Undang-undang Malaysia, [S.l.], v. 36, n. 1, p. 21-40, dec. 2023.
ISSN 2682-8057.
Available at: <https://jurnal.dbp.my/index.php/Kanun/article/view/8821>. Date accessed: 26 dec. 2024.
doi: https://doi.org/10.37052/kanun.36(1)no2.
Section
Articles
