The New York Times may have gotten it wrong. If the songs are indeed jointly owned, then Mr. Willis can't stop the music. Why? Any one of the joint authors can grant a non-exclusive license, subject to a duty to account to the other joint authors. And, beginning in 1909, Congress created a compulsory license right. Anyone can record a song withou consent of the writer or lyricist. Is this a victory for Mr. Willis? Abolutely. But, unless there are facts I'm not aware of, it's about money, not control.
In justifying the GBS, the Author's Guild said, "In our view, it's best for everyone that out-of-print library books be made available through reasonable, market-based means to readers, students and scholars." True. But why gift Google the exclusive rights to Orphan Works. The AG should have continued to lobby Congress on behalf meaningful Orphan Works legislation. Orphan Works had what to with the fair use? And, had the fair use issue been resolved in Google's favor, what harm to publishers if Google was reined in by the 4th fair use factor. Content is king, and the Guild (and AAP) gave Google a heap of content which it will monetize. Geez. Why wouldn't the the AG and AAP blue pencil the naughty Orphan Works bits?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by copylaw.
Willis Can't Stop the Music / Did NYT's Get it Wrong?
The New York Times may have gotten it wrong. If the songs are indeed jointly owned, then Mr. Willis can't stop the music. Why? Any one of the joint authors can grant a non-exclusive license, subject to a duty to account to the other joint authors. And, beginning in 1909, Congress created a compulsory license right. Anyone can record a song withou consent of the writer or lyricist. Is this a victory for Mr. Willis? Abolutely. But, unless there are facts I'm not aware of, it's about money, not control.
Come Again? What Did the Guild Gift OP Works to Google?
In justifying the GBS, the Author's Guild said, "In our view, it's best for everyone that out-of-print library books be made available through reasonable, market-based means to readers, students and scholars." True. But why gift Google the exclusive rights to Orphan Works. The AG should have continued to lobby Congress on behalf meaningful Orphan Works legislation. Orphan Works had what to with the fair use? And, had the fair use issue been resolved in Google's favor, what harm to publishers if Google was reined in by the 4th fair use factor. Content is king, and the Guild (and AAP) gave Google a heap of content which it will monetize. Geez. Why wouldn't the the AG and AAP blue pencil the naughty Orphan Works bits?