Conclusions of the various Cultural Heritage Institutions

1. | To plug the black hole of the 20th century
| To ensure legal certainty for the use of orphan works
| To create an engine for digitising cultural works and putting
them online
Objectives:
Orphan Works Directive 2012/28/EU
CC01.0.
Folien CC BY 4.0. Dr. Ellen Euler, LL.M., Deputy Director Finances, Communication, Law, DDB

2. Conclusions from the
various memory institutions

3. Statement from the Museum Sector
Collection Director HdG Bonn Dietmar Preißler:
“The legal regulations with regard to “orphan works” are not helpful when it comes
to working in a contemporary historical museum with objects which are affected by
a period of copyright protection.”
1. The objects in the museum – i.e. 2D and 3D objects – are not covered by the legal
definition. By law, “orphan works” only apply to written material and AV
materials. As a consequence, most of the affected museum objects cannot be
simply integrated into the DDB.
2. The personnel and financial expense for the “thorough search” required by law
and its documentation is too high. Ten thousand objects would have to be
investigated in the Haus der Geschichte alone. An inquiry in line with legal
procedure would drag on for several years (240 years of a full time equivalent).
3. The amount of money required for a reasonable payment once it became known
to the rights holder is not calculable.
Photo: JPeterson cc by-sa 2.0Folien CC BY 4.0. Dr. Ellen Euler, LL.M., Deputy Director Finances, Communication, Law, DDB

4. Statement from the Archival Sector
Department Head of Specialised Policy Matters and Central Special Services,
Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Martin-Weber:
“We can’t unearth the treasures of our image archive even after the regulation for
orphan and out-of-print works has come into effect. Thousands of images continue
to lie dormant in the archives because standalone photographs (single images) are
not covered by this regulation.”
The policy is strongly rooted in a library-
oriented approach, where the creator is
known by name for the most part and only
the rights holder is unknown. It is different
for images (photos, aerial views, posters):
In these cases, the creator is only known
by surname – if at all. Approx. 3 million
images in the Bundesarchiv do not have a
named creator (most of which have no
known capture and/or publication date,
meaning that §66 of the German copyright
act is ineffective), and we only know the
photographer’s surname for approx. 65%.
Folien CC BY 4.0. Dr. Ellen Euler, LL.M., Deputy Director Finances, Communication, Law, DDB

5. Statement from the Film Sector
Secretary Association of the Cinémathèques Européennes – ACE
& European Film Gateway, FORWARD Kerstin Herlt:
Image:PublicDomainsitePixabay
“We have made a start. But the orphan works regulation should also allow orphan
films to be shown in cinemas in the future, and there should be protection against
written warnings.”
1. The privilege should not be restricted to online use, but should be extended to include
cinema screenings, DVD editions, use in exhibitions etc.
2. There are no regulations obliging producers and film companies, i.e. the sources who have
to be investigated by law, to provide information, or any regulations for cases in which the
necessary information is not shared. So perhaps a period of time should be set, and if no
information is given before it lapses, the work is considered to be orphaned.
3. If a rights holder raises an objection, they must prove their alleged legal ownership (as is
the regulation in Finland).
Folien CC BY 4.0. Dr. Ellen Euler, LL.M., Deputy Director Finances, Communication, Law, DDB

6. Statement from the Library Sector
Administrative Director DNB Dorothea Zechmann:
“The orphan works regulation is not suitable for performing mass digitisation. As a
result, the German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) will revert to the
out-of-print works regulation.”
Photo:CCBY3.0.JürgenKeiper
Folien CC BY 4.0. Dr. Ellen Euler, LL.M., Deputy Director Finances, Communication, Law, DDB