To recap, orphan works are works for which the rights holder (author, producer) is unknown or cannot be located. These pose a major barrier to cultural heritage institutions wishing to make their collections available online, since making them available online without permission from the rights holder would constitute copyright infringement. This is because Copyright law states that the act of reproduction (for example scanning) and making available (such as through a website) are the exclusive rights of the author/creator. If cultural heritage institutions were to make such works available without permission they would be infringing Copyright leading to potential financial and reputation damage, from a claim by a reappearing rights holder.
To resolve this issue legislators around the world have adopted different solutions ranging from national licensing schemes, exceptions to copyright, to proposals for limiting the amount of damages paid in infringement cases.
Act 77 of the Canadian Copyright Act allows anyone seeking to use in Copyright works where they are unable to locate the rightsholder to apply for a license to the Canadian Copyright Board. The Board will evaluate if the efforts made to locate the rightsholder are sufficient and may then grant a license. Licenses are non-exclusive but permit certain uses including reproduction, publication, performance, and distribution.
Licensees are required to pay royalties to the Collective societies, to be held as compensation for a reappearing rightsowner. Collective societies were required to hold the royalties for upto 5 years after the expiry of the license after which they were entitled to ‘dispose of the royalties as it sees fit for the general benefit of its members’. However, this practice was abandoned and the collective societies were able:
to use the unlocatable owners’ royalties as they saw fit from the outset, as long as the collective undertook to compensate the owner if necessary. (De Beer & Bouchard 2009)
The Canadian legislation appears to have had a limited effect as to date less than 300 licenses have been issued since (Copyright Board of Canada). The Report of the Register of Copyrights (2015) notes that several studies have drawn attention to low usage and flaw in the Canadian system.
German legislation on orphan and out-of-commerce works was passed on 1/10/2013 and entered into force on 1/1/2014. The amendments to the Copyright Act represented Germany’s implementation of the EU Orphan Works directive, permitting the digitisation and making available to the public, under certain conditions, of qualifying works from the collections of publicly accessible libraries, educational institutions, museums and archives. (VGWort.de)
The legislation establishes a presumption that a collecting society administering the rights in such works is also entitled to do so for the works of non-members provided that the usage is non-commercial, the works in question are recorded in the Register of Out-of-Commerce Works maintained by the German Patent and Trademark Office and the rightsholder has not objected within six weeks of registration.
The Hungarian Copyright Act (HCA) tackles orphan works in three distinct sections. The HCA was amended in 2003 by Act CII to include a free use provision that permits libraries, archives and other educational institutions, to provide limited onsite access to works in their collection, including orphan works, via dedicated terminals for educational and scholarly research purposes.
Specific legislation dealing with orphan works, came into effect 1 February 2009. The orphan works specific provisions of the HCA allow the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) to grant licenses for both commercial or non-commercial uses of orphan works. Applicants must complete a documented diligent search and pay compensation for their use.
Article 67 of the Japanese Copyright Law allows users who have been unable to locate or identify the rightsholder of a work after due diligence to apply for a compulsory license. Applicants must deposit compensation for reappearing rightsholders, the sum of which must correspond to the normal royalty rate and is determined in conjunction with the Culture Council by the Agency of Cultural Affairs. Compulsory licensing is only available for works that have been:
made public or those for which it is clear that they have been offered to or made available to the public for a considerable period of time. (United States Copyright Office 2015)
Under Japanese legislation it is possible to obtain a compulsory licence for works of a foreign author as long as the work will continue to be exploited within Japan. The terms conditions for diligent search for foreign works are the same as those that apply to domestic works. (Favale et al. 2013)
Per Article 50 of the Korean Copyright Act users may apply to the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism for a compulsory license to allow use of certain types of orphan works. Applicants must demonstrate that they have taken “considerable efforts” to identify the rightsholder or rightsholder’s place of residence and compensation must be paid at market rates, as determined by the Korea Copyright Commission.
The Swiss Copyright Act contains provisions on orphan works which are limited to sound and audio-visual recordings. Art. 22b URG/CopA authorises users to seek authorisation for the exploitation of works from the licensed collective management organisations if the rightsholder cannot be contacted, is unknown or cannot be located. (Suisa Blog)
The Netherlands implemented the Orphan Works Directive into their national Copyright Act (‘Auteurswet’) in 2014 with the law entitled: Wet van 8 oktober 2014 tot wijziging van de Auteurswet en de Wet op de naburige rechten in verband met de implementatie van de Richtlijn nr. 2012/28/EU inzake bepaalde toegestane gebruikswijzen van verweesde werken (Act of 8 October 2014 amending the Copyright Act and the Related Rights Act
with the implementation of Directive 2012/28 / EU on certain permitted uses of
orphan works) this amended the Dutch Copyright Act and Neighbouring Rights Act (Favale et al 2016). Prior to this the Dutch had no specific orphan works legislation, instead relying on contractual agreements between heritage institutions and rightsholder organisations. (KEA 2011)
A 2011 study by the IViR (Institute for Information Law of Amsterdam University) proposed what it considered two viable solutions to improve rights clearance, 1) a compulsory collective licensing model or 2) an extended collective licensing model. The report concluded that in order to satisfy the need of rights holders to exercise their rights, certain restrictions would be required such as limiting licenses to cultural heritage institutions with a public mission. To ensure film producers don’t suffer unfair competition, from CHIs in the exploitation of their digital rights they suggest the option of granting a license on audio-visual heritage material older than ten years.
In the UK Orphan Works Legislation was originally introduced in the 2010 Digital Economy Bill Clause 42 (Subsequently Clause 43) however the provision was eventually dropped during the wash-up phase of the 2010 parliament. The legislation would have allowed the Secretary of State to create a licensing scheme for orphan works. (Khong 2010). In 2014 the UK implemented the EU Orphan Works Directive into UK, through the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works) Regulations . At the same time the IPO Orphan Works licensing scheme was introduced through The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Licensing of Orphan Works) Regulations. In a 2012 Impact Assessment Report on Orphan Works published by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, the IPO estimated that 2500 museums, 3393 public libraries, 3000 community archives, 979 academic libraries and approximately 3500 trust archives stood to benefit from the introduction of an orphan works scheme. (IPO 2012)
USA and the question of Fair Use
In the United States Orphan Works legislation was first introduced in 2008’s Shaun Bentley Orphan Works Act, but the bill never made it into law before congress adjourned. The bill:
would have limited remedies where the infringer had performed and documented a good faith reasonably diligent search before using the work; the infringing use of the work provided attribution to the copyright owner, if known; and the infringing user included an appropriate symbol or notice in association with any public distribution, display, or use of the work. (United States Copyright Office 2015)
The 2015 report of The Register of Copyrights “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization” examines subsequent legal developments such as the Google Books and Hathitrust litigation as well as the EU’s Memorandum of Understanding on the Digitisation and Making Available of Out-of-commerce works, which is intended to serve as a blueprint for collective licensing agreements negotiated between rightsholders, libraries and collecting societies.
The report by the Register of Copyrights proposed an ECL (Extended Collective Licensing) system as the “best answer to solving the mass licensing that is inherent to mass digitization.” The report cites the voluntary agreement between parties in the Google books settlement as evidence that with government support such a system could be made to work:
we believe that with government support and oversight to ensure that any legislation is developed transparently and in a way to benefit a wide array of stakeholders equally, ECL can be successful here. (United States Copyright Office 2015)
The report examines the application of fair-use as an alternative to legislation, noting that representatives of libraries and other groups had argued that legislation on mass digitization was unnecessary since the courts were capable of using fair use doctrine to evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis. However, the report argues that reliance on fair use:
can only go so far in enabling the development of mass digitization [and therefore] should Congress wish to encourage or facilitate mass digitization projects providing substantial access to the expressive contents of copyrighted works, it would need to look beyond fair use to a licensing model, either voluntary or statutory. (United States Copyright Office 2015)
In their study of orphan works legislation Favale et al (2013) analysed the proposed orphan works legislation and claimed that the US approach focused on limiting liability for users of orphan works “in order to maximise the public access to these works and to foster the diffusion of public digital libraries.” They argue that this reflects the market-driven approach to copyright in America and stated that for this reason:
collective management of rights (either “extended” or not) do not find a viable place among the proposed solutions to the orphan works problem in the US.
However, as we have seen above the most recent approach of the US Copyright Office seeks to reconsider a collective rights management approach. In its comment on the proposals for an ECL system the Internet Archive criticised the US Copyright for basing its approach to heavily on Google Books arguing that such a project was a unique occurrence and would most likely not be repeated. They argued that an ECL system as proposed would be unsuited to the current decentralised approach to digitisation in the United States and instead propose strengthening of existing notice and takedown systems already in use such by many digitisation projects including their own.
ECL (Extended Collective License) is a form of collective rights management agreement negotiated between a user and a third-party collective management organisation, widely used in Nordic countries of Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Under a collective license an agreement is negotiated made between a user and a representative organisation for the use of works in a particular category. This agreement is given extended effect by including the works in the same category of non-members known as “outsiders”. The CMO is responsible for locating rightsholders and distributing remuneration.
France and ReLire
The French law on Orphan Works, known as the law on the digital exploitation of the unavailable books of the XX century, entered the Official Journal on 1st March 2012, the IP code was amended 1st September 2012.
The legislation made it possible for books published in France prior to 1st January 2001 to be digitized if they were no longer commercially available from the publisher and is not available in printed or digital form. This was achieved by granting the collecting society SOFIA the right to authorize the digital reproduction or representation of such books six months after their entry into the ReLire database of out-of-commerce works, maintained by the Bibliothèque National de France. As Franck Macrez notes, orphan works would be included since they would meet the definition of “unavailable book”. Under the Act the collecting society would be required to take appropriate measures to locate and distribute royalties received. It was also to take steps to preserve the interests of rights holders not party to the publishing contract.
The act raised concerns for turning copyright on it’s head, allowing authors to opt out but would have improved the accessibility of unavailable works in cultural heritage institutions particularly as the collective society would have the right to grant publicly accessible libraries remuneration free permission for non-commercial usage of an unavailable work if no rightsholder is traced within 10 years of the date of the first authorisation to exploit. Reappearing rights holders would be able to put an end to such exploitation at any time, if they believe that the digital cause harm to their reputation or honour.
In 2013 the Decree implementing the law was challenged by the writers Sara Doke and Marc Soulier (also known as French Science Fiction writer Yal Ayerdhal) who sough to have it annulled by the Conseil D’etat, on the grounds that the amendments in the Decree represented a limitation to their exclusive right of reproduction provided by Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 (the InfoSoc Directive) which was not included in the list of exceptions to this right listed in article 5 of Directive 2001/9. The case was referred to the Conseil Constitutionnel, asking it to rule on the law’s constitutionality. The Council found that the law did not prevent the exploitation of works in other forms than digital and that the plaintiffs’ rights to private property granted under article 17 of the French Declaration of Human Rights and Civic Rights(1789) had not been breached.
Following this the Council of State then sought a ruling from CJEU on the question of whether the decree was incompatible with articles 2 and 5 of the Infosoc Directive. The preliminary ruling of Advocate General Wathelet found that French law was not compatible with the InfoSoc Directive.
The AG found that the French legislation was incompatible on the following grounds:
- The Decree does not allow the author to provide their prior express consent for the reproduction and communication to the public of their works, described by the AG as “cornerstone of the author’s exercise of his exclusive right” (Case C‑301/15 n61). Tacit or implied consent deprives the author their essential intellectual property rights.
- This is not altered by the fact that the works are distributed non-commercially or that the author has the option to oppose, withdraw the exercise of his rights by the CMO and receive remuneration.
- On the question of the influence of the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding on the digitisation and making available of out-of-commerce work (signed by three European library associations, rightsholder organisations, journalists, publishers, authors and artists) the AG argued that the agreement could the scope of exclusive rights set out in Articles 2 (a) and 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive since the MoU is not a legally binding instrument but a means for ensuring the legal certainty of voluntary agreements negotiated between users, rightholders and collective rights management organisations.
While the decision of the CJEU and the AG did not specifically address the issue of Orphan Works it has implications for the digitisation and making available of orphan works as Andree (2016) argues:
Does that mean that orphan works can never be placed in such a database, since it is impossible to secure the consent of their unknown right holder, or, to the contrary, should Soulier be interpreted as meaning that only orphan books can be placed into the database, since it is not possible to secure the prior consent of their authors, and they are thus out of the scope of the Soulier decision?
Much of the Soulier Doke case hinged on the issue of the authors prior to consent to the use of their work. As Valérie-Laure Benabou (2017) writes in a blog post(French) that the judges stated that:
…the author be “effectively informed of the future use of his work by a third party and the means at his disposal with a view to prohibiting it if he so wishes”. The absence of such effective information deprives the author of any possibility of “taking a stand” on future use, which makes consent purely hypothetical
Sganga (2017) argues that the decision could have potentially far-reaching consequences, Citing the decision’s focus on the requirement of the author to provide express consent for any exercise of exclusive rights would mean:
outlawing the very basic principle on which ECLs operate, that is the possibility to extend the collective licence between CMOs and users to all the works belonging to a definite category, regardless of whether or not the author is a member of the organization.
She notes that CJEU recognised the societal value of exploiting out-of-print books but does not indicate to Member States a solution that would be compliant with EU law. She proceeds to argue that the decision creates more ambiguity and uncertainty around the functioning of Collective Licensing Agreements:
In censoring a commercially oriented law to protect authors without engaging in a more detailed analysis, the CJEU has created further uncertainties, and opened the gate for a potential flow of complaints against national collective management schemes.
However, Benabou (2017) suggests that there is no obstacle in principle to a ‘collective management mechanism’, whereby non-response from an author is considered consent, despite the fact that it appears to be in conflict with the right to prior authorisation. She writes that:
in order not to undermine the very principle of prior authorisation, it is necessary for the author to be individually informed about the terms of the intended use, so that his silence can be regarded as a genuine implicit endorsement of that use. Thus, there is no obstacle in principle to a compulsory collective management mechanism of an exclusive right “by default”, provided that each author has been able to understand the implications of his inaction after being individually notified, which makes the consent purely hypothetical.
Territoriality and the challenge of cross-border dissemination
Once of the main challenges for CHI in disseminating their digital collections is the principle of territoriality, a principle of public international law that limits the extent of protections and exercise of rights to the borders of a sovereign state. Despite efforts made by the EU to harmonise aspects of Copyright through Directive 2001/29/EC (also known as the InfoSoc Directive) Copyright in European Countries is still based upon the principle of territoriality.
Accordingly, there are two legal rules that can be applied in to determine the applicable law for the cross-border dissemination of works in an online environment, the principle of lex loci protectionis & the principle of country of reception. The first, derived from Article 5 of the Berne Convention, stipulates that the law of the state where the work is made available is applied. The principle of the country of reception applies the legislation of the state or country where the work is accessed. In practice, this means that in order to avoid infringement CHIs wishing to disseminate their works, must obtain a license from rights holders for each territory. (Axhamn & Guba 2011; Anderstotter 2017)
The Orphan Works License scheme, is limited by the principle of territoriality in that the license granted is only valid for use in the UK, as the IPO’s guidance states:
An orphan works licence will cover the lawful use of the work in the UK only. It is the responsibility of the organisation or person using the orphan work to ensure that they comply with the law of any other jurisdictions where they may wish to use the work.
The Orphan Works Directive overcomes this by ensuring mutual recognition of a works orphan status in all member states.
The main drawback of an exception such as the one implemented by the EU Orphan Works Directive is the need to clear works on an individual level, through means of a diligent search. This proves to be time and resource intensive for organisations, however once diligence has been completed users are provided with a greater degree of certainty that the work is orphaned or else are able to determine than an ECL (Extended Collective Licensing) solution that forgoes diligence in favour of a payment to a Collective Management Organisation, which takes on responsibility for tracing rightsholders and redistributing fees. As Guibault (2015) writes the cumbersome and limited nature of the Orphan Works Directive has led to many member states to consider ECL:
Compared to standard collective rights management, the “extension” of agreements to non-members of a CMO significantly facilitates the licensing process to the benefit of rights owners and users alike: even if not all rights owners are identified, license agreements can still be concluded and remuneration paid, allowing the use to take place under specific conditions.
The main drawback to ECL as an approach is that many of the works licensed under these schemes are restricted geographically to their country of origin, meaning only the citizens residing within their national territories can access them. For example access to the Norwegian Digital Library (bokhylla.no) is restricted to users based in Norway. (although it states that users “without Norwegian IP addresses can apply for access for specific purposes, primarily research, education and professional translation” for an initial period of six months. See here for details)
Rignalda (2011) lists this amongst other issues which he argues need to be resolved before ECL can be an effective solution to mass rights clearance. On this point he argues that if all countries implemented or adopted ECL, then it would be possible to set up organisations to manage multi-territorial licensing with responsibility for arranging and administering extended collective licences in all Member States. (so-called ‘one-stop shops‘)Axhamn & Guibault (2011) recommend the promotion of multi-territory licensing modelled on the IFPI I Simulcasting Agreement
Compatibility of ECL with International Law
Third, that ECL should conform to international and European copyright law. On this point, he notes that in principle this should not be an issue given that it is recognised within Directive 2001/29/EC. In response to issue of whether the requirements for opting out would constitute a conflict with the prohibition of formalities within the Berne Convention, but argues that it may be possible to make a distinction between the notion of formalities related to the automatic grant of Copyright, as opposed to a formality around the enjoyment of the exclusive nature of copyrights. This he argues would depend on the form taken by an opt out mechanism, citing the difference between a simple notification via email and the need to provide more detailed information.
Axhamn and Gubault (2011a) examine ECL in the context of the Berne Conventions’s three-step test, which requires that all limitations and exceptions introduced by member states should be confined to “certain special cases” (i) that “do not conflict with a normal exploitation of a work” (ii) and “do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author”(iii).(Knights 2001) Since the extended effect of a an ECL Agreement acts a limitation on the exclusive rights of an author there is a risk of it coming into conflict with the three-step test. Their opinion, however, is that the characteristics of the ECL statutory provisions, namely freely negotiated agreements between parties to the agreement, the principles of equal treatment and right to (separate) remuneration and the option for rightsholders to opt out from the agreement, decrease the likelihood of ECL agreements conflicting with the three-step test.
Since most ‘outsiders’, usually foreign authors, are guaranteed remuneration at the same rate as members of the CMO and also in most cases have the choice to opt-out of any collective management agreement in which their works are included, ECL is considered to comply with the principle of equal treatment. (Axham and Guibault, 2011a)
Compatibility with EC/EU Law
Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC article contains an ‘exhaustive enumerations of exceptions and limitations to the reproductive right and the right of communication to the public’ (Council Directive 2001/29/EC Recital 32). With the exception of one, the limitations listed in article 5, are optional, allowing member states to choose which ones to implement in their national legislature. All limitations implemented must comply with the text of the Directive and are applied in accordance with the 3-step test.
However, Clause 18 of Directive 2001/29/EC states that:
This Directive is without prejudice to the arrangements in the Member States concerning the management of rights such as extended collective licences.
This implies that ECL agreements are not regarded as exceptions or limitations in the meaning of the Directive and are thus not enumerated under article 5 (Rosén 2011)
Drawbacks of ECL
As several authors. including Rignalda(2011) and Axhamn & Guibault (2011a), note one of the main drawbacks of ECL as a solution, is the cost of licensing. Rignalda cites the cost per book negotiated for Norwegian digitisation projects as averaging €13. Clearly at this rate not scalable/ feasible for entire collections, they explain the reasoning for this as being due to market forces saying:
The essence of this issue is that extended collective management is not a policy instrument. It is not intended to be used by governments to control copyright and achieve certain policy goals. It is merely a facility to support the market, to lower transaction costs, and to resolve market failure.
Rignalda(2011) also references the high cost of administering a system of extended collective licensing as an issue, noting that this applies in particular to the costs incurred by CMOs for locating rightsholders and paying them the licensing fees that they are due. Essentially the advantage of ECL over the Orphan Works Directive, is that it transfers the burden of locating rightsholders to the CMO in exchange for a fixed rate licensing fee. In some instances this may be preferable.
Anderstotter(2017) carried out comparative research into the legislative frameworks for clearing orphan works in UK and Sweden. As part of her research she conducted interviews with Victoria Stobo and Nic Poole and both were asked to give their thoughts on ECL as a means of outsourcing rights clearance. Both commented on the cost with Poole noting he had:
’yet to see a collective licensing scheme that is cheaper than it is to simply deal with the risk.’
He continues by further highlighting pricing as a major barrier to the success of collective licensing, maintaining that:
’the collective licensing always falls down on price. (…) It costs human and organisational resources even if the licence cost is very low. (…) If [a work] has become orphaned it is highly unlikely the cost of collective licensing scheme is going to be proportionate.
Per Anderstotter(2017) Stobo describes ECL as a ‘bureaucratic nightmare‘ claiming
’It’s not well-used, it’s expensive in terms of the time it takes to go through the applications process, and you can’t use it for mass-digitisation. It could perhaps be used for high-risk orphans.
Stobo also raises the fact that the UK does not have a strong tradition of collective management in most sectors, this is a point raised by Rignalda(2011) who notes that while ECL is popular in Nordic countries where the benefits of such a system are widely understood. He believes that there may not as widespread availability of CMOs sufficiently representative to issue license in countries where ECL is not so popular.
On this basis it appears that ECL is not a viable alternative to the problem of mass digitisation for cultural heritage, although it may have a limited use for certain categories of Orphan Works. There is nothing in the Orphan Works Directive to prevent the use of the two solutions side by side, since the directive states it is without prejudice to collective management agreements. However, this still leave both CMOs and CHIs facing high costs for rights clearance. Therefore a solution remains elusive.
During August I launched a survey of UK GLAM institutions asking them about their experiences of the UK licensing scheme and the EU exception. From this I hope to get an understanding of how institutions are using the license scheme / exception and if not what their reasons for not doing so are. I am also planning on conducting some brief interviews with some of the respondents. The survey has been created in Google Forms and distributed through Twitter, email and various Jisc Mail Lists. The questions can be read here and the actual survey can be via this link, just in case you’re reading and are able to contribute 😉
I will post an update once I’ve analysed the responses in detail , but in the meantime here’s a sneak preview.
Anderstotter, K. (2016) A Single-Minded Market for Digital Assets? [Master’s Thesis] King’s College London
Axhamn, J., and Guibault, L. (2011a) Cross-border extended collective licensing: a solution to online dissemination of Europe’s cultural heritage? Final report prepared for EuropeanaConnect. Universiteit Van Amesterdam. Available at: https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ECL_Europeana_final_report092011.pdf
Axhamn, J., and Guibault, L. (2011a) Solving Europeana’s mass-digitization issues
through Extended Collective Licensing? Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd.
509-516 6 Available at: https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/extended_collective_licensing.pdf
Borghi, M., & Karapapa, S. (2013) Copyright and Mass Digitization: A Cross-Jurisdictional Perspective, 1st edn, Oxford University Press Available at: DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664559.001.0001
De Beer, J., & Bouchard, M. (2009) Canada’s “Orphan Works” Regime: Unlocatable Copyright Owners and The Copyright Board. Copyright Board of Canada. Available at: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/about-apropos/2010-11-19-newstudy.pdf
Directive 2012/28/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:299:0005:0012:EN:PDF
Intellectual Property Office (2012) Impact Assessment Report on Orphan Works. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603102744/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-ia-bis1063-20120702.pdf
Intellectual Property Office (2015) Orphan Works Licensing Scheme
Overview for Applicants. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518251/Orphan_Works_Licensing_Scheme_Overview_for_Applicants.pdf
KEA (2011)Audiovisual Orphan Works in Europe – national survey Report prepared for the British Film Ititute (BFI). Available at: http://www.keanet.eu/docs/ORPHAN%20WORKS%20STUDY%20KEA.pdf
Knights, Roger (2001) Limitations and Exceptions under the “Three-Step-Test” and in National Legislation–Differences between the Analog and Digital Environments. Regional Workshop on Copyright and Related Rights In The Information Age organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with the Russian Agency for Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) Moscow, May 22 to 24, 2001 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/wipo_cr_mow_01/wipo_cr_mow_01_2.pdf
Opinion of Advocate General Melchior Wathelet in Marc Soulier and Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication and Premier Minister, C-301/15, EU:C:2016:536.
Ringnalda, A. (2011) Orphan Works, Mass Rights Clearance, and Online Libraries: The Flaws of the Draft Orphan Works Directive and Extended Collective Licensing as a Solution. Medien und Recht International , Vol. 8 pp. 3-10. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2369974
Rosén, Jan (2011) Extended Collective License – what, when, where? Presentation given at University of Stockholm at the Europeana Extended Collective Licensing workshop in Luxembourg, Slideshare, Europeana Licensing Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/EuropeanaConnectWP4/extended-collective-license-what-when-where
Sganga, Caterine (2017) The eloquent silence of Soulier and Doke and its critical implications for EU copyright law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 12(4) Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article-pdf/12/4/321/13166002/jpx001.pdf
Siy, Sherwin (2010) Public Knowledge Files Brief Opposing Amended Google Books Settlement. Public Knowledge, 28 January 2010. Available at: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/public-knowledge-files-brief-opposing-amended
SuisaBlog (no date) Swiss Copyright Review: SUISA in charge of a working group Available at: http://blog.suisa.ch/en/swiss-copyright-review-suisa-in-charge-of-a-working-group/
Toobin, J (2007) Google’s Moon Shot: The Quest for the Universal Library The New Yorker. 7 February 2007. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/05/googles-moon-shot
United States Copyright Office (2015) Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report of The Register of Copyrights. Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf
VG Wort.de (no date) Unofficial translation of the provisions for the out-of-commerce law. Available at: http://www.vgwort.de/fileadmin/pdf/allgemeine_pdf/German_legislation_on_orphan_and_out-of-commerce_works.pdf
Wu, T., (2015) What ever happened to Google Books The New Yorker. 11 September 2015. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happened-to-google-books
Zimmerman, M., (2014) Google Wins Summary Judgment in Books Case. Computer and Internet Lawyer, 31(2), pp. 1-3.