[Botany Bay]

I dont really get it. So, if this becomes a bill it means that every artwork, where the producer cant be found would become free to use for everyone? And this everyone could then use it in his work?

If so, I dont see a problem. But if the work then becomes the work of the one who used it, and the original artist says hey, wait a minute... what then?



Sounds like a joke in my ears. But I guess this bill got started by the very same people who wine and cry and b*tch arround about every little video tidbit on youtube. That such a kind of attempt exists at all! That lessens my motivation to not violate copyrights even more.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Botany Bay

I dont really get it. So, if this becomes a bill it means that every artwork, where the producer cant be found would become free to use for everyone? And this everyone could then use it in his work?

If so, I dont see a problem. But if the work then becomes the work of the one who used it, and the original artist says hey, wait a minute... what then?



Sounds like a joke in my ears. But I guess this bill got started by the very same people who wine and cry and b*tch arround about every little video tidbit on youtube. That such a kind of attempt exists at all! That lessens my motivation to not violate copyrights even more.

Kinda looks that way. That's why we should fight this bill on the US level and internationally.

[Botany Bay]

Well, reading a bit more about it now, it doesnt seem to be a desaster. Trouble is though, the bill would give major companies immense advantages. While they can afford people who do research on where their works get used, small artists cant.

But actually the bill does only legalize what people do right now anyway. People use all sorts of music or photos or pieces of art where the author is unknown. And they use it untill someone complains. Then they decide to take the material away or to pay the artist.

The only difference with this bill is: The artist cant sue the user of his work for more then his average pricing.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Botany Bay

Well, reading a bit more about it now, it doesnt seem to be a desaster. Trouble is though, the bill would give major companies immense advantages. While they can afford people who do research on where their works get used, small artists cant.

But actually the bill does only legalize what people do right now anyway. People use all sorts of music or photos or pieces of art where the author is unknown. And they use it untill someone complains. Then they decide to take the material away or to pay the artist.

The only difference with this bill is: The artist cant sue the user of his work for more then his average pricing.

And if the user is a big compnay they can draw outl ega battles and win becasue they have more money to drag it out until the artist is broke.

[Ditroi]

The thing is artists coming right out of school, like me, need to show their work online... that's our portfolio. Many companies now, like EA ,do not want to deal with DVD demo reels, paper resumes and physical portfolios. Because of how companies are run more and more artists have to work freelance vs. permanent staff. We're forced to be nomadic whether we want to or not....and someone just starting out do not have the funds to hire a lawyer.... It's happened to people I know. I've also had art work physically stolen. The 4 earlier concept paintings of the centaur world. Unfortunately the only copies I have are the digital photos.

Also my whole family was on the receiving end of a major frivolous lawsuit, when my younger sister was in a car accident. The fiasco ended in January of this year. It sucked out all joy all hope for everyone involved for 2 solid years. Luckily our insurance gave us a lawyer and dug up a lie and they dropped the case. Thank God for legal backup!!!

[RedAlertRiker]

I spread it over at the sports racer communicty, huge group of artists, im sure they'll be interested.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by RedAlertRiker

I spread it over at the sports racer communicty, huge group of artists, im sure they'll be interested.

ALLL RIGHT!!!!!!!

[Elizadolots]

I can see both sides. I worked at photolabs for decades and the frustration described in the article cited is very real. We did have to turn people down when they wanted much cherished photos scanned for archival purposes because there was no proof that the photographer gave consent.

I think the answer may well be finding a simple, cheap way to register a creation. As a writer, I've used the old standby: mail yourself a copy, keep it in a sealed envelope with the postmark on it. It's not as good as filing for a copyright, but if you can stand in court and have the judge open the envelope, it does lend credence to your argument "I wrote that!".

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

I can see both sides. I worked at photolabs for decades and the frustration described in the article cited is very real. We did have to turn people down when they wanted much cherished photos scanned for archival purposes because there was no proof that the photographer gave consent.

I think the answer may well be finding a simple, cheap way to register a creation. As a writer, I've used the old standby: mail yourself a copy, keep it in a sealed envelope with the postmark on it. It's not as good as filing for a copyright, but if you can stand in court and have the judge open the envelope, it does lend credence to your argument "I wrote that!".

Excelent point!

[Ditroi]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

I can see both sides. I worked at photolabs for decades and the frustration described in the article cited is very real. We did have to turn people down when they wanted much cherished photos scanned for archival purposes because there was no proof that the photographer gave consent.

I think the answer may well be finding a simple, cheap way to register a creation. As a writer, I've used the old standby: mail yourself a copy, keep it in a sealed envelope with the postmark on it. It's not as good as filing for a copyright, but if you can stand in court and have the judge open the envelope, it does lend credence to your argument "I wrote that!".

Q: Where did we get the idea that the Copyright Office wants to impose for-profit registries?
A: That proposal has been there from the beginning. Two examples (with emphasis added), the first from page 106 of the Copyright Office’s 2006

Orphan Works Report:

“[W]e believe that registries are critically important, if not indispensable, to addressing the orphan works problem...It is our view that such registries are better developed in the private sector..." http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf


And on January 29 2007, twenty visual arts groups met in Washington D.C. with attorneys from the Copyright Office. The attorneys stated that the Copyright Office would not create these “indispensable” registries because it would be “too expensive.” So I asked the Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs:

Holland: If a user can’t find a registered work at the Copyright Office, hasn’t the Copyright Office facilitated the creation of an orphaned work?
Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries.
Holland: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register?
Carson: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest!
- From my notes of the meeting

This exchange suggests that if Copyright Office proposals become law:

- Unregistered work will be considered a potential orphan from the moment you create it.
- In the U.S., copyright will no longer be the exclusive right of the copyright holder.

Q: What does it mean to say your copyright is an “exclusive right”?
A: Under existing law, “[a] copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work…Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered (emphasis added).”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index...t:_an_overview

Q: Why does this exclusive right matter?
A: Two big reasons:

- Creative control and ownership: No one can use or change your work without your permission.
- Value: In the marketplace the ability to sell exclusive rights to a client triples the value of your work.

Q: So how would the Orphan Works proposals endanger that right?
A: It would allow anyone who can’t find you (or who removes your name from your work and says he can’t) to infringe your work. Since infringements can occur anytime, anywhere in the world, they could be countless but you might never find them.

Q: So?
A: So:
- Under this bill, you would never again be able to assure a client that your work hasn’t been – or won’t be – infringed. Therefore
- You would never again be able to guarantee a client an exclusive right to license your work. This means
- Your entire inventory of work would be devalued by at least 2/3 from the moment this bill is signed into law.