What do you think of this in regards to art & CopyRight?

nobody 2015-07-20 16:30:31 UTC #31

I've read A SMALL PORTION of the actually bill, I'm NOT a lawyer, I just choose to listen to the people who are active in artist's and illustrator's organisations. These organisations are there to help illustrators and artists, they're there to protect our rights and interests. If they say "this bill is a bad idea", I listen to them, because they probably have access to lawyers who inform them about this stuff, and because these organisations are specifically there to protect our rights and interests.

nobody 2015-07-20 16:31:35 UTC #32

Which the user would profit from, not the copyright owner/artist.

futureboundentertain 2015-07-20 16:34:04 UTC #33

Oh wow, so its still rotten garbage to basically make it legal for people to steal from other people... greaaaaaaaaaat.

Marvin 2015-07-20 16:49:57 UTC #34

Yeah, I thinks it's a very bad idea too. I just wanted to know if someone had a clear answer about Bern's law or if, as you put it, just by not registering you work you'd make it fall under the "orphaned work" legally speaking.
But I think I got the gist of it now, it's just the way you formulated it that confused me for a sec =)

The way I see it, registering your work gives you a chance to fight back while if you've got your work stolen and didn't get it registered before, it's still yours but you might not win in court because the other party can say "sorry dude, couldn't find you so here's the ten bucks I would have paid you if we had a contract" (in the best case)

starlightcityentert 2015-07-20 16:56:52 UTC #35

I literally just bust out laughing joanne...jeez hahaha

sick part is...someone probably would o_O

nobody 2015-07-20 16:57:39 UTC #36

Yeah, again based on my understanding of what's going on, that's what it's about. If this bill is passed it will make it easier for companies to use artwork where they (after a proper effort) have failed to find the copyright owner. If they can prove that they made a proper effort in case the copyright owner takes them to court, they won't have to pay as much in infringement damages, just what they would normally have to pay if they had a contract on the work in the first place. And this lowers the risk for the companies, while it limits artist's protection of their work and how much we can expect in damages.

But yeah, I'm not a lawyer (probably very few lawyers in this thread :P) , and I'm not sure how this might affect artists outside the U.S. :/

starlightcityentert 2015-07-20 17:03:52 UTC #37

It's garbage like this that makes me invest a few dollars every few months to copyright any new material. Any portion of my series that is for public consumption was copyrighted months ago. It's still unfair, but we live in a world where laws are written to benefit the ones who line politicians pockets instead of public interest.

Marvin 2015-07-20 17:12:59 UTC #38

It still sounds very permissive... Like a forced contract of sort (if your work is stolen by a company you would have refused to work for or something...)
As for how it would influence those that live outside of the US...
A) they might want to do the same
B) US compagnies would be able to sell "orphaned" works that they took as their own to other countries who will think, "why employ an artist when we can have cheap good quality art with no production time ?" Then again, this doesn't apply for specific works but could still represent a big part of the market... I don't know...
C) I still don't get what would happened if they stole an "orphaned work" made by someone from France for example and the guy would be like "Uh, what the hell ?". He would be in his right to ask for real compensations but the american client would be in his right to refuse ? My head hurts.

futureboundentertain 2015-07-20 17:15:18 UTC #39

How does that make it okay in any logical world to steal something?

Just because you cant find the owner of a work, doesnt mean there is no owner.... Hell some people like to have their anonymity online.

Its basically saying "identify yourself or have your work stolen by big corporations"

The whole concept behind this orphan works thng is like something a 12 year old would say "but I really really really want it" that is their whole logic.

nobody 2015-07-20 17:20:45 UTC #40

Wow, yeah, I didn't even think about the issue if some company you wouldn't want to work for used your work :/ And like you say, what would happen if US based companies use the work of a French artist...?

nobody 2015-07-20 17:34:25 UTC #41

Yeah, it does weaken the artist's position, and there's a reason the demand for this reform comes from large internet firms and not artist organisations. Again, that's where I take my information from, I trust that they know what they're doing when their job is to protect our rights and interests. If they should completely change their mind on this topic, then I'd trust they had a good reason for that too. But I doubt that will happen, considering this isn't the first time they've been fighting against similar bills.

MylCreates 2015-07-20 18:13:08 UTC #42

Just because you cant find the owner of a work, doesnt mean there is no owner.... Hell some people like to have their anonymity online.

Its basically saying "identify yourself or have your work stolen by big corporations"

Idk why but this reminds me of a quote in school, "silence is not consent to sex" >_>

futureboundentertain 2015-07-20 18:30:36 UTC #43

I did some more research, while there is no act as of yet... they are considering an act, and want to have a pilot program...

For some reason, they see an issue where there is non. There is no problem with corporations or anyone else not being allowed to use so called "orphan works" without permission.

If anything, people not being allowed to use any old thing they find on the internet... strengthens the economy, by forcing corporations to seek out artists and pay them what they deserve for their work.

Failing that, they can hire new artists to create what they need.

There is no reason under any logic that there needs to be this Orphan Works thing... other than to steal stuff.

abbastudios 2015-07-20 18:43:27 UTC #44

I opposed the Orphan Works act in 2008 and I oppose this one.

I've written about copyright on my blog, but this post that I wrote 2 years ago shows how private companies may treat artists

SethJH 2015-07-20 18:43:38 UTC #45

It is my opinion there is little need to ever use orphaned works for commercial reasons anyways. The only companies who rely on these business practices are probably not very ethical to begin with. I've heard several stories of Stock Image companies ripping off artists and generally being toxic to the visual arts industry. Why should laws be proposed that make stock image companies lives easier?

ndahill28 2015-07-20 18:51:08 UTC #46

stick it to the man Joanne

ndahill28 2015-07-20 18:53:34 UTC #47

for people who may not be listening to the whole video they are trying to get any and everyone to write a letter about how this new legislation will hurt artists here http://copyright.gov/policy/visualworks/comment-form/

doodleforfood 2015-07-20 19:15:04 UTC #48

Yup. That's what I got from it too. You have to register each thing you create individually. And I think that will include a fee for each registration. These changes are absolutely sickening.

doodleforfood 2015-07-20 19:17:39 UTC #49

An interesting note that the guest makes is that the people proposing these changes are the ones who have positioned themselves to benefit from it. It's a way for a select few to profit by restricting the rights of others.

nobody 2015-07-20 21:41:51 UTC #50

And now a post by graphicpolicy.com: http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/

So they say that this isn't such a big deal after all, because there's no legislation before Congress, it's a report by the Copyright Office with SUGGESTIONS for legislation. This was how I understood it anyway, but I can see that the way I've expressed myself so far might make it seem like they were ready to pass the bill. They're not at that point. But they ARE looking to make changes to the legislation, and that's why people can contact them to let them know what they think about the changes suggested, before they take it any further.

According to what's written in the link above, you won't have to register in these private registries to maintain your copyright. But the Orphan Works is still the same thing about users not having to pay so much for using work where they haven't found the copyright owner - after making a proper effort to find them and failed.

And here is a link where techdirt.com points out other issues with the report: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150607/14411031264/only-copyright-office-would-fix-problem-orphan-works-doubling-down-problem-itself.shtml

So yeah, not confusing at all. Still - the Copyright Office wants artist's input on the subject, so if you want to have an impact on what might become changes to copyright laws, contacting them is a good idea anyway.

Right now, this whole topic just makes my head hurt.