stick it to the man Joanne
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/4
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.
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.
And now a post by graphicpolicy.com: http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/1
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.
Yes, the law hasn’t been written yet. So we need to rise up now and make our voices heard. It’s not even a bill, so now is the time to cry out.
We don't want to wait until it will be much harder to change.
The Copyright Office is submitting suggestions to Congress that suggests that the public interest in your work is more important than your right to make money off of your work. Than's what you need to know.
So here's the thing.
The Current Copyright System
I think everyone already knows that if you create something, the moment it is created, it is protected as your intellectual property -- even if you never pay to get it officially registered at the Copyright Office.
So why do some people pay for that registration? Because it is, by far, the easiest way to prove in the court that yes, YOU are the owner of that intellectual property. If you have legitimate concerns about people ripping off your work for profit, and are willing to take it to the court, then paying for the registration is the best course of action.
Problem is that court battles are costly. Not everyone can afford it, both money- and time-wise. Even if it never actually goes to the court (i.e. it's settled unofficially between you and the offending party), it's a lot of headache, and not something everyone is willing or able to go through. So paying for the registration may not be helpful for some of us.
The New Proposal
The new proposal does not void universal copyright. Your work is still yours, even if you never register it.
However, if someone finds your work that they really want to use, and you happen to be reeeally hard to track down from that work, that's where the new changes come into play.
Currently, if someone uses your work without your permission, they would be punished equally harshly regardless of whether or not they tried really hard to track you down (of course, getting the court to punish them would cost you a lot of money and time). But now, if they can prove that they tried, they would not be punished. They would be required to pay you (just like they would have been if they were to hire you to make that work for them in the first place)... unless they're legit nonprofit/ charity/ religious organization.
Quoted straight from the Copyright Office's report:
Visual art works present, in fact, almost the paradigmatic orphan works situation, and better that potential users have an incentive to diligently search for their owners than that they are infringed outright or collect dust.
(Full report can be accessed here2. Very long PDF, only a portion of which is directly applicable to the topic. I recommend reading pages 50-70)
In other words, they believe the new rules are better because it motivates companies to actually try to track down the creator, instead of just stealing it unapologetically, or instead of the artwork just collecting dust and never making any money. The new rules would allow you, the creator, to profit IF you catch someone using your work for profit, through a procedure that's not as complicated or costly as the current system.
You would get paid roughly the same amount they would've paid you if they hired you in the first place for the work. Again, quoted straight from the report:
Neither actual and statutory damages, nor costs or attorney's fees, would be available [as in included]. In most cases, "reasonable compensation" would be close to or identical to a reasonable license fee.
The reason why the company won't be required to pay your legal fees is because you probably WON'T need to hire a lawyer to go through this process. But will that truly be the case?
My personal beef, Part I
Legit nonprofit/ charity/ religious organization, huh? Does that mean if the Westboro Baptists found one of my drawings, couldn't track me down and so just decided to use it for their propaganda, does that mean they get to do that for FREE??????? I would not let them use it even if they paid me a million bucks.
Such organization can either pay you, or stop using your work as soon as you tell them "hey, I made the art that you're using, and I never gave you permission." In the second case, they won't have to pay you a cent. Again, straight from the Copyright Office's virtual mouth, page 65 of the full report linked above:
If, upon receiving a Notice of Claim of Infringement, and after a good faith investigation of that Notice, such users promptly cease using the infringed work, a court is barred from ordering them to pay even reasonable compensation.
It gets even worse for certain types of artists, whose primary clients are nonprofit/charity/religious organizations. They stand to have their skills and time significantly devalued if their primary clients can just find and use stuff for free.
My personal beef, Part II
What if some company made a character heavily based on one of mine (because they somehow couldn't track me down) and made a whole intellectual property? Now MY character is widely recognized as someone they were never meant to be. You know how some roleplayers just take random artworks and call them their OC? The new proposal wants to allow everyone do that legally! All they have to do is pay you if you call them out for it.
But pay is not always good enough. As a creator, I want full control over the usage of my work. That may be impossible to completely enforce once the work is posted on the internet, but at least I deserve to have the law on my side, don't I?
I will repost the link where you can submit your feedback on the new proposal. The deadline is this Thursday. Submit your feedback here before July 23rd.2
Okay, I am cglad there is no legistlation being put in place.
But we still have a huge problem... in that they are being convinced there is a problem.
That somehow companies not being able to use any damn thing they want somehow represents a problem, is still soemthing that willl work against artists.
just found this1. It might be worth a read. It explains they aren't really to a point of seriousness with this bill yet and a lot of the information we know about it is overhyped and fear-charged. I feel embarrassed now since I wrote my letter based on the information everyone was worried about, explaining how I would have been negatively affected by that information.
I read almost every post but didn´t really understand it all.. As Tapastic being in a US server (i think so) I would want an explanation of this from them, it´s not a complain, just that they must have been looking for info rewarding this too, and maybe they can tell us how will this change the service or whatever if this goes for real.
There IS a problem with the current system. It's really expensive to take it to the court and defend your rights. So they're making it easier, but not just for creators; they're making it easier for both sides.
It's probably not a problem in cases where you would have worked for the company anyway, if they asked you to in the first place. But if it's not a company/organization you wish to be associated with, or if the work is being used in a way that makes you really unhappy (e.g. political propaganda that you are strongly opposed against, or that OC example I mentioned) to a degree where money can't make the problems go away... then things get ugly.
no they arent, people need to be free to use their own work how they darn well please. Not have someone come in and use it without permission just because they felt it was being underused.
There is no way the changes they are suggesting would benefit creators, they are using weasel words to make it sound like it would. They may as well be saying "dont worry, this will be great for exposure"
Simply because they are too cheap and lazy to hire creators themselves.
I fully agree on that they shouldn't be making it legal for people to use an orphaned work. (BTW, "I didn't register the copyright" does not mean it's orphaned.) They should just hire someone to make something new for them.
But the Copyright Office is correct in that the current system isn't good enough.
Also, by "making it easier for both sides," I mean it WOULD be easier to legally approach a company and get monetary compensation. So if that's what you want (as it is the case for SOME creators), this could be a positive change for them.
But for others, like you and me, it's just not enough. Nothing short of full control of usage is enough.
I linked to that post yesterday actually... and some of the original information seemed to be over the top - which is a good thing, but unfortunate in terms of trusting people who write about these things, I like to think I can believe in industry professionals and the organisations they team up with. What's funny is that the post you're referring to criticises people for not reading the actual report before believing what the original post says. Still, I'm pretty sure a lot of people still haven't read the actual report before believing what this post says.
And after reading at least parts of the actual report, it still seems that orphaned works are an issue (but clearly, even people who read the report disagree, because you get a bunch of people who are not in law school trying to understand "law-speak").
But the Copyright Office does want people to write in, so they get artists's opinion before they take this any further.
No, Orphan Works are not an issue in any way shape or form.
They are only an issue to whiney companies who want to use something but they cant get permission.
PRetending ORphan Works is an issue is just... ridiculous to say the least.
How people use their copyright is not the business of a company who wants to use it. If they fail to aquire the copyright to something, then they have the option to make their own material, or to do nothing at all.
If they make their own material, people are being employed, if they do nothing... then its no different than if they stole.
Orphan works = not an issue in the slightest stop pretending that they are.