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 here. 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.
