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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Okay, I think maybe you misunderstood what I meant by calling orphan works an issue - I probably wasn't clear enough...I mean that the way this report talks about orphan works (wanting to make it easier for companies to use them) is an issue in the sense that artists risk seeing their work used by companies/organisations they don't want to be associated with (like @keii4ii explained pretty well earlier). That artists can't expect as much in compensation for the misuse of their work as they could earlier, and like you say, that companies/organisations will rather use orphan works instead of hiring someone to do the job. We actually agree on this topic 
Yeah and no, I'm as in in house illustrator. I draw 30% of the time, pre-press / 'artwork' (rework old artwork to find a new use) 40% of the time and design either conceptual or marketing material the remaining 30%.
All images on the web are at 72 DPI and are of a terrible quality for print or for anything else really other that digital media. That why most inhouse graphics team hire illustrators either in house or freelance to get better quality art. Plus there's a whole HOST of stock sites to buy artwork from in a usable format. The absolute pain it would be to 'take' a web image to use instead of buying stock would be bordering on self inflicted torture for any artworker or graphic designer.
In all honesty, it depends on how PUSHY the person (ceo or sales manager or the like) is to want to USE this one piece of artwork they found and nothing else will do! Because most artworker and designer won't work with low res work, They want the full fat high res stuff and more than likely demand the sales/marketing person get in touch or pass on their deet of the original owner be contact to get it.
I don't think anyone would use 72 dpi works for anything else than digital media (unless they have no idea how dpi works). But a lot of the work done by illustrators/graphic designers today won't be used in print, it will only be used online, and therefore 72 dpi is enough. I have found plenty of images online (only used for school assignments of course, like a photo of a house for an online ad) that are 72 dpi, and they are big enough to be used for digital media, and there's no loss of quality. A while back, loish on dA had one of her works stolen and used as a book cover. And she's pretty famous in illustrator circles! I think the whole thing got resolved in the end tough, but it happened. The fact that something can't be used for print doesn't stop people from using it in digital media. And it shows that there are cases where people will prefer finding work online instead of creating from scratch.
I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think I'm starting to understand why I keep arguing with you (I feel like it's been a mature argument though, no name calling or personal attacks, so no hard feelings from my side at least 
).
When I read your comments, you are seeing this and discussing it from a very practical point of view - which is completely legitimate! It's also the reason I haven't quite been able to put my finger on why I disagree with you, because I've found out that I don't actually disagree with you. Yeah, take that!
I too believe that if this law should pass, it probably won't cause trouble for the majority of illustrators. The number of art thefts is most likely going to stay much the same - people who don't know much about copyright law (that's the vast majority of this world's population), aren't going to know it any better after changes being made. I think there will be an increased use of orphaned works, but most likely not to the point where it ruins the work market for illustrators, and I do think there will definitely still be a need for freelancers and in house illustrators/graphic designers, because there will be a need for original work anyway! And that's your point if I understand you correctly? That you don't think this is going to have a particularly big effect on people, and that's why you feel like people are overreacting?
The reason these possible changes annoy me, are because even though in practicality they might have very little effect on most artists, I see it as a principle thing - like mentioned before, I think @keii4ii covered the main concerns about this possible legislation pretty well earlier. These are worst case scenarios, that can happen, but are most likely not going to affect the majority of artists. I'm a principle person, so I do care about the worst case scenario - even though it will most likely never happen to me!
The win-win situation in this case is if they manage to simplify the copyright laws, and still have artists better covered in case of worst case scenarios
Yeah I know what you mean, I heard about Loish too. I don't know much on the case (I might search it in a minute when I get time!) but I wonder how THAT came about. was is 'self publish'? Like someone sending in the artwork to one of those self-publish platforms and signing off the crappy low res mock? I've worked with a writer on one of those and I got the feeling they ANYTHING to keep the buying customer happy AND he would of been the one accountable for any theft. As it stands I did the works and was paid
I kinda speak from a moral high ground really, being in the design industry and doing design and artwork stuff I'm always first to tell a client or salesman "No you can't just have Mickey Mouse on your promo banner, that copyright theft" and honestly, its naive and idealistic of me .. I kinda hope OTHERS in the industry would be like that too, like if you got a low res image and they can't supply the high res? Its fishy and you should ask questions where it came from. I do believe there will always be a demand for original works, since every client I've had has said "I want it like BLANK but with BLANK" These clients normally seek us out because they need us to express themselves visually since they can't and don't have the skills to.
I'm reeeeeeeeally hoping that. A, the non-profit registries or databases DO help assigning orphans to their owners, too many times does the name get deleted and resubmitted, though this task is huge! and B, the 'more' small claims court. Making it more accessible for people to get heard instead of giving up before they even try.
The bit Keii covered, yeah, can't argue with that ..... though I wouldn't say there were a religious organization ... more of a extremists movement ... >.> but that's a different argument. Wonder if you can have it to claim damages for your work used in offending material? I think most people have that written into their normal copyrights, It would be BETTER if they word that in the Orphan works act.
Anyway, they're opening for debate, so its the time to retune and get the 'quirks' out of the way, fix up loopholes. Hopefully they listen
(and yeah its totally been a mature argument or shall we say debate? best ways to learn and expand world views)
This is Loish's own blog post about it: http://blog.loish.net/post/39930709178/the-latest-in-the-lois-gets-her-art-stolen1 But if you click the link that leads to the stolen cover artwork, there's a completely different image there, because it was all solved in the end. But I couldn't find the follow-up post on that, and I think the follow-up post explained more of what really happened as well. Maybe you'll have better luck finding it than me 
And naturally, you have daily proof through your job that people want and need original, professional design, both in print and digital, so of course your standpoint makes a lot of sense. Even as a freelance illustrator (hoping to get a full-time job soon), I know this too, but I'm always on edge when things concerning copyright are in question, and so I tend to focus on the things that might be very unlikely to happen, but that scares me as a designer the most >.<
But like you say, if there's a way to have the small claims courts make it easier for artists to get compensation in general, while simultaneously strike down harder on offending material, that would be a more optimal solution. And hopefully, this is a thing they will work out
Also, I 100% agree that they're not a religious movement but an extremist one...they probably disagree though!
And yes, debate is a better word to describe it
| Topic | Category | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I need help with finding an omegaverse bl manhwa | Questions | 0 | 403 | Jun '24 |
| When do you give likes/ ❤️ on Tapas? | Questions | 18 | 672 | Apr '24 |
| Solved, never mind | Questions | 0 | 189 | Jul '24 |
| How Do You Stay Motivated When Writing a Long Series? | Questions | 7 | 280 | Aug '24 |
| How do you stay motivated with barely any readers? | Questions | 28 | 531 | Dec '24 |
