For those of you based in the U.S., please read the sample letters linked here10 and write/submit your own to the Copyright Office. I fully intend to do so, myself. The deadline for the letter submission is July 23rd. That's this week, guys.
Still haven't fully read the Notice of Inquiry yet, but I most certainly will.
Here's a very quick and simple summary of what it's all about, written by a friend and fellow artist of the artist that posted the video: http://digital-doodle.tumblr.com/post/124514342906/i-interrupt-a-long-term-hiatus-to-help-raise4
http://sugarfiendgfx.tumblr.com/post/124572625177/sirpangur-samrosemodblog-okay-so-reading10
this link actually clears up a lot of misunderstanding about this bill.
I honestly don't find that post very reassuring...the first attempts at creating a bill like this started 15 years ago, and there's a reason why prominent illustrator/artist organisations are trying to stop it. I mean, one of the recommendations from the Copyright Office was also:
A Copyright Small Claims Court to handle the expected flood of orphan works lawsuits.
The Copyright Office expects a flood of orphan works lawsuits as a result of passing this bill. I think that's troublesome.
Yeah, I don't have all the answers on this but this bill passed in the UK and looking at all the changes made to the UK copyright law, Berne's law is STILL there it's just to make things more accessible online, for non-profit mainly and personally use like burning a CD or printing an image. The orphan works I think they're talking about is actually stuff written or made generation ago that still can't be touched. I know that IS a bigger problem,
I think it's more trying to make stuff a 'Creative Commons' than to poach work. The small claims court thing I think is to actually benefit artists, making claims more accessible rather than having to go to bigger general courts to get this sorted resulting in bigger costs
heres the bill to read:
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf2
I think the main concern for the people wanting to stop this isn't people wanting to print things for personal use or non-profit organisations, it's that for-profit organisations/businesses will use your work for their own profit. And this bill will make it easier for them. As an illustrator, if you don't register your work in one of these private, for-profit registries, it will be legally orphaned, and is then available for commercial infringement by “good faith” infringers. Good faith infringers would be anyone who believed they had made a “reasonably diligent,” but unsuccessful effort to find you.
And this is of course where a lot of debate could take place. Today you can't use something you find online and use it for profit even if you can't find the owner. This bill opens up for that. And that's why they expect there will be a need for a Copyright Small Claims Court. It's because they expect there to be a flood of orphan works lawsuits. It doesn't matter if it's for the benefit of illustrators/artists. They just expect there to be so many as a result of passing this bill, because there WILL be instances where companies use work that belongs to an artist.
I don't know everything either! And maybe the actually passing of this bill won't have a lot of effect "in real life", but it's better to have the law on your side, and this is a matter of principle. Again, the fact that they've tried to pass this bill for so long is because they see a lot of profit in it (not for artists), and there's a reason artist organisations are against it.
Are you sure this bill says that it will completely ignore Berne's law and that by not registering, the law will consider it orphaned ?
I'm sure there will be a lot of abuse and this bill needs to be stoped in my opinion but if you see your content being used by someone else, you can still fight back even if you didn't register your work can't you ? (Especially if you're easily traceable)
Then I suppose it will be a lot more difficult to fight back without a good lawyer so there's that.
English isn't my mother tongue so I didn't get everything and I'm really asking, does this bill plans to overwrite Berne's law ?
This is from the actual bill: As a broad spectrum of participants in this study noted, anyone using an orphan work does so under a legal cloud, as there is always the possibility that the copyright owner could emerge after the use has commenced and seek substantial infringement damages, an injunction and(or attorney's fees. While some users certainly may have viable defenses on fair use or other grounds, many will choose to forego use of the work entirely rather than risk the prospect of expensive litigation. The Copyright Office continues to believe that this uncertainty and the gridlock it produces do not serve the goals of the copyright system. This Report explores the relevant legal and business issues and a number of potential solutions. For instances other than mass digitization, the Office recommends a framework in which liability is limited for a user who conducts a good faith diligent search for the copyright owner, and favors the kind of legislation set out in the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act passed by the Senate in 2008.
So if you as an artist want to sue a user that can prove that they have conducted a good faith diligent search for the copyright owner, then you can't expect substantial infringe damages.
I do think most artists today are doing a decent job marking their work, but there's still the principle of knowing that you as an artist have all your rights properly secured, even if you haven't been as careful as you should marking your work.
I think thats to stop someone from 'taking them to the bank' and clearing them out and instead get them to pay the cost of using the artwork only.
ď‚· Limit monetary relief for infringement of an orphan work by an eligible user to
responsable compensation – the amount that a willing buyer and a willing seller would
have agreed upon immediately before the use began;
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.
Oh wow, so its still rotten garbage to basically make it legal for people to steal from other people... greaaaaaaaaaat.
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)
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. :/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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" >_>
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.
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 ago1 shows how private companies may treat artists
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?
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.
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.
