mickc22
Granddad!
Just had an email from the guys at Concept Art, with a link to this Youtube vid
this just seems so wrong!
this just seems so wrong!
Orphan Works Bill.........WTF!!
- Thread starter mickc22
- Start date
Amazon warrior
New member
I think that thunder of feet I just heard was the entire US government running to hide under their desks! You go girl!
BarstoolProphet
New member
As a rule, I\'m generally completely a-political. But this bill can not be allowed to pass into law. Should not even be read at Congress, or whatever the hell it\'s called.
That isn\'t just wrong. It\'s outright evil.
That isn\'t just wrong. It\'s outright evil.
No Such Agency
New member
What the hell is going on? Governments are simultaneously allowing businesses to crack down more and more on the public\'s \"transgressions\" toward their IP, and now making it harder for US to protect our IP? Spec-fu#king-tacular.
I looked this up up elsewhere, actually, and it sounds like the bill is intended to establish a registration so that if a work is believed to be \"orphaned\", the copyright holder can be found so that the work\'s status is known, and compensation can be arranged. But I\'m sure it\'s actually written to allow major entities to freely exploit individual IP creators, because most legislators are retards who generally let corporate lobbyists write their bills for them.
I looked this up up elsewhere, actually, and it sounds like the bill is intended to establish a registration so that if a work is believed to be \"orphaned\", the copyright holder can be found so that the work\'s status is known, and compensation can be arranged. But I\'m sure it\'s actually written to allow major entities to freely exploit individual IP creators, because most legislators are retards who generally let corporate lobbyists write their bills for them.
freakinacage
Well-known member
sorry but thats fucking ridiculous
whoever thought that up is a total tosser and should be hung, drawn and quartered
whoever thought that up is a total tosser and should be hung, drawn and quartered
Shawn R. L.
New member
Dude, where\'s MY bailout?
ScottRadom
Shogun of Saskatchewan
You guys! Fighting this bill is easy, I just intend to become even LESS creative in the future.
ScottRadom
Shogun of Saskatchewan
I\'ll repeat as I said elsewhere. What\'s the big deal?
diddy lemon1
Member
what is the benefit of this things supposed to be?
ScottRadom
Shogun of Saskatchewan
Well an immediate benifit I can see is perhaps the downfall of frivolous copyright/IP lawsuits. Everytime I turn around I here another law suit, mostly regarding songs etc. and someone comes out of the woodwork after a song has blown up and said \"That\'s my song, I sang it outside a starbucks in \'96, ask the dude who made my latte\" and that sort of stuff.
Think about all the arguements on this site alone regarding mini\'s made from another company\'s (-G-uess -W-hich?). Maybe this bill is aimed at stopping that sort of thing.
I still DON\'T see what all the fuss is about, and I\'d very much like to see the arguement for the pro-bill side. Anyone care enough about this to go hunting for the appropriate website?
Think about all the arguements on this site alone regarding mini\'s made from another company\'s (-G-uess -W-hich?). Maybe this bill is aimed at stopping that sort of thing.
I still DON\'T see what all the fuss is about, and I\'d very much like to see the arguement for the pro-bill side. Anyone care enough about this to go hunting for the appropriate website?
With all due respect to the original poster, a number of graphic artist organizations have been up in arms over this bill and creating a lot of baseless fear over its potential effect. One of the public interest organizations heavily involved in constructing this bill is Public Knowlege. They have a very good write-up here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow
A quick scan of the issues that this organization represents and the side of the fence they stand on for most of them should illustrate that these guys are no shills for the \"large corps\".
For those unfamiliar with the proposed orphan works legislation, what it will provide is the opportunity for third parties, who have engaged in a diligent search for a copyright holder, to make use of that copyrighted material in subsequent works. It is these kinds of works, for which the author cannot be found, that the bill refers to as \"orphan works\". Should the author of one of these orphan works later appear, the subsequent user is required to pay that author for the use of the copyrighted work at a market reasonable rate.
Registration systems are encouraged by the bill, as it will make finding authors easier and help prevent the orphaning of future works (which is ultimately the best goal), but it in no way is required. And since no registration system has been concretely identified, the argument that it will be expensive, and thus a burden on artists, is totally unjustified.
Finally, the suggestion that this bill will allow corporations to steal the work of small authors and prevent those authors from protecting themselves via copyright suits for damages is completely bogus. A copyright holder needs to register their work before they can sue for damages in our CURRENT copyright system. And a work that is registered, cannot possibly be deemed orphaned, regardless of the b.s. argument that a subsequent user may put forth. Thus, in such cases, the orhpan works legislation wouldn\'t come into play at all.
A quick scan of the issues that this organization represents and the side of the fence they stand on for most of them should illustrate that these guys are no shills for the \"large corps\".
For those unfamiliar with the proposed orphan works legislation, what it will provide is the opportunity for third parties, who have engaged in a diligent search for a copyright holder, to make use of that copyrighted material in subsequent works. It is these kinds of works, for which the author cannot be found, that the bill refers to as \"orphan works\". Should the author of one of these orphan works later appear, the subsequent user is required to pay that author for the use of the copyrighted work at a market reasonable rate.
Registration systems are encouraged by the bill, as it will make finding authors easier and help prevent the orphaning of future works (which is ultimately the best goal), but it in no way is required. And since no registration system has been concretely identified, the argument that it will be expensive, and thus a burden on artists, is totally unjustified.
Finally, the suggestion that this bill will allow corporations to steal the work of small authors and prevent those authors from protecting themselves via copyright suits for damages is completely bogus. A copyright holder needs to register their work before they can sue for damages in our CURRENT copyright system. And a work that is registered, cannot possibly be deemed orphaned, regardless of the b.s. argument that a subsequent user may put forth. Thus, in such cases, the orhpan works legislation wouldn\'t come into play at all.
lizcam
New member
If what you say is true (and when I can I will look at your link) what\'s the POINT in the bill then? Isn\'t that what our current laws do? And it MAY be that the authoers of the bill aren\'t part of a large corp but that won\'t stop them from using it anyway. I still think it\'s a bad idea.
Our current laws don\'t speak to a situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be found. Because most people are risk averse, they\'ll simply choose not to use this orphaned work to prevent the possibility that the owner will subsequently appear, sue them, and get an injunction preventing that subsequent user from continuing to use the work. And before you think that this might apply only to a tiny number of works, the way that our copyright system has been continuously revised has meant a large number of older works have fallen into orphan status simply because their owner either didn\'t think they were valuable enough to continue monitoring them, ownership became unclear as licenses switched hands, etc.
One of the primary proponents of the bill are libraries, and their intended uses are obvious. Making copies of deteriorating books, reprinting out of print volumes, etc. If they cannot do this, after engaging in a good faith search for the author, without an assurance that they won\'t have all of their effort wasted when an author later appears, that\'s a lot of knowledge left to rot. Documentary filmmakers, interested in using vintage photographs and film clips for which there is no record of authorship, are another group of proponents.
And you\'re right, there is nothing to stop large corps from trying to abuse it - except the fact that a failure to engage in a good faith search for the author will exempt that corporation from claiming the work is orphaned and, if they are able to prove that the work has been orphaned, they\'re still required to pay the author a fair market rate for their use. And for large corporations - say a Disney - it could be argued that the fair market rate is substantially higher.
If anything, this bill could be a source of additional income for small, forgotten artists, whose works wouldn\'t be touched otherwise due to the uncertainty of provenance.
JesterzUSMC
Recovering Megalomaniac
It is straight out corporate evil B---sh-t.
Wal mart is evil and the US is being run into the ether buy greedy old WHITE men.
Wal mart is evil and the US is being run into the ether buy greedy old WHITE men.
Amazon warrior
New member
@kman: Ok, so how is a \"good faith\" search defined? What actions constitute it and how long hould it take? I presume just glancing around quickly before snaffling someone\'s work isn\'t good enough, but what is, and who will enforce it?
No Such Agency
New member
Well, \"good faith\" is defined on Wikipedia as:
\"Good faith... is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct. This concept is important in law, especially equitable matters.\"
I don\'t think this sort of \"good faith\" is, from a philosophical point of view, even possible for a corporation to exhibit, so realistically, there\'d have to be evidence that they searched as could be reasonably expected to find out who owned the copyright. Which means more than saying \"oh, well, there\'s no name attached to this jpg, it must be orphaned\". It\'s the sort of thing that gets hashed out in civil court.
One way this could be abused would be if someone suspected a copyright holder would refuse to allow the work to be used. If the work was \"orphaned\", they could make a judiciously inept search, then use it, then pay the going rate, what ever that was determined to be. Of course, the risk would be that a judge would see through their charade and they would pay pay pay, but typically, the little guy does not do well in litigation against a corporation.
Amazon warrior
New member
Yes, I can all too easily imagine corporoland exploiting loop-holes in something like that.
