Mind Your Business: You Will Lose All The Rights to Your Own Art If I understand this correctly, it means you have to pay a sum to avoid having your art used for commercial use by companies and such - and even then they'd still be able to declare an artwork "Orphan" if they can't find the original owner. More info here and here. The last one offers a more level-headed view on things, but I'm still not comfortable with it.
If I had noticed you had already posted about this, I wouldn't have commented below. I read the DA news page that you linked.
I'm still not comfortable with this, and I'll tell you why. This might work all fine and good for art, but there are other forms of creative works out there that are harder to put a stamp on. Literature? Most people don't put "By whoever" in the file itself. Music? How many musicians say their band name at some point during their song?
And the point is, if someone finds your music, your story or your art on a separate webpage with no "signature" on it, and they do a search of the registered copyrights database and don't find it, they could claim they did a search "in good faith" and still steal your work.
This whole bill stinks. It's a bad idea, and I'm still going to try and strike it down before it passes.
You had some links I missed, so I don't think it was a wasted comment.
But yeah, it's very uncomfortable. I'm not in the US, but there's nothing saying Europe won't be affected - like you said, it's hard to put a stamp on works and even if you do... who the hell puts home country on their work online? I'd rather be too careful than ignoring this.
To clarify, I meant that even if the bill's only supposed to go for America there's no way of saying that a pic is from, say, Norway. How would a Norwegian protect their work from this?
It's been brought to my attention that this bill is old, from 2006, but that the Congress has recently re-introduced the concept of Orphan Works. In my opinion, it's better to strike down this draft of the bill before it's re-introduced into Congress. Overkill? Maybe. Better safe than sorry? Definitely.
Actually, ursulav is saying that it's a dead issue: "Everything referenced is from the 2005-2006 legislative session. There is no current bill. Anything resembling such a bill died in committee years ago. This is not something you need to freak out about right now.... Relax. It's not happening. You can check the public record and find that there are no such bills currently before Congress. "
No, we shouldn't panic, but it's a good thing this is on our radar, because the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property recently held a Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests of Copyright Owners and Users. Recently meaning on March 13. If you have Real Player you can watch a tape of the hearing (which I have, the entire hour and a half of boring debate).
There hasn't been a bill drafted - yet - but from what I heard in the hearing, they're very keen on using the language of the old bill. Many of our concerns were raised in the debate, but it sounds like they're more concerned with making it easy for the copyright office than making it safe for copyright holders.
Reply
I'm still not comfortable with this, and I'll tell you why. This might work all fine and good for art, but there are other forms of creative works out there that are harder to put a stamp on. Literature? Most people don't put "By whoever" in the file itself. Music? How many musicians say their band name at some point during their song?
And the point is, if someone finds your music, your story or your art on a separate webpage with no "signature" on it, and they do a search of the registered copyrights database and don't find it, they could claim they did a search "in good faith" and still steal your work.
This whole bill stinks. It's a bad idea, and I'm still going to try and strike it down before it passes.
I also have an electronic petition that people can sign.
Reply
But yeah, it's very uncomfortable. I'm not in the US, but there's nothing saying Europe won't be affected - like you said, it's hard to put a stamp on works and even if you do... who the hell puts home country on their work online? I'd rather be too careful than ignoring this.
Reply
Reply
It's been brought to my attention that this bill is old, from 2006, but that the Congress has recently re-introduced the concept of Orphan Works. In my opinion, it's better to strike down this draft of the bill before it's re-introduced into Congress. Overkill? Maybe. Better safe than sorry? Definitely.
Reply
Reply
Reply
There hasn't been a bill drafted - yet - but from what I heard in the hearing, they're very keen on using the language of the old bill. Many of our concerns were raised in the debate, but it sounds like they're more concerned with making it easy for the copyright office than making it safe for copyright holders.
Reply
Leave a comment