[Akalabeth Angel]

My apologies in advance if people feel this is offtopic. Thought I'd pass along a link to an article on AWN (Animation World Network) pertaining to a potential change in US copyright law.

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1

Basically if passed the law would require anyone who creates artwork (from drawings, to photography to whatever (I'm assuming 3d models/designs would be included), requires them to register their artwork with some private corporation or by default their work would become orphaned and basically legally used by anyone without any compensation to the artist. By default at the moment, I think when someone creates a piece of artwork they automatically have the copyright. But under this law they'd have to register, likely with a fee.

What does that mean? It means if you had family pictures up on the internet of your vacation to Cuba, some random magazine could use those photos without any compensation. I also assume it means that if you create a 3d model or a piece of artwork, some other company could use it in their game without any mention or compensation to you either.

Obviously this is a little messed up. If you're a photographer, imagine taking thousands of photos per year and having to register every single one of them in order for them to be legally yours.

Anyway, it may not pass. But the article says these corporations have been trying to change this law for a couple years so they'll probably keep trying until they get it. If you're american you can mail your local bigwig and tell them what you think about it.

[Zoltan]

That really pisses me off. While I don't necessarily consider myself an artist, and I certainly wouldn't make a living off of my work, I simply can't believe the nerve of these people. But, I guess that is the way the world works, everyone trying to make a quick buck at your expense.

[Clawandfang]

I sincerly hope this doesn't pass, becasue it really is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to pay in order for something you mad to be yours.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I sincerly hope this doesn't pass, becasue it really is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to pay in order for something you mad to be yours.

       Hmm, well not sure if the bill is actually released yet. There are a few people voicing concerns, but others have said there's nothing even released yet. Would have to research it myself.

[Colonol Dekker]

An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright

So as long as i include a readme.txt / Liscence.txt i'm fine right ?

[Zoltan]

I sincerly hope this doesn't pass, becasue it really is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to pay in order for something you mad to be yours.

       Hmm, well not sure if the bill is actually released yet. There are a few people voicing concerns, but others have said there's nothing even released yet. Would have to research it myself.

I have looked into this some, and there is not released bill as of yet, but it is only a matter of time. The linked article has created a bit of an uproar throughout art communities, but it appears that it was somewhat exaggerated. Orphaned works are a fairly major problem, but this is not the way to solve it. This would only be a band-aid on amuch bigger problem, a band-aid that would make certain people a lot of money. I still think that the concept is ridiculous despite any new information I might have garnered, and sincerely hope that nothing similar passes in the future.

@Colonol Dekker
As this concept has been presented in the past, and likely will be in the future, that would not help in the least.

[Colonol Dekker]

Just as well all stuff i have produced is as likely to attract corporate theft as a womble is to attract Kate Beckinsale for <3 <3 <3

[Zoltan]

Just as well all stuff i have produced is as likely to attract corporate theft as a womble is to attract Kate Beckinsale for <3 <3 <3

Note to self: must acquire womble.

[colecampbell666]

You people forget, we're not all American. Or would this mean that Americans would be allowed to use our stuff regardless?

Just as well all stuff i have produced is as likely to attract corporate theft as a womble is to attract Kate Beckinsale for <3 <3 <3

Note to self: must acquire womble.

[Rian]

There’s a very good article refuting the Mark Simon piece here:

http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html

To briefly paraphrase, there is no legislation currently under consideration that would make registration of copyright mandatory. Registration exists now, and confers some additional legal protections, (like the right to sue infringers for more money)  but all creative works – registered or unregistered – are protected by copyright from the minute they’re created and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

The stuff about orphaned works is probably not something to get worked up over, because a work is only considered to be orphaned if it is impossible to determine who owns the copyright, and the finder can demonstrate in court that this is the case. Also, only the original creator of the piece or someone to whom they have specifically granted those rights can register a piece – even if you got ahold of an orphaned work, and could demonstrate that it was orphaned, you still couldn’t claim it for your own. And as soon as the original creator speaks up, it’s no longer orphaned anyway.

[Zoltan]

Rian raises some excellent points; as I was saying before, I did some research into this and found this information. Where I would like to disagree, is the fact that in the legislation that that has been proposed in the past (and will likely be proposed sometime in the future), you would need to register any work you create for you to have any definitive rights in terms of its protection. I definitely think that there are major problems with the current system and agree that this was blown out of proportion, but this knowledge doesn't change the fact that it would be terrible for such a law to pass.

You people forget, we're not all American. Or would this mean that Americans would be allowed to use our stuff regardless?

Europe is also looking into similar concepts, and I highly doubt that if both Europe and the United States passed Orphaned Works laws that Canada would hold out...

Edit: I should learn how to type... 

[Akalabeth Angel]

Canada already has some stuff regarding orphaned works:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33751

To briefly paraphrase, there is no legislation currently under consideration that would make registration of copyright mandatory. Registration exists now, and confers some additional legal protections, (like the right to sue infringers for more money)  but all creative works – registered or unregistered – are protected by copyright from the minute they’re created and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

     Yeah I've seen that, though one thing I dislike a great deal about it is that she directs people to some out of date article from some Illustrator's Guild or somesuch, when there's a more recent article on that same website which speaks about the whole registry thing. And the registry thing is one of the things this Mark guy is most concerned about.

[karajorma]

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/392

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works#United_States

Storm in a teacup apparently. I think the author of the original article simply didn't understand what this was all about. It's not an attempt to make everyone register everything. It's an attempt to allow museums, etc to use pictures from the Holocaust and other such events when they can't track down the original photographer.

[Snail]

Karajorma, the voice of reason.

[Akalabeth Angel]

    I should note that there's a followup article to the guy in response to his critics:

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3615

    I haven't bothered to read it yet.

[karajorma]

I skimmed it and to be honest I don't think the guy has the faintest clue what he's on about.

His argument seems to be that this law means that someone can say that any work is an orphaned work as soon as it is published as they can claim that they couldn't find the copyright holder. Once they have done that they can then infringe as much as they like and it is up to the copyright holder to track them down, sue them and prove that it wasn't right to do that.

On the other hand under the current law someone can say that any work is creative commons as soon as it is published as they can claim that they couldn't see why it wouldn't be. Once they have done that they can then infringe as much as they like and it is up to the copyright holder to track them down, sue them and prove that it wasn't right to do that.


So all that has changed is the lie the infringer tells everyone to justify his theft.