So, Orphaned Works Bill isn't bad? O_o[rant]
(sigh)
>_>
I think there is a huge misunderstanding of the problem some of us have with this potential bill proposal...
See, the concern is that the bill could potentially make SOME things that are illegal today, legal tomorrow.
The article linked is looking at the copyright laws that exist today, but a bill like this one woud change those laws.
For instance, it is ILLEGAL to use work that you didn't create or isn't public domain today.
What this bill wants to do is to allow third parties to use work that they didn't create, that isn't public domain, but has been declared 'orphaned'.
If they are discovered, then they have to pay a small fee to the creator. A fee that probably doesn't even come close to the true value of the art. Once they pay the fee, then NOBODY can stop them from using the art any way they see fit.
On top of that, the creator has to PROVE that they created the work in order to receive anything, which makes sense.
It's right there in BLACK AND WHITE in the dang 2006 bill. >_<
I think everyone has a right to decide whether or not they want to ignore this or $#!+ bricks when they hear about it.
Seriously, remember Sodom and Gamorra? They didn't think there was any threat either.
Unused artwork isn't the same as an abandoned car on the side of the road.
As long as there are more artists/photographers/writers/musicians/models/ect, there will ALWAYS be more art.
If someone wants to use a picture that they didn't create themselves, they should HIRE an artist to make NEW art for them.
[/rant]
Hey, here's a quote from the 2006 papers:
"‘‘(1) MONETARYRELIEF.— ‘‘(A) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to sub-paragraph (B), an award for monetary relief (including actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees) MAY NOT be made, other than an order requiring the infringer to pay REASONABLE compensation for the use of the infringed work."
((can somebody define this? What's reasonable payment for using artwork that you didn't have a right to use to begin with?))
Oh! Here it is!
‘‘(3) REASONABLE COMPENSATION.—In establishing reasonable compensation under paragraph (1) or (2), the owner of the infringed copyright has the *burden of establishing the amount* on which a reasonable willing buyer and a reasonable willing seller in the positions of the owner and the infringer would have agreed with respect to the infringing use of the work immediately before the infringement began."
So, Quaker Mills stea-er LEGALLY USES your 'Orphan Declared' drawing of a tentacle sex beast and turns it into a mascot for a new breakfast cereal called "Cream Filled Horny O's", you bring it to their attention that YOU are the creator of this masterwork and demand compensation.
Problem is, you've never sold artwork before or don't have PROOF of sales of this magnitude, plus, to be honest, something like that would be worth no more than $150 unless you're a AAA artistic talent.
They offer you $100 for your trouble, which is an INSULT, so you take them to court. You get to court, with your modest attorney and they show up with THEIR attorney(s) to rape both you and your lawyer, with GIANT SIZED Throbbing Law-Penises in front of a mirror so you can see your shame and KNOW why you should have just took the $100 as you cry and beg them to stop.
Seriously, the idea of 'orphaned works' conflicts with the present copyright laws anyway.
Copyrights cover authors for up to 50 years AFTER they die. After that point, then it is up for grabs.
'Orphaned Works' tosses that rule to the wayside for the convenience of third parties that are too lazy and myopic to hire NEW artists to create NEW work.
I know that I would be PISSED if I woke up one day to see one of my Slimegirls on a billboard somewhere.
Anger
Devious Comments
I have not read the originating article in question fully yet, but given the link from
So what this boils down to me as, standard copywritten work is good for...like 50 years (if you pay the fees to have it actually copy written that is). If it is NOT copywritten AND you can't find the origional owner/creator it is only then that the Orphan thing takes effect.
A good way to make sure that you are easily found? Watermark your art with your name/handle/whatever.
--
Please stop talking...
...I have had too much of the Stupid today. Please wait until tomorrow to say these things so my tolerance has refreshed.
Matt Moylan pointed this out.
--
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
— "The Tower of the Elephant", Robert E. Howard, Weird Tales, March 1933.
"
Yup and that's what I oppose!
"So what this boils down to me as, standard copywritten work is good for...like 50 years (if you pay the fees to have it actually copy written that is)"
O_O'
Hey, here are the present copyright time limits.
[link]
"If it is NOT copywritten AND you can't find the origional owner/creator it is only then that the Orphan thing takes effect. "
Under present law, when it is Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the copyright lasts for 120 years from date of creation. That's for work that has never been *published* or *registered*.
--
Bill Gates says:
Wir müssen alle Computerindividualität zerquetschen! Mit WINDOWS VISTA, ist das göttliche Reinigen zur Hand. Zuerst Ihre Computer, dann die Welt!!
Are you gonna let him get away with that?
-Parody- No, Bill gates didn't really sa
*Wipes my @$$ with it*
Here's the copyright law as it is now.
[link]
There's NOTHING wrong with the present copyright system.
What a orphaned works law would do is punch a crapload of loopholes into the established law that works.
The way the law is now, you can slap an offending party to the fullest extent. With Orphan Works, they have a back door to go out of if you step up.
Hell, in the 2006 bill, they don't even have to PAY you if they stop using it immediately.
--
Bill Gates says:
Wir müssen alle Computerindividualität zerquetschen! Mit WINDOWS VISTA, ist das göttliche Reinigen zur Hand. Zuerst Ihre Computer, dann die Welt!!
Are you gonna let him get away with that?
-Parody- No, Bill gates didn't really sa
I do not take issue with this ONLY because sometimes finding the origional owner (who is still alive) is all but impossbile for one reason or another. While I like your analogy of "if it's not your jacket, leave it alone", the thing is, is that if it is left somewhere public, it would be placed in the "Lost and Found" box. The owner is able to come back at any time and say 'Hey, that's mine', and they get their jacket back. In most lost and found boxes, there is a 2 week limit...after that anyone can claim the object.
Think of the Orphan Bill as that Lost and Found box - only there is no statute of limitations. Someone can't find the creator after looking, it is considered Orphaned. At some point the real owner steps up and says 'Hey, that's mine', then those using that Orphaned work will have to compensate the owner as if the user had commissioned the work from them in the first place.
Don't get me wrong though, I DO agree with the "If it's not yours, don't touch it" idea, the thing is is that in far, FAR too many cases such things are impossible, so some form of happy medium must be found.
"Under present law, when it is Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the copyright lasts for 120 years from date of creation. That's for work that has never been *published* or *registered*."
Yeah... thing is, is that if you poste it to the internet, it is now considered to be "Published". That Creative Commons License would also count as registering to a dgree (I think). That said, you are covered 70 years after the publication.
--
Please stop talking...
...I have had too much of the Stupid today. Please wait until tomorrow to say these things so my tolerance has refreshed.
Not really. Somebody has to bring the artwork forward to stake a claim onto it as their own to use. This is wrong no matter how you look at it.
"so some form of happy medium must be found."
Why?
If you didn't create the work and it is clearly not public domain because the Copyrights won't expire for the next 70 years, WHY do you need to use it? WHY does their have to be a happy medium?
There are plenty of artists that make new artwork, hire one of them.
Hey, my grandfather's house in DC was unoccupied for two years while I tried to get his estate into probate. It is clearly part of his estate, should there be a happy medium when it comes to who owns the house? Should anybody be ale to just walk up to it and take it without paying for it because they can't seem to find my grandfather who died in 2002?
"That said, you are covered 70 years after the publication."
Nah, after 2002 the rule is "70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication"
--
Bill Gates says:
Wir müssen alle Computerindividualität zerquetschen! Mit WINDOWS VISTA, ist das göttliche Reinigen zur Hand. Zuerst Ihre Computer, dann die Welt!!
Are you gonna let him get away with that?
-Parody- No, Bill gates didn't really sa
I disagree. If Company X finds a piece of work on 4Chan (which is notably Anonomuys in the extreme), they try to find the creator/owner and they can't they then go to use the piece for whatever. The originator comes forward and says "Hey, that's mine and here is the proof" and they show that it was created by hand or records or whatever, they would be covered.
"If you didn't create the work and it is clearly not public domain because the Copyrights won't expire for the next 70 years, WHY do you need to use it? WHY does their have to be a happy medium?"
Why? Because let's say you find a very old picture of your parents' wedding. It is in poor condition, but you want it restored. Under the current copyright laws and restrictions you would NOT be able to have it restored unless you had express written permission from the photographer. Good luck finding him/her. If they died, then you get to wait to 2042 or some other hideous date before you could get that restoration done. No, you are not going to reproduce that work to sell, make a profit off of or generally undermine the origional photographer...but that work is still protected and you can't do anything with it.
National Geographic wants to do a documentry on the events of Generation X (folks born in the 70's). They have a shitload of photographs, stories, poetry and other such things where there are no creators noted (or they are pseudonyms), they have died, family can't be contacted, etc. Guess what happens to that documentary? It will NOT be made. Why? Because it is still protected and they will be protected until 70 years after the creator dies. Who made it? Who are some of these handles? Who drew these pictures or wote this poetry? They don't have names, they are both Published and Unpublished works that can provide great insight for this documentary. Unfortunatly, none of it can be used because ALL of it is protected by copyright until 2040 (or later).
That is why there should be a happy medium. This is not about some company trolling the internet to find work to abuse.
It should be noted that in the examples posted on the House of Representitives that they are focusing on things like museum use, photo restoration, documentaries and the like...but this all does fall into the "intent vs. actual use" arguement.
The Intent is to make certain things easier...but you know that corporations and individuals are going to abuse the hell out of it.
--
Please stop talking...
...I have had too much of the Stupid today. Please wait until tomorrow to say these things so my tolerance has refreshed.
I keep pointing to the story of Sarah McLaughlin as a case-example of the sort of insanity we see now... She wrote a song in which she quoted parts of the "love letters" sent her by an obsessive-stalker fan in one of her songs, and when the song became popular, the insane fan came forward and identified himself as the writer of those letters and claimed to have "co-wrote" the song because of the letters and sued her for a share of the profits on the song. Who in the world would want EVERYONE to know they wrote letters to somebody threatening them with kidnapping and rape? He did because he was certain he'd become a millionaire.
Previous Page123Next Page