Orphan Works Act: This shit is ****ed up

[Krynn72]

Time to pay for copyrighting your art, home videos, photos. Thanks Orphan Works Act!

My friend just forwarded me this email from conceptart.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc

This summer we helped send thousands of emails to the members of the US House and Senate to stop this bill. What did we get in return? Canned email form letters thanking us for sharing our views. The bill drafts went the House and Senate anyway. The artists, professionals, and creative organizations who were trying to protect artist rights were ignored by the US government completely. Realizing that even a hundred thousand signatures wont stop the copyright bill, at least that is how it looks from here, I got to thinking what we have to do to solve the problems right here at home.

Artists having to pay to be in searchable registries is potential problem number one. I believe this will be left to the private companies based on my research into who is supporting this horrible bill and what businesses are opening preparing for it. I went in and checked the domain registry to search to see if people were buying the domains (registermyart.com, artregistry.com, etc..etc...) and every one I searched was gone. This was the red flag that began the real push to solve this assault on artist rights. The corporate sharks are already preparing to feed it seems.

Since the business world reads the laws and tries to capitalize on the loopholes, it is obvious to me that this would happen. Money is already flowing that direction. My guess is the art registries will launch as soon as the law passes or shortly thereafter, unless some miracle happens. Smart buggers but not smart enough. Imagine the photographers who take five hundred images a day or more...ugh. Artists cannot pay for this service...at least those I know who produce quantities of work...and none should have to.

Anyway, that problem is now solved in low tech fashion here: http://www.conceptart.org/search/ind..***mid=5&page=1 ConceptArt.Org has created a search system for locating art and artists, essentially cutting off the paid registry industry before they can even get off the ground. Click the images and find the original thread. Click the artist name and contact them directly. This also keeps these readying companies from acting as middlemen, between the searcher and the artist who they wish to hire. There is no room for that in our business.

I designed and we rebuilt all our databases and set up conceptart.org servers to handle up to 200 terabytes of secure storage. This service is entirely free and is a gift to the community from ConceptArt.Org. It is also nice as you can now browse through the images on the site very quickly. What used to take a week to view, now takes hours. Released in this viewer are five hundred thousand images. More will be added shortly. When you post on the forums your images go in the copyright search registry we created. It is all automated for you. Just keep doing as you do and at least your work can be found. The watermark will be site wide, and contains the appropriate information.

You can search best of (five star threads) for fun...or from each forum if you click the "forums images" text tab...there are a ton of ways to look for stuff. key wording is in progress. That is the final piece of the basic search tool.

The idea is to simply kick the entire start up registry industry in the nuts before it can even learn to stand up by taking action ourselves.

Anyway...just some thoughts...my vision for where this heads is deeper than this but it should at least help some, i hope. I spoke at length with Brad Holland and others involved in putting up the fight for artists rights and we have solved two of the biggest issues.

1. That artists could have to pay for their works to be registered and protected in the US, and there is evidence supporting this.
2. That these companies would then act as middle men between prospective clients searching the databases by requiring the company or person searching to pay them for your information.

Obviously, these problems must not happen.

There are other problems being solved, as related to this bill and this is just a first step in the best defense is a good offense mentality when it comes to artist rights. If we sit around and wait for someone to provide these solutions it is going to cost us dearly. Instead, we are taking action.

Happy New Year too!


Jason Manley
Founding Director
ConceptArt.Org
President
www.massiveblack.com

 

[Leto]

I facepalm'd SO hard that I could drawn blood.
This is crap, since I'm an artist and I'll have no way to pay for the copyright of all my stuff
I hope this doesn't affect Canada, but I'm pretty sure it will

 

[DEATHMASTER]

What the crap

 

[MJ12]

Are you sure this is legit?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I just want to kill the assholes bringing this shit up.

 

[Darkside55]

When they're talking about Disney in the video, and how if you've already registered something you'll have to register it again, does this mean that for a(n extremely brief) period of time copyrighted characters will be up for grabs?

 

[Krynn72]

Are you sure this is legit?

Considering the guys at Conceptart.org (probably one of the biggest congregation of professional artists on the world wide internet) are up in arms over it, and the guy who wrote that was a professional artist for Massive Black, it sounds legit.

When they're talking about Disney in the video, and how if you've already registered something you'll have to register it again, does this mean that for a(n extremely brief) period of time copyrighted characters will be up for grabs?

My thoughts too. When they said that, I was like "I'm totally taking credit for the Lion King".

I've already started saving up for it.

 

[Darkside55]

Seriously, there's a character (not Disney) that I've wanted to own for-fucking-ever, that nobody remembers anymore and will never be used again, commercially or otherwise by the current copyright owners. It really IS an orphaned work in this case. I will have that goddamned license.

 

[MJ12]

Darkside is an enabler of this act.

He must be punished.

 

[Raziaar]

I support a new golden age of piracy against corporate conglomerates in every way possible in protest of this. I fully support protecting artists work from being used without permission by corporate entities.

I hate corporations! Most of them anyway. Burn them all down! WoooooooooooooooooOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOOoooooooo...

bed for me. so tired with a terrible headache. ugh.

 

[Darkside55]

That's what you get for raging against the machine too hard.

 

[Eejit]

Disappointing thread.

Not Dickensian enough, guv'na!

 

[Darkside55]

Will the works of Charles Dickens be up for grabs?

 

[Remus]

Well, if this is real it will affect only artists in the US . But still WTF.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Undermining private property is communism.

 

[Eejit]

And Communism is the Devil.

 

[Kyorisu]

Hey he mentions book art for Dune. Awesome.

 

[PvtRyan]

Eh. Sounds like a huge overdramafiction tbh.

Currently, something is copyrighted by default and if there is a work of unknown origin, anyone who wants to use it cannot because you must assume it's still copyrighted.

The new bill would allow you to go ahead with using the work of unknown origin, providing that you can show (if asked for it) documented proof of your search of the work's owner. If however the owner shows up at a later point, and can show that the work is his and that the search of the user of the work was inadequate, he can fight the use of his work in court and get compensation.

You guys do realize that those who made this video and those that oppose this bill also have their own agenda right? No doubt that those that support this bill also have their monetary reasons for doing so, although I doubt that Disney will find the use of your dick drawings you posted anonymously on the internet cost effective considering the possible legal fees at a later time and the documentation of the search for the owner. I'm sure the new bill can and will be abused to a certain degree, but the whole tone of the video is just pathetic and unwarranted. Fear mongering is what it is, like saying all current copyrights will be worthless, which is just a lie because if you have currently registered something, it's easy to trace the owner and thus not an orphan work.

Here's the bill for those that prefer basing their opinions on the actual content of the bill rather than YouTube propaganda:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html

The only questionable part is this:

Qualifying searches. A court, in determining whether a search is diligent, shall consider factors including whether (1) actions taken in a search are reasonable and appropriate in a given situation, (2) the infringer employed the applicable best practices maintained by the Copyright Office, and (3) the search took place immediately prior to use. The fact that a work lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner is not sufficient to meet this standard.

The Copyright Office is charged with maintaining publicly available statements of best practices. The statements of best practices may include using Copyright Office records, private registries, industry practices and guidelines, technology tools, and electronic databases, which may require a charge or subscription fee.

As an owner, do you have to be found with a search using "best practices" defined by the Copyright Office (which will include registering your work) to qualify as an owner in a case where your work was deemed an orphan work and used by someone? And with that I mean: if you can't be found in a database of the Copyright Office, would the user's search be qualified as "diligent" enough?

Damn, law is so vague, stuff like this wouldn't ever pass in a commercial environment.

This is the website of the "art licensing organizations" that oppose it:
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

I'm not saying I support this legislation, I just hate the tone of that video.

Besides, people who use the phrase "big corporations" in a typical indignant tone of voice are douchebags anyway.

(C) PvtRyan Inc.

 

[Eejit]

So nothing at all to do with chimney sweeps?

 

[delusional]

Undermining private property is communism.

You have it completely wrong. Copyrights impede on the free market.

idiot.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Actually intellectual theft is very anti-market.

 

[Tagaziel]

You have it completely wrong. Copyrights impede on the free market.

idiot.

If your response was sarcastic:

GG

If it was not:

Idiot.

 

[V-Man339]

I'm using this loophole to take Uncle Sam.

 

[Sheepo]

This sounds like something I should try to profit from.

 

[Krynn72]

Eh. Sounds like a huge overdramafiction tbh.

Currently, something is copyrighted by default and if there is a work of unknown origin, anyone who wants to use it cannot because you must assume it's still copyrighted.

The new bill would allow you to go ahead with using the work of unknown origin, providing that you can show (if asked for it) documented proof of your search of the work's owner. If however the owner shows up at a later point, and can show that the work is his and that the search of the user of the work was inadequate, he can fight the use of his work in court and get compensation.

From the sounds of it, the owner of the copyright can't fight the use of his works, and can only get compensation equal to that of the standard licensing fee. He can't charge for any damages, lawyer fees etc, and he can't stop them from using his work.


Thats bullshit.


Heres some more stuff to read.

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-4-08.htm

At the end of the day, all most photographers own besides a bunch of beat-up cameras and a hard-drive full of bits (or a cabinet full of slides) is the copyright to their images. Thus it is with near terror that photographers who have read through the suddenly fast-tracked "orphan works" law begin to panic.

The well-intentioned proposed amendment to the Copyright Act is designed primarily to allow museums, libraries and other "keepers of our heritage" to be able to safely use copyrighted works if they can not find the copyright owner to acquire a license. Comments made by citizens about the bill show that it also has support from the clients of photographers who want to make additional use of their images but can not reach them any longer.

In principle those are laudable goals. However, the bill as currently drafted is terribly one-sided in favor of the publishing and library industries and very flawed when it comes to protecting the rights of photographers. In particular the draft bill:

*

Makes it legal for anyone desiring to use a copyrighted work for any purpose to go ahead and use it without a license if they have made "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to locate the copyright owner.
*

Use of such an "orphaned work" is free, unless the copyright owner comes forward. But even in that case the copyright owner can only claim (or sue to claim) the normal license fee, but not any additional damages or attorney's fees--even if the work had a registered copyright.
*

And even if the copyright owner discovers the violation, if the user is not making commercial use of the image, then there is no recourse and no compensation.

Why this COULD BE Terrible
for Photographers

The bill (and the Copyright Office report on which it is based) openly assume both that most copyrighted works are credited and that it is easy to locate the holder of a copyright if a work is registered. These assumptions are both blatantly false in the case of photographs. Many images are no longer directly credited to the photographer and there is no effective way to search to see if an image is copyrighted or who the copyright holder is even if you have the image in hand. While paying some lip service to the notion that photographers needed protecting, Jule Stigall, testifying for the Copyright Office, essentially brushed them aside with vague thoughts about future search capabilities and stood behind the legislation as written. He had no concrete plan for how the process of registering and locating a copyright owner or photographer might work and how it could be tied to the effective date of the legislation.

In essence the amendment as worded makes it okay to steal from a photographer if you don't know who they are or how to ask them for permission. And if you get caught the worst that can happen is that you have to pay what you would have anyway, or maybe not even that. We're sure you can think of ways this could affect you in your specific line of photography, but to give a few possible examples:

*

Your image is used in a publication, uncredited as is increasingly the case, and the publisher gets bought or closes it's doors and can't be reached. This bill could be interpreted as giving anyone free reign to pirate the images in the publication.
*

Your image is pirated and put on the web. Someone sees it, likes it, and wants to use it. Since it is pirated they don't know who you are (and of course the meta-data has been stripped) so they can't try to reach you, so they can--potentially legally--go ahead and use the image without further compensation to you. If you take the trouble to track them down and sue them the most you can recover is what your initial license fee would have been. Hardly an incentive to try to find violators.

But you're right, a lot of this does seem like knee jerk reactions and bullshit. I had a look here and it seems like a lot of information in that video was just plain wrong.

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

 

[V-Man339]

I can't really decide what I'm for in this case, as I have a pictures folder of over a thousand images (yes, 2,400 files, 796 megabytes), and I'm sure that at least one of them are copyrighted; even though I'm not breaking any laws by not publishing them, I still feel sort of endangered by the whole deal. On the other hand, I think that this law practically ruins the photography business, and is overall just going to drive the entire industry down.

I don't know much about the entire thing, so excuse any inaccuracies.