Talk Here (Spam Hut)

[The Egg Man]

True.  

[DrunkenStyle]

A quote from a friend who quoted from HER friend. xD

Friend

Hey, guys.

I talked to a fellow artist friend of mine and this is what actually occurs.


" After reading this -->LINK
I actually downloaded the bill and actually read it, which I'm guessing most of you haven't.
Long story short, the Bill as written DOESN'T legalize art theft. What it does do is put in place a system of due diligence to use art & works orphaned by a copyrighting entity. In order to use an orphaned art, you have to go through a legnthy process to make ABSOLUTELY sure that the art is in play and not currently owned.

There ya go. But hey, what truth when drama's at stake? =D"

I don't know if this'll protect the companies taking and using orphaned art from artists who just sue for the money or whatnot, or just be a lengthy series of words that stand for "trojan horse" XD

Also, http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/art-discussion/copyright-s-won-t-exist-if-this-law-passes/t.39621795/

That thread has a lot of good points from people for, against, and especially neutral about the situation. The people who are neutral always have the best reasons. Read em guys, and read the bill if you want.

So as far as I know, there's nothing to get worked up for at the moment. And you don't have to go on a strike yet, Zhou.  

[The Egg Man]

Wait, but why would that guy make an article about it if its not threatening?

And why would the artist who does spider man be concerned about it?  

[0ogii]

DrunkenStyle

A quote from a friend who quoted from HER friend. xD

Friend

Hey, guys.

I talked to a fellow artist friend of mine and this is what actually occurs.


" After reading this -->LINK
I actually downloaded the bill and actually read it, which I'm guessing most of you haven't.
Long story short, the Bill as written DOESN'T legalize art theft. What it does do is put in place a system of due diligence to use art & works orphaned by a copyrighting entity. In order to use an orphaned art, you have to go through a legnthy process to make ABSOLUTELY sure that the art is in play and not currently owned.

There ya go. But hey, what truth when drama's at stake? =D"

I don't know if this'll protect the companies taking and using orphaned art from artists who just sue for the money or whatnot, or just be a lengthy series of words that stand for "trojan horse" XD

That is what it says.
But, there's also human nature to consider; "...I've got too much work to do... No, we couldn't find or contact the owner."

This whole bill is full of holes, honestly. The most secure things are in court, but even then, man! D<

Edit: If you read the bill, it's not as awfully bad as the article made it seem. But. Y'know. Government. xD  

[DrunkenStyle]

Eggman, I'm not saying you should drop being against the bill. I'm just saying that since we're over the fact that we rushed into the situation enraged, it's time to consider reasonable facts. The bill hasn't passed yet, and you have a choice to still be concerned or not. If you still are, you can still voice your opinion to congress without bias or blind rage.  

[The Egg Man]

Alright, I'm cool, I'm cool.  

[The Pie]

I think I'll post this entry that someone wrote.

Quote:

Someone posted a journal. It linked to an article. A really stupid article written by a really stupid man about orphan works legislation. Using personal attacks, weasel words, outright lies, and some choice quotes from people that would apparently like to be able to continue to receive royalties on every pencil drawing they've ever made since the beginning of time, he weaved a 3-page tale of how the big corporations are planning on stealing our souls (and all our copyrights) through legislation that aims to increase the number of works that enter the public domain.

I doubt that my response to the magazine (Animation World Magazine, in case anyone is curious; here's the original article) will ever be printed, so I'm posting it here for posterity. And also because I spent a while writing it, and don't want that time to feel totally wasted.

(I ******** hate this sort of misinformation campaign bullshit.)

LETTER BEGINS!

As both someone that is aware of the current issues surrounding copyright law in general, and orphaned works specifically, I don't know where to start with this error-riddled article.

First of all, Mark's definition of orphan works is wrong. An orphan work is a creative work where the original copyright owner cannot be located or identified. What he is describing as "orphan works" is, in actuality, the public domain. (Though, improper registration only applies to works from before when the Berne Convention was ratified.) (See en.citizendium.org/wik····an_works)

Second of all, there is no current legislation before congress regarding orphan works. The Public Domain Enhancement Act was the last bit of legislation regarding copyright and orphan works reform, and died after being referred to committee in 2006. You can confirm this yourself by searching for "orphan works" at the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov/bss/110····rch.html).

Third of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act doesn't legalise theft any more than copyright expiration legalises theft. Copyright is supposed to be a short, fixed term exclusive right that encourages the production of new creative works. Copyright was not intended to allow Disney to continue to make money on cartoons created 3 generations ago, or for John Lennon's wife to get rich off her dead husband's estate, but that's how it is today thanks to the large media conglomerates. (For someone that's spending so much time railing against corporations, Mark seems to spend a lot of time not talking about how the major film and music studios have pressured Congress to extend copyright terms 11 times since the original 1790 copyright act.)

Fourth of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act requires a token payment of $1 every 10 years, ONCE THE COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT ALREADY FOR FIFTY YEARS. That means, the first 50 years of copyright are still free, even under the proposed Act.

Fifth of all, Mark is wrong about current registration requirements. In order to file ANY copyright infringement suit, not just one for statutory damages, you have to register the work with the copyright office. Statutory damages can only be claimed if the registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work. All this information is easily available from the Copyright Office's Web site (www.copyright.gov/circ····.html#cr) so there's no reason for him to get it wrong.

Sixth of all, I'm very interested to learn how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes Bill Gates money, since Mark claims that Bill Gates doesn't "do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money". I'm even more interested as to how Mark thinks that Bill Gates stepping down as chairman of Microsoft to move into philanthropy will make him more money than continuing to run the largest software company on earth.

Finally, the most important thing. The point of orphan works laws, which is COMPLETELY missed by this three page comedy of errors, is NOT to make it possible for people or corporations to steal your work. In fact, most of the orphan works legislation has been pioneered by people such as Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred -- people that are TIRED of big corporations continuing to steal from the public domain by pushing forward copyright term limits. The point of orphaned works laws is to make it possible for people to use works whose owners cannot be found, thereby preventing these works from fading into oblivion and creating a new surge of creativity built on these freely available works.

Under the current system, even if someone is willing to pay for license to use a work, if they can't find the original copyright holder, they can't risk using the work in case the original copyright holder or a heir surfaces later and sues them.

With the proposed US orphan works law, after 50 years, if the copyright holder does not pay the $1 tax to continue their copyright ownership, the work enters the public domain. How fifty years of exclusive rights is not enough for Mark, I don't know. It's still FAR more than the original 28-year term set back in 1790, and still FAR more than is needed to make money on a work. Any potential legislation that works to reduce copyright terms is a VERY GOOD THING for all creatives today.

Hey, it even means that once Corbis's library enters the public domain, you won't need to pay them to get copies anymore.

original entry here



EDIT
Lol, well s**t, I should have read all of your posts before posting this lol  

[The Egg Man]

Wow, that Mark dude is a tool.  

[0ogii]

The Egg Man

Wow, that Mark dude is a tool.

Just a bit. xD
As I kept reading onto the second page of his article, it irritated me how one-sided his argument seemed to be. A good article has...no opinions. xD
But, eh. Whatever. It's all straightened out now.  

[The Egg Man]

Yupyup, I gotta stop being so easily influenced.  

[Noodle Luff]

Ugh. Even still, I'm putting my real name on my work from this point on )':< Which helps in this arguement... If your name is on your work, you'll never have to worry about some one claiming it as theirs. Unless they alter the image, and that's a law suit looking at them. Sign your art, work on getting proper copyright, and don't worry so much.


Egg, do you think if I persuaded you enough, I could cook you? xD  

[0ogii]

Blegh.
I'll just stick my initials on s**t again [though I doubt it'd be stolen, ever. I don't consider myself 'good enough' for that horrible 'priviledge']. It's cooler than my real name.

Noodle Luff

Egg, do you think if I persuaded you enough, I could cook you? xD

...
If that happens, can I...watch? 8D  

[quaxcalibur]

if that happens, can I EAT!?? domokun  

[0 Zhou 0]

Noodle Luff

Ugh. Even still, I'm putting my real name on my work from this point on )':< Which helps in this arguement... If your name is on your work, you'll never have to worry about some one claiming it as theirs. Unless they alter the image, and that's a law suit looking at them. Sign your art, work on getting proper copyright, and don't worry so much.


Egg, do you think if I persuaded you enough, I could cook you? xD

Its super hard to edit out thigs when they are heavily watermarked. Sure it lowers the quality of the art, but it pretty much ensures your saftey.

Also- i agree. We dont have to strike yet, but we CAN and SHOULD protest.

 

[Shen-po]

Shen-po hates art thiefs.... >_<