|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:32 am
Hansma it is still bullshit that if someone can't find you that means they can use your work. That is like saying that if I can't find the owner of a car after a reasonable search then I get to use it. If you can't find the owner, you can't use it. It is simple as that. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that it's what the government saying, which is not the same as "you lose rights to everything you've ever done" which is what the guy in the OP's first article seems to be saying. I agree that an artist's work should never be used without their permission, and that saying, "well, if you can't find this person, whatever, use it" is shitty. However, I also think that artists should take some responsibility in protecting their own work - I'm not saying that if someone 'steals' your work because you didn't include a name or something, you deserve it, but this kind of thing is obviously an issue and there are ways artists can help protect themselves from it. There's no one perfect solution, but doing something is better than not doing anything. I have my doubts that this bill will ever amount to anything, though. I haven't heard any new information about it since the last time it was brought up.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:47 am
Someone using your work is you losing all your rights.
And the part about everything you've ever done is because the law wants to backdate 34 years. Most of us haven't been making art longer than that so it would apply to everything we've ever done.
You are putting blame on artists for not putting their names on work, except that not all work you do CAN have your name on it. Let's say I get commissioned to do a commercial work and they don't want my signature on it (and they don't unless they are paying you for your name) and I sell them one-time usage rights. They use the piece in a campaign and the image is now out there. I still own the copyright. Some dude sees it and says "well, ******** this person! They didn't put their name on it! I get to use it freely!"
That is a simplified example, but it is a very very very common practice for artists to make something that cannot include a signature.
The very idea of having to fork over money to a ******** company to 'protect' my work is appalling. Its hard enough to survive out there to just be forking over money just because you create something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:59 am
its quite sad that this kind of thing would even be considered
granted, it probably doesnt have a very high chance of passing, but congress has been known to push for bills that are totally rediculous before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:21 am
If you're caught downloading a movie, you can go to jail.
Why can't it be the same for using artwork that's not yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:26 am
Umm I also want to comment on what I think that this is for:
I work at a drug store with a photo booth in it. A zillion no joes with no art skill or respect for those that do have skill (photographic or whatever) b***h and complain and swear they will call corporate because we won't reproduce any thing that may seem professional or posed etc. unless its more than 100 years old.
People all the time try to send things to our store by using the internet to process the photos thinking that we don't see them as they come out of the machine.
So ... basicly...
I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue if the people who were running this or who are trying to pass this through were artists then it wouldn't be happening at all.
Like I think when I have to redo the entire cosmetic wall with new shelving units and product. If the corporate rich bastards took a second to do the work after the computer spit out what it thinks is some awesome design and hardware set up then perhaps it wouldn't be so ******** up every step of the way. They'd see that not every store was constucted in the exact same way and that not every store has lots of room for overstock or they'd realize that since they only let women work in the cosmetcis department that maybe they shouldn't give us work that weighs double our lifting capability.
Its ignorance and stupidity that is causing the problem.....
I just wanted to put this out there... I'm not very good with debates or even good at writting...
but I have my two cents on the table... lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:26 am
Agent_Dax its quite sad that this kind of thing would even be considered granted, it probably doesnt have a very high chance of passing, but congress has been known to push for bills that are totally rediculous before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:29 am
Hansma Someone using your work is you losing all your rights.
And the part about everything you've ever done is because the law wants to backdate 34 years. Most of us haven't been making art longer than that so it would apply to everything we've ever done.
You are putting blame on artists for not putting their names on work, except that not all work you do CAN have your name on it. Let's say I get commissioned to do a commercial work and they don't want my signature on it (and they don't unless they are paying you for your name) and I sell them one-time usage rights. They use the piece in a campaign and the image is now out there. I still own the copyright. Some dude sees it and says "well, ******** this person! They didn't put their name on it! I get to use it freely!"
That is a simplified example, but it is a very very very common practice for artists to make something that cannot include a signature.
The very idea of having to fork over money to a ******** company to 'protect' my work is appalling. Its hard enough to survive out there to just be forking over money just because you create something. How does someone using your work equal you losing your rights? You haven't lost them because someone else decided to violate them. I'm not trying to blame artists for not having information with their work. I also understand there are situations in which it's not possible to include information - I was saying that there are some things you can do, but there is no one perfect solution to the issue. There never will be. Artists generally get the short end of the stick when it comes to stuff like this, and it sucks, but doing what you can is better than doing nothing at all. That's what I was getting at. I don't mean it just in the context of the bill being proposed, but in any context. Art theft still happens. People still make money off of artwork without the artist's permission. it's never going to stop being a problem. I'm pretty sure a situation like the one you described wouldn't fall under the situations described in the proposed bill, especially if the work is commercial. Anyone could easily find out who produced the work in a case like that, and the way you describe it makes it sound like people would be able do this with any commercial work and suffer no penalties from it. Not being able to find a name on something isn't the same as trying to find the artist. I don't know how "reasonable search" is defined, though I have a feeling that's not it. Again, I agree that the whole thing is pretty stupid - I think we can all agree on that. I just think that there are a lot of people blowing it out of proportion. Edited to add this link, which is also in the OP: http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.phpThe 2006 bill, the one that everyone is focusing on, is dead (figures), and that link contains an update on a new one that's being drafted. ASMP In terms of drafting, we are proposing to limit the scope of the Orphan Works defense to: 1. Uses by individuals for non-revenue producing personal or community purposes, including uses on websites that do not generate revenues for the individuals using the Orphan Works; 2. Uses in works of non-fiction, such as books, articles or documentary films or videos; 3. Uses by non-profit educational institutions, libraries, museums or archives qualified for treatment under ¤501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended * in exhibits, including website displays, and * for uses that produce revenues and that are ancillary to exhibits. In a nutshell, we see little financial harm to creators from the non-profit and non-fiction uses of orphaned images. At the same time, we want to make sure that commercial users of images and illustrations would not be able to use an Orphan Works defense as a free pass to profit from infringements. Not much better when it comes to non-profit stuff, but no, the government is not trying to let people make tons of money off of your work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:38 am
|
Dr. Valentine Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:56 am
locks everything in an underground safe until i die
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:01 am
Uh! I'm not entirely sure all the details for this, but as a professional artist it sounds like they would in any case need to show proof that they tried to figure out the original artist, and if they cannot and you have covered yourself, then they are i the wrong. Am I correct? "Orphan works" laws aren't new, I know that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:59 pm
well if it ever did pass, the search should include an mandatory *chan source request
those ******** can find almost anything if they could be collectively bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:08 pm
Quote: The Orphan Works Landscape by Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner March 27, 2008 The New “Improved” Orphan Works bill is due out next week. We expect it to be much the same as the last one. Unfortunately, the Orphan Works landscape has changed. Several groups which opposed the bill last time will not oppose it this time. They’re ready to concede defeat in return for concessions for their groups. They’ve also insisted that no other visual artists speak out against it. They say we must all capitulate in order not to endanger the concessions they want. They say we have to show Congress that artists speak with one voice: theirs. That creates a problem. Not all visual artists have the same stake in copyright protection. Who owns the copyrights to your high school yearbook photos? Your wedding photos? Bar mitzvah pictures? How often has that ever been an issue? If you don’t make your living primarily by licensing copyrights, you may not have the same stake in this bill as those of us who do. Moreover, visual arts groups don’t exist by licensing copyrights; artists do. So whatever concessions might be acceptable to an artists group might still harm the careers of artists. We believe the way to speak with one voice is not to submit to a bill that would: - Create uncertainty in commercial markets; - Nullify the exclusive right of copyright and therefore - Reduce the value of your work; - Threaten the privacy protection afforded by current copyright law; and - Invite retaliation from abroad. Instead, Congress should be lobbied to draft specific, limited exemptions that permit the use of true orphaned work. When we’ve seen the new bill, we’ll provide you with suggested language for writing lawmakers. In the meantime, you can help by continuing to spread these emails to any interested party, both in the US and overseas. Remember: the US Orphan Works amendment is not an exception to copyright law to permit the archiving and preservation of old, abandoned works. It is a license to infringe contemporary works by living artists worldwide. Its goal is to force these works into private commercial US registries as a condition of protecting copyrights. Coerced registration violates international copyright law and copyright-related treaties. To concede defeat on it is to knock a hole in copyright law and admit a Trojan horse. -Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:50 am
How about the fact it DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST? XD
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/12/countering-the-fud-a.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
