That Sebastian Kruger caricature of Stallone is actually an awesome example, because in the middle of big cities (London, Paris, Rome - I've seen them at all of these places) you will find at least 10 caricaturists offering to draw your picture, and in front of them are arrayed "their" past drawings ... and they nearly always have a copy of one of Kruger's caricatures which I instantly recognize because I have his book.
And I kinda think they should all get sued or exposed as frauds. Heh.
fortunately, there's no copyright bullshit on creating "derivative work" of military vehicles.
That's because you can't copyright an idea, only a fixed work. If you design a military vehicle, your sketches and blueprints are copyrighted. The idea of it can't be.
oh, and if copyright exerted their claws on the music industry, 100% of hip hop wouldn't exist.
Uh, the music industry does check copyright. Why do you think they sue file-sharers? I just cited the Verve case. Clearing all the samples in a hip-hip song is arduous and expensive, and god forbid they miss one, like Timbaland did last year, which stirred up all sorts of press.
Perhaps you're thinking of some of the very first sampling remix artists, doing it underground (and illegally) and distributing it themselves on their own labels. Once they had a record contract with the majors, costs went way up, because they had a lot more assets that could be sued for.
if all copyright law was exerted with full force, all art would gradually diminish until all that was left was a bickering crowd of angry greedy artists suing eachother over copyrights over trivial copyright issues
Only if you can't think for yourself, which you apparently cannot.
if "fantasy" was copyrighted, norway would sue tolkien for using the word "troll" and "dwarf"
Can't copyright an idea. Can't copyright a concept. Can't copyright a word. Can trademark a word used in a certain way, but only if you're the only/first person using it, and then you have to vigorously protect it, which is expensive.
I'd suggest you read some of the references people have posted, but you're an "artist," so you're probably can't read.
i say you're lucky that some artists don't give a flying fuck about copyright, or our world would be poorer because of that.
I say you're just as much of an ignorant putz as the guy who wrote the article that someone posted that started this thread. Please let me know when someone sues you so I can show up and laugh.
What happens when I create a character, put a render of it on my website, and don't pay $30/$50 bucks to register it, then EA steals the exact design and makes a multi-million dollar game with my character as the main guy?
That's copyright infringement, but since you didn't register it, you can only sue for the fair market value of the work, e.g. what you would have been paid if EA had hired someone to do the design.
Which, since they have designers in house, is essentially free for them. So, you'd get nothing.
This is why I say if you're not registering your works, you might as well give them away for free properly, by deeding them to the public domain and letting everyone do anything they want with them.
If you had registered it, then you could sue for damages, like, all the profits from all the sales of the game. Which means a lawyer would be happy to help you for a big fat cut. I don't know if you'd win, but you'd certainly have a case.
This is why I say if you're not registering your works, you might as well give them away for free properly, by deeding them to the public domain and letting everyone do anything they want with them.
as i say, i don't give a flying fuck. some day i'll be dead, and then what i thought and cared about won't matter shit, and i sure as hell don't want to waste the glimpse of life on sending in copyright applications to some dweebs whose hobby is to collect money.
PeterK :
What happens when I create a character, put a render of it on my website, and don't pay $30/$50 bucks to register it, then EA steals the exact design and makes a multi-million dollar game with my character as the main guy?
Vito:
That's copyright infringement, but since you didn't register it, you can only sue for the fair market value of the work, e.g. what you would have been paid if EA had hired someone to do the design.
Basically, I m fine with the idea of registering my work - I guess it brings safety and can only be good. But I don't want to pay for that. Take character design. No matter how complex (and time consuming in the making) a design is, the whole idea can be contained in a mere 640*480 picture of it. Now let's say an artist has like 50 conceptual designs on display on his website. Even if he keeps the highres source files for himself, registering for every small-res picture would be a rather large amount of money to pay, right? At a time when job hunting is done online, with artists reputation spreading by word of mouth through personal websites, couldn't the new law create some huge mayhem? I know one can't copyright an idea, but when it comes to illustration/concept art, even lowquality images can express just as much. I might not understant it fully, but that new law seems to make such 'visual ideas' theft very easy?
It would be fine if registering the art would simply require some login and upload on a free, non profit platform maybe. But having to pay for that, and having the info stored by private parties sounds scary to me. I like the current 'automatic copyright' idea better in that regard.
Please correct me if I am saying anything stupid. I am very interested in these issues but only begin to understand them (this is especially tricky since I am an expat, hence maybe subject to laws of different countries, that sort of stuff)
My old band used to register our songs as collections so I believe you could do the same thing, just register all 50 designs as an unpublished collection and you just pay the fee for registering one item.
This law doesn't really affect me since everything I create is owned by EA anyways :P
Putting something online isn't good enough. No-one is still allowed to use that tank. You have to explicitly give up your rights. You have to say "This is my original work and I deed this to the public domain and relinquish all rights to it," or something similar. Creative Commons even has a formal legal thing you can reference when you do it: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
Creative Commons is a great program for things like this, by the way. You can license all of your work using it, and they have generic legalese that says "you can do whatever you want as long as I get credit" or "you can do whatever you want as long as I get credit and it's not commercial," and other things.
But, you still have to register with the Copyright Office if you expect to be able to sue someone properly for violating that license!
some day i'll be dead, and then what i thought and cared about won't matter shit, and i sure as hell don't want to waste the glimpse of life on sending in copyright applications to some dweebs whose hobby is to collect money.
That's not good enough, either.
For 70 years after you're dead, we're still not allowed to touch your work. Whomever runs your estate, your grandkids or third cousins twice removed or whomever, controls the rights to all your work.
Seventy years after you're dead, we still can't use that tank that you put up online.
I was just about to post that link too, SouL.
Besides that, I can't get involved because I'm pretty clueless on the matter.
Vito is a champ, even if he is a Cocksmith. HAHA!
Yeah; if it was this uber law that suddenly privatized the very nature of the display of artwork it would suck butts - we shouldn't have to pay greedmonger dicks to feel safe about showing our work - but the ramifications of such a drastic decision would be so detrimental to art as a whole that I can't see anything like that lasting too long.
So I'm going to wait on this and see if this issue gets any kind of momentum outside of artist drama before I start raising hell, and hope in the back of my mind that this Mark Simon guy completely misinterpreted how things would be.
Except for the fact that she doesn't call anyone a goddamn idiot or say "yet another fucking space marine" anywhere, that's a great article, SouL. Good find.
Wow. The law seems to be another 'Y2K' sort of thing to me. Everyone will get worked up, but in the end, not much will change. Thats if I have understood the past 4-5 articles I just read. Yes, it does seem like the artists are getting screwed, and big companies are getting richer, but in the end, if you put something up on polycount, say a concept or a model, you keep the originals and only post wip jpgs, whats to stop me from looking at your work, takeing 'inspiration', and creating a reworking of it. Not much really. With this new law, the same thing could happen, and nothing would have changed.
Still, I live in AUS, and don't work in an art based industry, so what the fuck would I know. Or Care.
Got to love that last paragraph! Thought there might be a way to register 'collections' (goes off to look at UK registry even though I don't actually need to *cough*).. heh
Vito: for "Copyright infringement" there is the possibility of winning an injunction against a person/company , and forcing them to stop using your material. And since it's auto copyrighted now, you can sue for this without issue. This new legislation basically rapes you of this ability. One of my oldest friends is an IP lawyer, if you'd like I can have him review this issue and weigh in on it.
PeterK, sure, if you want to pay for your own lawyer. But stopping them from distributing your work doesn't make you any money from damages, and doesn't win you back lawyers fees.
But Mark Simon apparently believes that enacting legislation to handle orphaned works in a way that protects people who legitimately try to find the original copyright holder, but can't, will lead to the effective invalidation of copyright on ALL UNREGISTERED ART EVERYWHERE OMGZ CALL OUT THE CAVALRY.
His article, which I linked above, is miserably poorly researched, jumps to completely illogical conclusions, and, most retardedly of all, implores artists to letterbomb Congress in protest of proposed legislation which does not actually exist.
well, there is nothing to worry about, because think to yourself how retarded all of this sounds, and how many people are even siding with it.
can you honestly think of a large group of people who would actually be in favor of such a retarded idea that could slowly destroy the world's economy?
you might say "thieves" but think for a second, even a thief would be against this, because at some point in their lifetime the same misfortune of the artist will fall upon them, as what they have stolen CAN BE STOLEN BY SOMEONE ELSE AFTERWARDS, MAKING THE CONCEPT OF THEFT USELESS.
'your work is stolen'...oh well, just steal it back
If anyone is still concerned about this, I suggest reading that link.
"We made substantial progress towards the goal of a fair and reasonable Orphan Works bill in the last Congress. However, there remained a few difficult but important areas of controversy when the bill was pulled. It appears likely that the starting point in this Congress will be something substantially similar to the last bill with, we are told, some improvements to help deal with the unique problems facing photographers and artists. In order to avoid unnecessary controversy, ASMP is proposing only a fairly small wording change from the last version of the bill that was introduced in the last Congress. We believe that this change will remove the threat to visual creators posed by profiteers seeking to use our works for commercial purposes while leaving intact the advancement of education and the countrys visual heritage, which are the primary goals of orphan works legislation.
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."
can you honestly think of a large group of people who would actually be in favor of such a retarded idea that could slowly destroy the world's economy?
actually i can. scientologists, and fundamentalist christians.
I see your plan to make Vito blind by forcing him to read tiny gray text on a white background! I shall not fall for your sly plan! I'll copy and paste the text and read your nuggets of joy in safety! HA!
Seriously what is up with people trying to punish their readers with bad site design choices?
Mark whats his face is still a blowhard who got his facts mixed up. This is just trying to get people worked up about something that hasn't even come to light yet. This is the 2nd cry of wolf, are people really going to rally (when they need to) for the 3rd?
I have this neat bookmarklet called "zap" which kills embed (like Flash), background images and changes all the text formatting to something readable.
While no longer vitriolic, this page is still horseshit.
It would allow anyone who can’t find you (or who removes your name from your work and says he can’t) to infringe your work. Since infringements can occur anytime, anywhere in the world, they could be countless but you might never find them.
This is already the case in the world today. This nonexistent, purely theoretical bill doesn't change that.
Under this bill, you would never again be able to assure a client that your work hasn’t been – or won’t be – infringed.
You can't do that now.
You would never again be able to guarantee a client an exclusive right to license your work.
Horseshit. You can guarantee that. You just can't guarantee that someone won't steal it, and you never can and never will be able to guarantee that, because otherwise it wouldn't be stealing. This page doesn't even make sense.
Your entire inventory of work would be devalued by at least 2/3 from the moment this bill is signed into law.
My brain has been devalued by 2/3 just responding to this.
Put simply, if a picture is unmarked, it’s impossible to source or date it.
Sounds like someone's too lazy to research anything. Oh, that's right, Illustrator Partnership wants to run a registry and force people to mark their work.
Another Pandora’s Box because:
I'm not even going to paste all of that answer because it explains a situation that is the exact situation that already exists in the world today. You already have to actively police the entire world if you want to protect against anyone infringing your work. Nothing changes. The status quo remains the same.
Just because all the people in this thread didn't know what the status quo was, doesn't mean anything is different.
But, if you'll notice, the Q&A following that, about how lawyers work, is what I've been saying here the whole time.
Register your arts, people. Seriously.
The rest of the page is boring and probably just as full of horseshit, so I'm out.
How are fundamentalist christians destroying the worlds economy?
Thread derailing in 3...2...
With their bad credit debt and SUV's. Hello they voted Mr George W "I'm going to screw everyone over" Bush, into office not once, but twice. That little maneuver alone has done more to screw up our economy and set back the fight on climate change by 10 years. Thanks for paying attention... Next time keep lets keep religion out of politics please.
bottom line, the bill is going to make it harder for any kind of artist to NOT have their work SUCCESSFULLY stolen. I've done some research, and it's true, this bill protects "users" of creative arts from the creators, so long as a "diligent search" was conducted to contact the owner/creator. It'll make it nearly impossible to keep your work as YOUR work.
Orphan Works: Risking Our Nation's Copyright Wealth ***The Senate has just passed their version of the Orphan Works Bill***
Now we must try to stop the House Judiciary Committee from folding their bill and adopting the Senate version. We've supplied a special letter for this purpose.
I was registered before the site changed over to it's current format... had to reregister and that was my first post... good golly... sorry for inconveniencing you. It's only your creative license.
those of us who make money off our art might be concerned.
bradford, exactly. It was a rebuttal to Vito's comments :P
I find it insane that every artist, musician, photographer, etc, will have to pay to copyright every single piece of content they create.
my band has had to do just that, with all our music.
almighty, I can understand that for something like music. This license though, allows anybody to go on FlickR for instance, and take anybody's photo and sell it as their own (unless you pay to copyright every single photo you take). Kind of a lame deal.
I'm pretty sure you could take them to court and prove they stole it, therefore they lose any protection from the orphan works legislation.
This whole thing is a result of America's funny combination of lax copyright laws and draconian copyright laws.
Here's a nice article from 2005 Copyright Reform to Free Orphans?
""There's no good copyright clearinghouse to go to and say, here's all the people who copyrighted their materials and here's how you find them," said Goodman. "You're left with trying to find their relatives, and we live in a society where people, on average, move every seven years. It's an impossibility."
Stories like these about so-called "orphan works" -- items still locked up under copyright but where the owners are unknown or impossible to locate -- are leading the U.S. Copyright Office to try to fix the problem."
Okay, wait a minute. The whole purpose of this bill is to make it possible to use works that no longer have living authors? (and or creators) It's purpose is to legalize the use of artistic works whose makers can not be found or contacted? And call me crazy, but there's already a statute of limitations on this manner of copyright, yes?
Why is this bill even remotely necessary? What is wrong with the system as it is now? Why is it so essential that people be allowed to use these "orphaned" works? What is wrong with waiting until the proper time? I can't really think of anything that is so monumentally important that there is an actual need to reproduce it RIGHT NOW! What's the problem with being patient?
This kind of law just blurs the lines unnecessarily. The company I work for is scared to death of accidentally using images that are copyrighted. If anyone even hints that an image on one of the sites we create might be copyrighted, we tear that out and replace it, post-haste. If anyone did ever sue us for copyright infringement, unless we were absolutely certain they were full of it, we would settle.
You pass a law like that, and everything gets fuzzy. A law like this would take away that fear of reprisal. And for what?
I know sod all about stuff like this, but was wondering what are the odds of a company setting up that you can copyright your work with that would do it for free, sort of like using imageshack to host images for free instead of having to buy webspace and whatnot.
I know sod all about stuff like this, but was wondering what are the odds of a company setting up that you can copyright your work with that would do it for free, sort of like using imageshack to host images for free instead of having to buy webspace and whatnot.
Polycount FU Copyrighting and Bitching
That's what I'd call it.
There are a couple on the net that will allow you to freely register copyright over your work. However, that's not the problem. What is, is having something of that nature have legal standing; it's simply not good enough to have a registry if that then means nothing in a court of law - I think this was one of the reasons the Bill had provisions to created 'registered entities' where artists could go to register; the assumption there though was they would be [sic] "for profit" organisations and not something freely available.
@ Richard Kane : The Bill isn't necessarily about the work itself but the process of infringement. What it basically does is (severely) limit the monies artists can claim back in compensation in cases where infringements have occurred, especially when works are not registered - this is counter to current (international) copyright laws and why there's so much fuss about "forced registration".
Before the Bill, claims could be made in excess of several hundred £/$k. After the bill, claims will be limit to pretty much 'market value' set by the infringing entity, not by the artists.
man things in the states are really going down the crapper. This is a major note of concern in a digital era as borders are blurred even more. What if you live in a country outside the US, but your images are hosted on servers in the states? Does that mean you have to register all your work?
Who protects you as an international artist when an american company decides to use your 'orphaned' work?
I mean it's bad enough that we got asshats stealing artwork to make paintshop tubes and stickers and all sorts of unauthorized merchandise... it's hard enough to find those jackasses, now we have to worry about and fight against big corporations doing the same thing?
If shit like this comes to pass all over the world, artists are going to start disappearing and go underground. They'll be turning into an even more antisocial, paranoid, jaded bunch.
Replies
And I kinda think they should all get sued or exposed as frauds. Heh.
That's because you can't copyright an idea, only a fixed work. If you design a military vehicle, your sketches and blueprints are copyrighted. The idea of it can't be.
Uh, the music industry does check copyright. Why do you think they sue file-sharers? I just cited the Verve case. Clearing all the samples in a hip-hip song is arduous and expensive, and god forbid they miss one, like Timbaland did last year, which stirred up all sorts of press.
Perhaps you're thinking of some of the very first sampling remix artists, doing it underground (and illegally) and distributing it themselves on their own labels. Once they had a record contract with the majors, costs went way up, because they had a lot more assets that could be sued for.
Celebrities and politicians qualify differently than do "normal" people. That's not a copyright issue, that's a privacy issue.
Only if you can't think for yourself, which you apparently cannot.
Can't copyright a style. Can sometimes protect a "look and feel" though.
Can't copyright an idea. Can't copyright a concept. Can't copyright a word. Can trademark a word used in a certain way, but only if you're the only/first person using it, and then you have to vigorously protect it, which is expensive.
I'd suggest you read some of the references people have posted, but you're an "artist," so you're probably can't read.
I say you're just as much of an ignorant putz as the guy who wrote the article that someone posted that started this thread. Please let me know when someone sues you so I can show up and laugh.
That's copyright infringement, but since you didn't register it, you can only sue for the fair market value of the work, e.g. what you would have been paid if EA had hired someone to do the design.
Which, since they have designers in house, is essentially free for them. So, you'd get nothing.
This is why I say if you're not registering your works, you might as well give them away for free properly, by deeding them to the public domain and letting everyone do anything they want with them.
If you had registered it, then you could sue for damages, like, all the profits from all the sales of the game. Which means a lawyer would be happy to help you for a big fat cut. I don't know if you'd win, but you'd certainly have a case.
you mean like this?
http://www.sharecg.com/v/18117/3d-model/panther-AUSF.-G-tank
as i say, i don't give a flying fuck. some day i'll be dead, and then what i thought and cared about won't matter shit, and i sure as hell don't want to waste the glimpse of life on sending in copyright applications to some dweebs whose hobby is to collect money.
PeterK :
What happens when I create a character, put a render of it on my website, and don't pay $30/$50 bucks to register it, then EA steals the exact design and makes a multi-million dollar game with my character as the main guy?
Vito:
That's copyright infringement, but since you didn't register it, you can only sue for the fair market value of the work, e.g. what you would have been paid if EA had hired someone to do the design.
Basically, I m fine with the idea of registering my work - I guess it brings safety and can only be good. But I don't want to pay for that. Take character design. No matter how complex (and time consuming in the making) a design is, the whole idea can be contained in a mere 640*480 picture of it. Now let's say an artist has like 50 conceptual designs on display on his website. Even if he keeps the highres source files for himself, registering for every small-res picture would be a rather large amount of money to pay, right? At a time when job hunting is done online, with artists reputation spreading by word of mouth through personal websites, couldn't the new law create some huge mayhem? I know one can't copyright an idea, but when it comes to illustration/concept art, even lowquality images can express just as much. I might not understant it fully, but that new law seems to make such 'visual ideas' theft very easy?
It would be fine if registering the art would simply require some login and upload on a free, non profit platform maybe. But having to pay for that, and having the info stored by private parties sounds scary to me. I like the current 'automatic copyright' idea better in that regard.
Please correct me if I am saying anything stupid. I am very interested in these issues but only begin to understand them (this is especially tricky since I am an expat, hence maybe subject to laws of different countries, that sort of stuff)
This law doesn't really affect me since everything I create is owned by EA anyways :P
No?
Its still bullshit.
That's not good enough.
Putting something online isn't good enough. No-one is still allowed to use that tank. You have to explicitly give up your rights. You have to say "This is my original work and I deed this to the public domain and relinquish all rights to it," or something similar. Creative Commons even has a formal legal thing you can reference when you do it: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
Creative Commons is a great program for things like this, by the way. You can license all of your work using it, and they have generic legalese that says "you can do whatever you want as long as I get credit" or "you can do whatever you want as long as I get credit and it's not commercial," and other things.
But, you still have to register with the Copyright Office if you expect to be able to sue someone properly for violating that license!
That's not good enough, either.
For 70 years after you're dead, we're still not allowed to touch your work. Whomever runs your estate, your grandkids or third cousins twice removed or whomever, controls the rights to all your work.
Seventy years after you're dead, we still can't use that tank that you put up online.
Read.
Besides that, I can't get involved because I'm pretty clueless on the matter.
Vito is a champ, even if he is a Cocksmith. HAHA!
-caseyjones
So I'm going to wait on this and see if this issue gets any kind of momentum outside of artist drama before I start raising hell, and hope in the back of my mind that this Mark Simon guy completely misinterpreted how things would be.
Still, I live in AUS, and don't work in an art based industry, so what the fuck would I know. Or Care.
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
NM! Just saw someone posted it... Rock on...
M!
so i don´t think something like this is possible.. or stand for very long
imo it would cost a lot more than privat copyrighting would bring in
we will see...
Only registering your copyright lets you do that.
My favorite part:
But Mark Simon apparently believes that enacting legislation to handle orphaned works in a way that protects people who legitimately try to find the original copyright holder, but can't, will lead to the effective invalidation of copyright on ALL UNREGISTERED ART EVERYWHERE OMGZ CALL OUT THE CAVALRY.
His article, which I linked above, is miserably poorly researched, jumps to completely illogical conclusions, and, most retardedly of all, implores artists to letterbomb Congress in protest of proposed legislation which does not actually exist.
I say that vito gives Mr. Simon a call (as he seems to really want attention) and gives him a verbal bitch slap for us all.
can you honestly think of a large group of people who would actually be in favor of such a retarded idea that could slowly destroy the world's economy?
you might say "thieves" but think for a second, even a thief would be against this, because at some point in their lifetime the same misfortune of the artist will fall upon them, as what they have stolen CAN BE STOLEN BY SOMEONE ELSE AFTERWARDS, MAKING THE CONCEPT OF THEFT USELESS.
'your work is stolen'...oh well, just steal it back
If anyone is still concerned about this, I suggest reading that link.
"We made substantial progress towards the goal of a fair and reasonable Orphan Works bill in the last Congress. However, there remained a few difficult but important areas of controversy when the bill was pulled. It appears likely that the starting point in this Congress will be something substantially similar to the last bill with, we are told, some improvements to help deal with the unique problems facing photographers and artists. In order to avoid unnecessary controversy, ASMP is proposing only a fairly small wording change from the last version of the bill that was introduced in the last Congress. We believe that this change will remove the threat to visual creators posed by profiteers seeking to use our works for commercial purposes while leaving intact the advancement of education and the countrys visual heritage, which are the primary goals of orphan works legislation.
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."
actually i can. scientologists, and fundamentalist christians.
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00264
Discuss. I'm looking at you, Vito :poly112:
-caseyjones
I see your plan to make Vito blind by forcing him to read tiny gray text on a white background! I shall not fall for your sly plan! I'll copy and paste the text and read your nuggets of joy in safety! HA!
Seriously what is up with people trying to punish their readers with bad site design choices?
Mark whats his face is still a blowhard who got his facts mixed up. This is just trying to get people worked up about something that hasn't even come to light yet. This is the 2nd cry of wolf, are people really going to rally (when they need to) for the 3rd?
How are fundamentalist christians destroying the worlds economy?
While no longer vitriolic, this page is still horseshit.
This is already the case in the world today. This nonexistent, purely theoretical bill doesn't change that.
You can't do that now.
Horseshit. You can guarantee that. You just can't guarantee that someone won't steal it, and you never can and never will be able to guarantee that, because otherwise it wouldn't be stealing. This page doesn't even make sense.
My brain has been devalued by 2/3 just responding to this.
Sounds like someone's too lazy to research anything. Oh, that's right, Illustrator Partnership wants to run a registry and force people to mark their work.
I'm not even going to paste all of that answer because it explains a situation that is the exact situation that already exists in the world today. You already have to actively police the entire world if you want to protect against anyone infringing your work. Nothing changes. The status quo remains the same.
Just because all the people in this thread didn't know what the status quo was, doesn't mean anything is different.
But, if you'll notice, the Q&A following that, about how lawyers work, is what I've been saying here the whole time.
Register your arts, people. Seriously.
The rest of the page is boring and probably just as full of horseshit, so I'm out.
Thread derailing in 3...2...
With their bad credit debt and SUV's. Hello they voted Mr George W "I'm going to screw everyone over" Bush, into office not once, but twice. That little maneuver alone has done more to screw up our economy and set back the fight on climate change by 10 years. Thanks for paying attention... Next time keep lets keep religion out of politics please.
EFF says why new orphan works legislation is good
:poly127: this is making me furious.... please write your congressmen now!
those of us who make money off our art might be concerned.
This is something terrible.
my band has had to do just that, with all our music.
and it wasn't cheap =/
This whole thing is a result of America's funny combination of lax copyright laws and draconian copyright laws.
Here's a nice article from 2005
Copyright Reform to Free Orphans?
""There's no good copyright clearinghouse to go to and say, here's all the people who copyrighted their materials and here's how you find them," said Goodman. "You're left with trying to find their relatives, and we live in a society where people, on average, move every seven years. It's an impossibility."
Stories like these about so-called "orphan works" -- items still locked up under copyright but where the owners are unknown or impossible to locate -- are leading the U.S. Copyright Office to try to fix the problem."
Ofcourse, it might be quite telling that Vito isn't an artist.
post all yer werk on turbosquid
charge a $million or more fer everything u post that shouldn't be released yet.
charge release price fer safe assets.
Why is this bill even remotely necessary? What is wrong with the system as it is now? Why is it so essential that people be allowed to use these "orphaned" works? What is wrong with waiting until the proper time? I can't really think of anything that is so monumentally important that there is an actual need to reproduce it RIGHT NOW! What's the problem with being patient?
This kind of law just blurs the lines unnecessarily. The company I work for is scared to death of accidentally using images that are copyrighted. If anyone even hints that an image on one of the sites we create might be copyrighted, we tear that out and replace it, post-haste. If anyone did ever sue us for copyright infringement, unless we were absolutely certain they were full of it, we would settle.
You pass a law like that, and everything gets fuzzy. A law like this would take away that fear of reprisal. And for what?
Polycount FU Copyrighting and Bitching
That's what I'd call it.
@ Richard Kane : The Bill isn't necessarily about the work itself but the process of infringement. What it basically does is (severely) limit the monies artists can claim back in compensation in cases where infringements have occurred, especially when works are not registered - this is counter to current (international) copyright laws and why there's so much fuss about "forced registration".
Before the Bill, claims could be made in excess of several hundred £/$k. After the bill, claims will be limit to pretty much 'market value' set by the infringing entity, not by the artists.
Who protects you as an international artist when an american company decides to use your 'orphaned' work?
I mean it's bad enough that we got asshats stealing artwork to make paintshop tubes and stickers and all sorts of unauthorized merchandise... it's hard enough to find those jackasses, now we have to worry about and fight against big corporations doing the same thing?
If shit like this comes to pass all over the world, artists are going to start disappearing and go underground. They'll be turning into an even more antisocial, paranoid, jaded bunch.