PDF Info

Listen to this interview; it's pretty important.

Don't let the Orphan Bill Pass, or you will lose rights to your work as artists and writers!

Basically, all the work that you do, all the copyrights on it will be VOID.
Quote, "if Congress passes this law, you will lose the right to make money from your own creations! Our government is now working against us by allowing our own citizens to steal your creative works" (Simon, Mark). Hell, even if you're not trying to make money from it, your creative works can legally be stolen.

Protect your rights and let your voice be heard. If we do nothing, the bill will be passed by this summer.

Just in case you feel especially moved and want to contact Congress

Is anyone else just a wee bit miffed about this?

Edit: I just looked around a bit, but I can't seem to find anything recent about it. Are you sure about this? Could you provide some more sources?

Could be a really bad joke?

Custard Trout
Edit: I just looked around a bit, but I can't seem to find anything recent about it. Are you sure about this? Could you provide some more sources?

I just did a google search for Orphaned Work bill. It all seems VERY recent, from mid March.

Scary stuff. I hope they're not wanting to try and exercise their “rights” over work outside of the US if that criminal bill ever gets passed. It'd mean artists would be forced to hand over money to US institutions wherever they were: International blackmail/shakedown to prevent international theft. With the net the implications for all of us are horrific. I don't know about you, but I doubt I can afford to pay to register everything I make.

Let's HOPE it's a bad joke.
——————————————–
It's an alarmist interpretation of the bill. But even so, it intelligently looks very hard at the worst case scenario and the potential for exploitation.

ozoneocean
I don't know about you, but I doubt I can afford to pay to register everything I make.

I don't suppose anybody can. That's why it would be nice to see a calm discussion of this subject, detailing the real requirements and setting out the arguments (both for and against).

So far, unfortunately, the only articles I've seen on the net amount to little more than ranting diatribes against Big Nasty Corporates - low on fact and high on emotion, like a two year old throwing a tantrum. The writers of those articles may well be absolutely right to be concerned, of course, but - if they want to garner support (especially from anyone who can make a difference) - they're certainly not going about it in the right way.

:) The “fact Vs emotion” thing is over rated. That's usually about disparaging someone's position without adressing it.

People are taking an alarmist approach. But it's valid to an extent. Loopholes are for exploiting and this is a massive one. But that's just what it would be: Exploitation of a loophole. The legislation has to do with making it easier for museums and publications to use older works like old photos without running into hazards later on.

The trouble is that there are other very real ramifications.

Proof Money and corruption rules congress.

This is in one word: Bullshit.

I don't see how this could really come to pass though without serious backfires and complications- No new art would be produced and seeing as what a touchy group artists are they'd never allow thievery from a big time blood-sucking cooperation.


The best thing you can do is tell people about this and send the Government a complaint e-mail/fax with that template here http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html

Just blogged about this. Read on:

There's a LOT of hoopla going on about this but to state the simple facts:

This is a bill which seeks to limit liability for artists, educators and others who make a “reasonably diligent search” to find a copyright holder but cannot, is a significant improvement over the draft bill proposed by the Copyright Office in February.

What the bill does (as stated by www.publicknowledge.org)

* It prohibits injunctions when the user of an orphan work “recasts, transforms, adapts or integrates the work with the original expression in a new work of authorship….” This ensures that the publication of transformative works that may include the entirety of an orphan work will not be able to be stopped by a court.
* It requires the Copyright Office to make available information that will help users understand what might constitute a reasonably diligent search.
* The bill makes clear that in determining the “reasonable compensation” an orphan works user must pay should the orphan works owner reappear, the owner has the burden of establishing the amount that a willing buyer and willing seller would have agreed to.
* The bill eliminates a provision that would have required the rules to sunset after 5 years.


While this bill does not “legalize” theft as many are taking it to mean, it does put more emphasis on the registration of the individual's works. If you use “poor man's copyright” for example your work is not protected in court. This bill does not protect users against damages, nor does it provide any safe harbor clauses if an orphaned works' owner appears - e.g. a clause which prohibits any payment if a user immediately ceases using the orphan work when an owner reappears, to apply both to commercial and non-commercial uses.

This obviously has concerns for small artists who work to make profit off their works and especially those who do not have works registered with the copyright office.

The bill is on the fast track and is expected to be in front of the subcommittee this Wednesday. If you disagree with this bill please sign the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/dAvsOW/petition.html

And to get ahead of the game, start getting your arts, writings, etc together for registration at the copyright office:

http://www.copyright.gov

It costs a little more than $30 to get a bulk sum of stuff registered. So get to it.

*instead of making a calm post, proceedes to scream like a little girl*
AAIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Alright seriously, technically I can't see this passing, but if it did than it means people here in the US really don't look into to anything…at all. Ever. What scares me though is that's exactly what they did when they voted in Bush, and after everything's fallen apart, NOW they regret it. Our healthcare is retarded enough, but now you can't even be creative without paying for it; otherwise it's for anybody who wants it?

Agghh….yeah, again I can't believe this would pass….but I might send a letter/sign a petition.

(Skullbie your avatar keeps changing from calm to psychotic for me. XD Weird DD avatar system.)

Edit- and I typed this post before Juno posted hers, so if somethings wrong with this now…my bad. =P

Nah, nothing wrong with your post SarahN. I do hope people take the time to read what I said though.

And in case no one wants to read through all my copy there PETITION:

http://www.petitiononline.com/dAvsOW/petition.html

With over 1500 signatures on it already. I'm on it. I may have stuff through the registration office but like hell if I'm gonna agree with this bullshit.

Ozone
Scary stuff. I hope they're not wanting to try and exercise their “rights” over work outside of the US if that criminal bill ever gets passed.

It is seeing some movement in Europe. I'm not sure what exactly but it is in the works over there.

The guy in the interview said that these arguements were relevant to the old bill, and the new version of the bill hasn't been released yet. It would be best to wait and see, rather than overreacting now. It's entirely possible that the new bill won't cause any problems at all.

He also said that the idea was orginally thought up by communists, this could possibly be used to sway public opinion. Might as well put that xenophobia to good use.

For people like me, I don't have the money to pay some copyright office just to have proof that a peice of art is mine. :/ Does signing, dating and keeping an original not mean anything anymore? Technology has gotten to the point where someone could easily photoshop a peice of art, cut out the sig and take it as theirs. For this reason I always sign my art within the important part. But if it gets to the point where a person can take a traditional drawing edit out my signature and claim it as their own… it'll be a problem.

Also, I've heard way too much on this subject to the point where I don't know who to believe, what the think or even how to feel about this. @.@ I've clicked so many links (even found the bill) and even then people have blown it so out there It's really gone out of porportion.

But since it's been turned down twice already, it's hard to see it get passed again. In any case, they should really just do something for the Museums and library's wanting to display creative works where it doesn't effect everybody.

In any case, I really don't think they'll pass it. :/

I personally doubt it will happen. Theres just to many things that they'll have to do, to many people to get through, and lets not forget the important part of all…

US.

Chris chris
But if it gets to the point where a person can take a traditional drawing edit out my signature and claim it as their own… it'll be a problem.

Heh, you'd think someone without that sort of skill with graphics could do great things with art of their own. =P But I guess people can certainly be weird like that.

SarahN

Chris chris
But if it gets to the point where a person can take a traditional drawing edit out my signature and claim it as their own… it'll be a problem.

Heh, you'd think someone without that sort of skill with graphics could do great things with art of their own. =P But I guess people can certainly be weird like that.

I am living proof that you are wrong.

crazyninny
I personally doubt it will happen. There's just to many things that they'll have to do, to many people to get through, and lets not forget the important part of all…

US.

the funny thing… “US” for the majority are very laid back, laissez faire about things. We tend to let things slip by and not stand up to make a difference. So I disagree. I see this passing and having one more of my rights taken away. I signed the petition and I will send an email, but I know “US” and “US” normally doesn't do shite and we will let it happen and complain about it afterwards, just like the presidency and every other thing wrong in our country.

This whole thing just sounds rather poorly thought out. I've had issues with someone stealing my art within my school and it was hard enough proving my ownership of the work just in an academic setting. From what I've found this new bill looks like it will be even harder in the future, especially for those people like graphic designers who do their work to be used commercially.

I wonder what crazy notion Congress has gotten into it's nutty collective head that's making it decide to effect all these laws that seem designed to inhibit people's ability to make money when the economy is already weakened. They're trying to set a minimum MPG standard on cars too, just when Detroit was barely beginning to bounce back a little.

It's not much of a problem for graphic artists because the copyright to their work is generally owned in full by their client or the company they work for. -so their clients might face troubles…

Photographers and artists face the bulk of the problems.

I've been writing about this all day. People are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. The Bill was introduced in 2006 and never made it any further than an introduction. There is a chance that it could be re-introduced this year, but it could be completely different this time around.

But the other huge thing that needs to be brought up is the odds of this “legalizing art theft bill” going through are incredibly slim. This post here should explain things better than I could.

Part of the problem was the misguided and alarmist article that started the entire situation. Sure, the idea is scary and there is the potential for exploitation, but people are acting way too crazy with very little information available. The fact the bill was so hard to find in the first place due to its age is a good example of this.

Um, it's still a big thing HPK.

Here is a MUCH better blog on it.
http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/

Here is the US government site about it.

That includes a video webcast from just a month ago… Why are people saying this stuff is old and hard to find? It takes me a few seconds on Google. -_-


————
And those two sites have nothing to do with alarmisim, indeed he second is straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, as official as you can get. The first is a very dry and rational account of the thing from the beginning, which is how long it's been following it for.

Alarmisim is bad, but equally as bad is someone who just reacts to it by taking the opposite stance as a matter of course.

ozoneocean
Um, it's still a big thing HPK.

I agree. But I think the current level of panic is unacceptable for this when so little information is available.

i read the article on this (i think it was the alarmist one)
so .. what are they going to do with your stolen art? do you think some company like disney is going to steal your comic and make a musical out of it ? or is it more like they cut up some picture you took hugging micky mouse and use it in their comercials ? if that's the case it will be hard to argue that you lost money over some old worthless photo . that's if we are only judging things based on their dollar value . if that's the case and your face is showing up endorsing some company you don't like , couldn't that be considered a violation of privacy or something , regardless of copyright ?
anyway it's funny to see how excited we all get when it's about money. i've pretty much come to be against copyright all together. the whole idea of selling art is a perversion of creation. i mean , why is it we use money as the ultimate value of our dreams? i mean who here hasn't had that comment from some friend or family member “you could prolly sell that for a lot of money !” that's the fucking problem ! it's all about money .
but
I say - If they start stealing our stuff for their soulless corparate propaganda , then we should turn it right back on them and steal their shit ! ther're more of us and they're only powerfull as long as we are afraid !

lothar
I say - If they start stealing our stuff for their soulless corparate propaganda , then we should turn it right back on them and steal their shit ! ther're more of us and they're only powerfull as long as we are afraid !

That's not how it works. :)

“They” make the rules. “They” can afford to register all of their stuff and anyone else's. “we” can't: game over.

People aren't worrying about money specifically, they're worrying about losing all rights to use their own creation. That's the trouble Lothar. If the bill passes, it's badly worded enough that anyone can appropriate and register someone else's work, which will mean they can not use it any longer for anything.

Even if that is very unlikely, it can happen. And it's not just large corporations, anyone could do it if they want. :)
————————–

People most worried about money are photographers who's job is the use of their images. People try and illegally use people's photos all the time, usually professional ones. I've worked for graphic design companies that've done that. It makes money out of other's work.

Hey guys…I Googled news on the Orphan Bill for 2008, and I happened to find this:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6523163.html

Edit: Is this right? Or not? This was posted back in January…when did they revive this idea if the Supreme Court declined to hear about it not long ago?

Edit edit: I also found this lady's blog that posted about it just yesterday which talks against Mark Simons' article -
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
Yeah, while she makes some good points…so far I still don't like the idea of the bill, but here's a different perspective on it anyway. =P

Though what I'm wondering about…between the January post of the decline of the case and parts of this lady's blog, I am starting to wonder whether the Orphan Bill is a legit issue right at this moment as people believe; whether or not it is officially being presented before congress. I'm not trying to avoid what could still be a very serious issue, I just want legit info on how this is happening now.

This makes it sound a little less bad when I read it.

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

willlapuerta
This makes it sound a little less bad when I read it.

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

Status: March 13, 2008

It is now official: An Orphan Works law is being drafted for consideration in the 2008 legislative session. On Thursday, March 13, the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing, and ASMP’s General Counsel, Victor Perlman, will be there to testify on behalf of creators. He will be speaking on behalf of photographers and illustrators generally, as well as ASMP and its members in particular.

…aaand I do believe that was the legit info I was looking for…probably anyway. Well then, I guess the current issue is…Orphan Works bill: not as bad as people make it out to be? Or could it in fact be misused in the way we are all worried about?

Well I've already signed some petitions against it. =P Now should I go as far as writing letters?

well , anyway , this is just the US doing this thing ,it's like they still think they are a super power or something. i read somewhere that there are international laws against forcing people to register their works . so , even if this does pass it's just more cannons fired from the titanic . it's like the attacks on net nuetrality and every other horrible facist pro corporate thing the US lawmakers have done lately . they think they can legislate the whole world from washington? that only works when you have the power to back it up , and that power is on the decline. so i'm not so worried about this . it's just the spoiled kid crying “my ball” at the end of the game , just before everybody leaves him to play by himself .

This is as authoritative as you can get…

ozoneocean
Here is the US government site about it.

That includes a video webcast from just a month ago… Why are people saying this stuff is old and hard to find? It takes me a few seconds on Google. -_-

Sarah, I can't believe you missed that. -_-

————-
People saying “it's not as bad…” don't understand what's happening. The bill IS NOT about stealing art. What gets people riled are the implications in the wording- because with the wording, stealing is fully possible. That's how laws work guys… ;)

The ones most steamed are the ones who very well understand the nuances and have looked a bit deeper at this. Jebus, it's like someone saying "oh, that glass of liquid looks perfectly ok to me, I think I might drink it. I don't care if you told me that it's acid, it looks like water to ME, what do you know?!"

ozoneocean
This is as authoritative as you can get…

ozoneocean
Here is the US government site about it.

That includes a video webcast from just a month ago… Why are people saying this stuff is old and hard to find? It takes me a few seconds on Google. -_-

Sarah, I can't believe you missed that. -_-

Darnit, and when I think I've looked over everything here. FAIL once again. =/

SarahN
Darnit, and when I think I've looked over everything here. FAIL once again. =/

Yeah, sorry for being snarky, but that link actually has the info at the shrap end.

All these other links are just commentary and opinion pieces, while that one actually has the guys testifying before the senate committee about exactly this issue. Their testimonies make interesting reading, especially the guys representing the photographers.