This thursday 23 of July / 2015 … it’s gonna be a debate over a new copyright law that could endanger every artist work, in USA.
You think this will not affect you, but this is worse than SOPA in 2011, it affects every one of us…
If you are an artist, take a moment of your time to watch and share this video.
Thanks.
Can you sum it up as to how and why instead of linking to a 1.5 hour long video nobody is going to watch?
copy law will be eliminated including the govt copyright office. instead 4 private for profit registries will be created and you will have to pay a fee and register with them before you have any rights to any works. in other words you will have to ask a private for profit company to have any rights. there is no set price they can charge you as far as i can see. you dont have the money to pay? then its not yours. you only own anything AFTER a private company has sold you the rights to what you created.
you only have to watch the first 7 minuets to get enough info for that.
I don’t really recall everyday artists across the United States going to a government website or office (in droves) to claim a copyright of their work, then there’s the fact that paid copyrighting already exists (when you get a registered copyright or a trademark).
I also wouldn’t really trust Youtube as a perfectly reliable source of information, that site is very good at fanning conspiracy theories and exaggerating various interpretations of pretty much everything.
In the US, as far as I know, you don’t have to do anything for a copyright, it just happens automatically. Changing that would definitely be bad.
Edited to add that I can’t find anything about this. The only thing I found was that there were changes to the copyright law for local television broadcasts in December last year. ?!?
Thanks. It sounds pretty ridiculous, much like with SOPA, PIPA, TPP etc. they’re testing out what they can get away with. What’s depressing is that new bills like this keep popping up because the government is hideously corrupt and there’s little prospect of that ever changing for the better. They’ve already allowed a handful of corps to control the entire nation’s internet access so why not this…
What is happening in USA in general is quite interesting. The important thing is keep it there and not let the madness of ridiculous laws etc. concern everyone else. They can have their dystopian future if that’s what they want.
Guys, this is complete FUD. If you’re at all in favor of stuff like creative commons (which I’d sort of expect from this community of freeloaders), you should be in favor of this sort of copyright reform.
First, what are Orphan Works?
“An orphan work is a copyrighted work whose owner is impossible to identify or contact. This inability to request permission from the copyright owner often means orphan works cannot be used in new works nor digitized, except when fair use exceptions apply. Until recently, public libraries could not digitally distribute orphaned books without risking being fined up to $150,000 if the owner of the copyright were to come forward.”
This legislation is not meant to take your precious copyrights away from you, it is meant to limit liabilities. In case you are not aware of this: In copyright law, you are not allowed to copy any image without explicit permission of the copyright holder, period. Got yourself a nice collection of reference art? Well guess what, that’s technically illegal, and the only things “protecting” you here are fair use clauses (if they exist in your legislation) and the fact that nobody can sue you for damages (because that’s hard to prove for a private collection). Things are a bit different if you repost an image on your blog or forum or facebook page. You could be litigated against (and this could cost you thousands of dollars). Some people have made a business model out of creating banale stock images that show up high on google image search, baiting people into reusing them so they can litigate.
That’s not to say that this legislation is going to solve that problem, but it is going to simplify a few things. First, if someone wants to re-use some image, they will be able to efficiently check if there is a claim on it. If there is no claim, they will be able to re-use it preliminarily without the risk of being sued for a lot of money. If there is a claim, they will know who to ask for permission/licensing.
Copyright is most definitely not a human right, it is a privilege granted to authors. It’s unreasonable that the burden of due diligence should lie exclusively on the public and that cultural works be withheld for many decades, just because the work is orphaned.
Well the bad thing is that some countries see usa as a model for a future plans. And in majority of countries there are quite important part of politicians which see usa in same way. So that dystopian future you’re talking about will spread soon or later.
The one that narrates the video is Brad Holland… yes, THE Brad Holland, a famous american illustrator renamed several times in magazines as Rolling Stones, The New York Times, TIME, etc.
Yes, tomorrow the debate over this law wil give private corps the rights for your works.
Copyright is a inherent right, if you create something then is YOUR idea. period… Is that simple and logic as that.
With this new law you will have to pay private register corps by giving them everything, including metadata as your clients for example… so, if they have your ideas and your clients, why would they need you ?
Another thing is that this new law allows plagiarism. Any work with a bit of desaturation, resize, color change, etc will be consider a new work.
So it will be much easier for them to steal your works.
And in order to reclaim them you will have to pay THEM again thousands of dollars to start an “investigation” that will conclude in nothing.
" Orphan Works " seriously ??
Don’t you think that with today’s internet and technology you can just google a work to find the author ?
Yes, I support Creative Commons and Fair Use… but they are just fine with the current law system, we don’t need private regulations.
Worse part is, if this gets aproved tomorrow in USA… sooner or later it will spread like a virus over the rest world.
Nothing is owned - we belong to all. We are just care takers, creators & destroyers.
Property is in imagination of a diseased mind.
We talk to be heard, we create to be seen, we live to be shared.
For those who don’t want to bother watching the video, this is about the Orphan Works Act.
It’s important to note that the people behind this are not the big corporations and conglomerates that were behind SOPA et al. I suspect such companies are largely indifferent to this proposed law (if not mildly against it–they generally want to maximize copyright law strictness, and this instead relaxes it in specific ways).
As with any law, I’m sure there are potential negative side-effects, so I certainly won’t begrudge people for opposing it on those grounds. But the intent behind the law is positive: there are old works (pre-internet age) that only have very few copies in existence and which are physically degrading (e.g. especially old films, on film stock that is disintegrating). Many of these works are very difficult–if not impossible–to track down the copyright holders to get permission to make archival copies, etc.
One of the primary purposes of the proposed law is to give protections for organizations who want to protect our cultural heritage by making such archival copies of old disintegrating works, and making them available to the public. As I understand it, the gist of the law is:
If you make reasonable attempts to track down the copyright holder of a work, but you cannot find them, you can treat the work as if it were in the public domain.
If the copyright holder later comes forward, you are not totally off the hook. They can still demand payment for your use of their work, but it will be reasonable market-rate style payment based on how it was used rather than punitive damages (this is a hugely important point).
In order to make it easier to track down copyright holders in a day and age where copyright is automatic and doesn’t have to be registered, copyright holders can optionally register their work with a new organization that will be put in place for that purpose. People can then check with that organization as one of their steps in trying to track down a copyright holder. Note that you do not have to register your work for your copyright to be valid and enforceable. This is purely to (optionally) make it easier for people to find you.
Now, I may be misunderstanding some things, and I am absolutely open to be corrected. But that summary is what I’ve gathered the law basically does.
Again, I am not saying that the law is necessarily a good idea. But I loath scare tactics, no matter what side of an issue they are coming from. And most of the anti-Orphan Works Act discussion I’ve seen seems to be exaggerating and misrepresenting the law in an attempt to rally people against it.
Here is a more informed critique by Larry Lessig from back in 2008. Larry Lessig is the man who started Creative Commons. Note, I don’t necessarily endorse his views–and maybe even his own views have changed since then–I just want to redirect people towards an informed critique.
For the kinds of works the law is intending to preserve: no, you absolutely can’t. These are often very old works whose authors are quite possibly unknown to anyone except (perhaps) their next of kin. And you’d have to be insanely lucky to contact their next of kin by random chance out of everyone in the population.
I’m not claiming that the law is necessarily a good idea, but the problem it’s trying to address is very real.
Along those whom are too lazy to write, email or call to complain… 5 questions, answered, PDf’d and emailed to the © office. Boom done! Anyone else?
In a basic example: Notwithstanding actual art. Say you post a picture on FB, someone see’s it likes it, they use it in an ad. You get nothing for it. Due to you NOT registering it twice with two different private “sky’s the limit Capitalism society.” That is the new Bill in a nutshell. Oh and all your old work would need to be registered too. So I can grab one piece of your art another of someone else’s photoshop it and sell it and you get NOTHING, as I register it as new and my work. Due the derivative work was changed via blend the two.
Understood same, to physically save old works (films, records, paintings…) that would decay to sands & ashes with time (we have limit on 70 years after death, though if one is interested to take care & nobody comes forward you can also claim a house after few (2-5) years of taking care of & notifying the public. But you must not live or profit from it during that time).
Other companies as FB, do warn you, that’s why i don’t publish anything anywhere. Works are for clients only. My personal digital works are IMO unnecessary spam :), physical works go to the gallery or on tourist stands for display & sale. For marketing or self promotion i send portfolio when i see fit. Got my style & am too old to compete vs kids. I just teach, tell them what to watch out for… Many only seek attention anywhere. Like Pinocchio, want to be & feel alive as the ‘real’ kids. What they see on media.
If & When i’ll make something worth the public’s eye… then will share as open source.
Although not from the states am interested to know what’s going on.
Thanks for your summary, cuz that’s the part that matters to us. I appreciate you taking the time to write that for us.
My initial summary up-thread is neither entirely accurate or complete, and was based on the 2008 law that didn’t pass. The current proposal does not appear to be an actual bill yet, and is rather a recommendation by the copyright office. You can find the recommendation in its entirety here:
http://copyright.gov/orphan/ (the website for the recommendation)
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf (the full-text pdf)
I won’t go through the whole thing, but I will point out that the recommendation is trying to address not only the issue of orphaned works, but also the issue mass digitization for non-commercial purposes. The recommendation is summarized quite readably in the first 8 pages of the PDF, so it’s not too hard to get through. I can see why some people would be worried and opposed. But it’s also not all doom-and-gloom, and I can absolutely see the motivations behind such recommendations–they are not sinister.
If I get the time, I’ll try to summarize the most relevant bits. But, honestly, the PDF itself is not a hard read. If we’re going to have a discussion about this it would be good if everyone at least read the first 8 pages, just so we’re discussing the actual proposal rather than a second-hand account from someone (potentially) with an agenda.
Exactly, over reaction is pretty common there, I am just going to go and read everything about this bill before reacting…
it basically give your rights to a pirvate org full of lawyers who sue people for profit.
"
Permit the Register of Copyrights to authorize CMOs meeting specified criteria to issue
licenses on behalf of both members and non-members of the organization to allow the use
of copyrighted works implicated by the creation or operation of a digital collection;"
you can opt out but they have the right to sue users even for nonmembers. basically you have the right to tell them to keep any payment they collected on your behalf. they can sell aka license any work even orphaned works.
Require the CMO to collect and distribute royalties to rightsholders within a specified
period and to conduct diligent searches for non-members for whom it has collected
payments;
Provide for the disposition of royalties remaining unclaimed after a specified period
so they legally have the right to sue people for useing works when not even they, the regulatory body, can find the owners. so they sue the public for not doing what they themselves can do. basically it makes all copywrights subject to groups of class action lawyers. i do not see this ending well for the artists or the users. the lawyers, the ones who suffered no injury, are the ones that will get the money. the lawyers evidently dont have to prove they own or represent the owners of any works, all they have to prove is the user didn’t own it didn’t to get paid.
those quotes are from page 8 of the pdf.
and when it comes to preservation, that’s an excuse not a reason. archive.org is already exempt from all copywright law including dmca. this seems to be a law drafted by lawyers solely for the benefit of lawyers. it takes away the rights of artists and users, unless you bought your rights from the lawyers in advance.
all of you DO realize you have BEEN HAD!!! / PUNKED!!! / DUPED !!!
that video that went viral on FB and other social sites is complete FUD !!!
that is NOT happening
there is one born EVERY minute --HA! HA! HA! HA! -