Artists could lose all rights to their own art...

[Osheara]

If you all haven't heard about it.

This is not just limited to 'artwork' but can extend to any images at all. It's a horrible thought that any government would try this, let alone my own.

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1

[Ragorn]

Do you have a link to an article with.. y'know.. facts, rather than some mad artist ranting?

[Osheara]

He has multiple links throughout the article and at the end that go into further detail.

He has every right to be mad, and I think people don't get passionate enough about the things we have which lets things like this get anywhere in the first place.

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/ ... term=00185

http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html

[Ragorn]

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... 21ZyW:e801:

Link to the act itself.

It appears that they're creating a database of art copyrights, in an attempt to reduce unlicensed infringement. It's no different than the patent office or the copyrighting of written works, only it attempts to extend the same protections to sculpture, graphical, and visual art. The term "orphaned works" refers to works of art whose owner cannot be identified. It will protect artists from likenesses or images of their work being used by corporations without consent.

The artist in the above article is a ranting hippie concerned that the government is going to totally bogart his shit, man.

That about the gist of it?

[Osheara]

I'm not sure if you understand how that process works.

When something is 'published' it is automatically copyrighted. When a piece of art is 'created' it is automatically copyrighted. It is just not 'registered.' By having something 'patented' or 'registered copyright' (already including images, sculpture, etc...) it just makes the process of defending it easier depending on the circumstance and how important/famous the end product/character/item/image is. This bill would affect not only artists but writers as well. Their livelihood works around this internationally recognized system of copyright.

When I say 'published' that can mean in print or online. The second the words or images are displayed for view by public it is 'published.' But that is a whole discussion in itself.

This isn't a matter of protecting the artists or writers...it is opening up a can that would allow the scum out there who don't want to pay for rights to have access to anything that isn't registered.

It takes $45 I think, to sign up for the registry and $1 per copyrighted article, image, etc...

That may not seem like a lot, but say you do 100 poems in a month. Several short stories...Take 100 photos...I don't know about you but I can take a LOT of photos in a month's time. Someone finds a photo of yours online and decides they are going to use it for whatever. Right now, that image is protected. Here, because you didn't register it, or forgot...out of the thousands of photos...that person can use it for marketing say...that can of coke in your hand. There is nothing to protect you anymore because that image is an 'orphan image.'

It can be too easily manipulated. All they have to do is prove they 'searched' for the author/creator in the database. Which in my opinion sounds more like a he said/she said situation.

However, then the creator has to jump through hoops to prove themselves and stop those responsible for using the material.

There are always the scum out there that will use this to their advantage. And it would be entirely legal. All these terms like 'good faith' and 'timely manner'...it leaves too much room for abuse that right now is not even an issue.

Yes, it would enable that 50 year old photo to be used openly without consent. It would allow the publication of whatever historically relevant writing found when you can't find the author...but it compromises the rights of every other artist/writer out there today and in the future.

Also, the thing that bothers me too, is this would affect other writers/artists in other countries. Not just the US. An artist from elsewhere could have their work taken, the US citizen claims he couldn't find it in the registry, the artist finds out and tries to fight it and all of a sudden the US is backing a set of regulations that those other countries don't have in place.

In the end it's the artist/author who is going to get screwed over, because there is nothing that is being introduced that would help people like 'us hippies'.

I don't appreciate the remarks. I posted this because it's something that concerns me and directly affects a community that I am a part of. I want people to be aware of it because it would not only affect that community but also the already hurting economy.

[Sarvis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like currently there's no real protection on the artworks anyway. I mean, without a registry how do you prove it was your art in the first place if some company wants to steal it?

[Botef]

http://blamcast.net/articles/orphaned-works-open-source-copyright
A new bill, The Orphan Works Act of 2008, is currently making its way through congress, and it threatens to take away copyright protection from unregistered works. This includes virtually all open source software.

Essentially, the bill (as I understand it -- and I'm not a lawyer) will modify copyright law such that if the owner of a work can not be found by "reasonable search", anyone can use the work for whatever they want, regardless of the author's intentions, or the license the work was released under.

This means companies could ignore the GPL, or any other open source license, simply by claiming they couldn't find the author. If a copyright holder decides to sue, the infringing party just has to show proof that they performed a "reasonable search.

The bill requires anyone who wants to maintain their copyright to register it (presumably for a fee) in a database with the following information:

* The name of the owner of the infringed copyright.
* The title of the infringed work, any alternative titles of the infringed work known to the owner of the infringed copyright, or if the work has no title, a description in detail sufficient to identify it.
* An address and telephone number at which the owner of the infringed copyright may be contacted.
* Information from which a reasonable person could conclude that the owner of the infringed copyright’s claims of ownership and infringement are valid.

How this would affect multi-author works like open source software is unclear. Who would pay for and maintain the registration? How many pieces of open source software will lose their GPL protection because the original author can not be easily found by searching a copyright database?
"

You can read the bill here http://copywrite.org/2008/05/16/hr-5889 ... t-of-2008/

[Kifle]

Art is already being stolen. There was a big deal a while back about an artist getting his material stolen and put on t-shirts and not getting compensation.

Personally, if you're a good enough artist/writer to where somebody would actually want to steal your stuff, more than likely you're going to already have the stuff protected the old fashioned way. I mean, I don't think there's going to be a huge influx of big publishers running around emoblogs to steal their sad sad poems.

In short, if your stuff is good, it would already be published. If it's not published, I doubt people will be stealing it :)

Edit: as far as open source programs go... well, it is usually easy to figure out who the author(s) are -- you usually find it within the code, the website it originated from, or in a text file downloaded with the program. I don't see what the big deal about this law is.

[Sarvis]

Would the GPL or any license supercede the copyright stuff anyway?

[Corth]

Protection of intellectual property rights are perhaps one of the few things that I DON'T have an opinion on :)

Carry on!

[Gormal]

DeviantArt furries and anime freaks won't be able to protect their precious homegrown manga incest kiddie porn, while people who actually produce quality artwork will finally have a solid legal case against sites like ebaum's shit hole. This sounds like a terrible idea to me.

[teflor the ranger]

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110O21ZyW:e801:

Link to the act itself.

Linking to Thomas.gov entries are temporary and expire quickly. The act in its most current form as reported by the senate carries an id of S.2913. You can also go to http://www.thomas.gov and simply search for "orphan works."

[teflor the ranger]

Having read the bill, there appears to be no mention of the mechanism the government would use to allow owners register their work.

How did you come up with the random fees and the private registrar thing?

[Osheara]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/

Gormal--I remember your long-standing interest in goats. There's no need to remind everyone else too. But thank you for your very considerate and thought-provoking response.

DeviantArt is such a large avenue for artists. Yes, there are some of the immature people who can upload anything they feel like. I remember when I was little thinking that my little attempts at recreating Disney characters was SO good and talented and wanted to show the world. It was practice. I got better. I learned, and encouragement along the way was what helped that.

But it has become a large avenue for professional artists as well. Especially the past 5 years because it is a free and easily used outlet. Every artist has to have what's called a portfolio. In this day and age, people expect it to be easily accessed online as the idea of a traditional artist has gone out the window. You need the work to be able to be seen online. that's where places like DeviantArt and Guru.com come in. Sure, you can spend the money and time to have a website of your own, but its like advertising your blog, getting your name out there. You want as many people to see your work as possible.

The point that has many people concerned over this bill, is that by having your work out there, trying to get your name out there and what you can do, it actually becomes a lot easier to steal people's work because now those thieves will have 'technicalities' to fall back on that have too much room to manipulate.

As it is now, as far as people stealing other's art or written content--yes. It happens. But it isn't all that hard to fight it now, so other than forcing people to register and pay money to the government, there's no extended benefit for people in these fields that doesn't already exist.

[teflor the ranger]

Ok, fair enough, there is the current government system for copyright registration that is well known and already in wide use.

But where did the whole bit about private registrars come in?

[Osheara]

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?billid=11320236

This is a very good, simple outline of the process and foreseeable repercussions.

My understanding is that private registries could be created as a cause of this act, to give people options for getting through the process. Almost like the credit system when you want to get a credit report. For example, you can go through the 3 main international credit report companies where you can pay a fee, or you can type in 'credit report' in google and get a list of 50 million companies that will offer you special deals for doing it through them. Are those 'free credit report' companies legit. Sure. Are all of them? Not so much.

I'm sure there will be the response, 'then those people are just stupid if they don't go through the government one directly and deserve to have their work and livelihoods compromised.' But why make it possible for these people to abuse the situation in the first place?

It's just not necessary.

[Gormal]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/

Gormal--I remember your long-standing interest in goats. There's no need to remind everyone else too. But thank you for your very considerate and thought-provoking response.


As it is now, as far as people stealing other's art or written content--yes. It happens. But it isn't all that hard to fight it now, so other than forcing people to register and pay money to the government, there's no extended benefit for people in these fields that doesn't already exist.

Great goat comeback, it really shows that you've got a solid argument. Also, it is extremely difficult to fight people using your material now... I'll say i again in case you were still holding your thumbs in your ears and humming: www.ebaumsworld.com Yes, you can ask Jonny pedderass to remove your Sailor Moon erotica from some random anime page and they'll probably cave under the threat of lawsuits or some other retarded internet lawyering. But when it comes to actually fighting companies with lawyers and whatnot, its incredibly difficult to get them to remove your content if they are dicks about it, and even more difficult to receive compensation for them making money off of your stuff.

If your art was good enough for someone to steal and make money, then you will be making enough off of it yourself to pay the registry fee. If you art isn't making any money then its not worth stealing.

[teflor the ranger]

There is an issue with intellectual property and orphaned works. There is also precedence with other types of property intellectual and otherwise.

If someone owns a piece of land, but does not visit it, or fails to kick out squatters, the squatters can legally take over the property.

The issue with orphaned works is that there may be a legitimate need by some entity to use that work. If that entity cannot find the owner of the work in order to obtain permission to use it, according to how the US government views every other piece of property in our economy, they have the right to try to claim rights on property that no one else has bothered to go through the process of registering and maintaining properly.


I hate to say this, but intellectual property like orphaned artwork should not be any more special than any other kind of property in this country. There is little reason, economically or legally to treat artwork better than land titles or physical property. Laziness is not an American virtue. Furthermore, having read over the bill, it seems as long as an interested party can readily find the owner of the work, they retain rights over it. Not too hard to add a real name in there, or a notice of how to obtain contact information. It's true that your material also has to appear in some sort of searchable database. Chances are, if you're posting it somewhere like flickr or YouTube, they will probably handle that bit for you. It's already linked to your user name. So long as you put in real contact information into your account, it'll probably work.

[Llaaldara]

Dumbest *bleeping* thread ever.

Buncha unartistic noncreatives telling artists if their stuff wasn't incest kiddy manga they wouldn't have to worry about having it stolen. STFU. Yes I called you unartistic and noncreative, because leaving a log in the bowl in the morning doesn't constitute being artistic or creative.

Ya'll f'n /fail miserably.

Didn't even take a second to think about works in progress didja, like say stuff even in the RP story section of this site? Yay, artists will now have to register their works in progress while asking for honest feedback just to prevent it from getting jacked, or not post it at all. Like I want to go lojack everything I ever posted, both written and visual art.

Stupid. Just the dumbest idea ever.

[teflor the ranger]

Or uniform standards applied across government. Yeah, that sounds stupid.

[Ragorn]

Dumbest *bleeping* thread ever.

Buncha unartistic noncreatives telling artists if their stuff wasn't incest kiddy manga they wouldn't have to worry about having it stolen. STFU. Yes I called you unartistic and noncreative, because leaving a log in the bowl in the morning doesn't constitute being artistic or creative.

Ya'll f'n /fail miserably.

Didn't even take a second to think about works in progress didja, like say stuff even in the RP story section of this site? Yay, artists will now have to register their works in progress while asking for honest feedback just to prevent it from getting jacked, or not post it at all. Like I want to go lojack everything I ever posted, both written and visual art.

Stupid. Just the dumbest idea ever.

There is currently no system in place to prevent your works in progress from being jacked, especially if you post something out on the Internet with no claim to it.
This act would enact a system that would allow you to register your work.

How on earth is this a bad thing?

[Gormal]

There are lines of people waiting to steal Toril fiction to make millions off of. If you are seeking creative advice on an open forum for something that's good enough to make money off of, then you should be protecting yourself anyway. I don't get why people think that suddenly there's going to be no protection for people... there isn't any now.

[teflor the ranger]

There is currently no system in place to prevent your works in progress from being jacked, especially if you post something out on the Internet with no claim to it.
This act would enact a system that would allow you to register your work.

How on earth is this a bad thing?

The current system in place protects your works from being jacked by allowing you a right to ownership and to pursue that ownership in court. Including works in progress on the internet.

[Sarvis]

Dumbest *bleeping* thread ever.

Buncha unartistic noncreatives telling artists if their stuff wasn't incest kiddy manga they wouldn't have to worry about having it stolen. STFU. Yes I called you unartistic and noncreative, because leaving a log in the bowl in the morning doesn't constitute being artistic or creative.

Ya'll f'n /fail miserably.

Didn't even take a second to think about works in progress didja, like say stuff even in the RP story section of this site? Yay, artists will now have to register their works in progress while asking for honest feedback just to prevent it from getting jacked, or not post it at all. Like I want to go lojack everything I ever posted, both written and visual art.

Stupid. Just the dumbest idea ever.

What recourse do you have if someone steals one of your RP stories right now?

[teflor the ranger]

What recourse do you have if someone steals one of your RP stories right now?

Court.

[Sarvis]

I wrote that first, she must have stolen it from me and published it to this website without my permission.

Prove otherwise.

[Nokar]

Interestingly enough there was an article similar to this in one of my latest photography magazines. The gist of that article was that the photographer of the image taken was not given credit for the image at the end of the montage that was created by someone on youtube. She had to fight like hell to get the video removed until each and every photographer had been given credit for the image or the image removed from the video. Here's the kicker though. The creator of the video was a musician and gave credit to Phil Collins for the song he used in the video. So he had some type of working understanding of current copyright laws and such.
Being a photographer myself working on portraiture and some canned stock photography if I post an image or have an online portfolio of my work I would not want someone to just simply take the image and use it without at least some type of acknowledgment that I was the creator of the image, not necessarily for them to pay me. Strange as it sounds, it may be flattering the first time someone jacks your stuff but after that when it is being reproduced and the person who took the image is making money off of it there should be some sort of compensation for the creator of the image.
But if the person who takes the image would at least try to put my name out there that is a form of compensation called advertising.
I also do not like that you have to register every little thing otherwise someone else can take it for themselves.
The average full-day shoot for a client for me is close to 300-800 images. If the fees mentioned before in this thread are accurate that could tally up to a whole lot of cash just to register the images I choose to use from the shoot. That also comes out of the profit I could make.
I've rambled enough.


L8r all,
Nokar

[Gormal]

Where are people getting this idea that you'd have to pay to register every individual photograph? Everyone who's railed against this has brought it up but there's no reason to believe that would ever happen.

[teflor the ranger]

Where are people getting this idea that you'd have to pay to register every individual photograph? Everyone who's railed against this has brought it up but there's no reason to believe that would ever happen.

The current copyright registration process has a per item fee for registration.

But so does your land title, your car title, your driver's license, your other copyrighted material (one dollar per item), your trademarks, your tax ID, ...

Although I do have to admit, most police departments will allow you to register your bikes for free.

[teflor the ranger]

I wrote that first, she must have stolen it from me and published it to this website without my permission.

Prove otherwise.

Having proof tends to help your case, Sarvis. The government can't protect you from your own stupidity/laziness no matter how it tries. Prove that you own the bike someone stole :P (note, your receipt from the store DOES NOT contain the serial number).

[Sarvis]

So what you are saying is that without registering your artwork you wouldn't have much legal recourse in court?

Yeah, that's what I was pointing out in the first place jackass.

Even in the original article it says registration is required to actually sue over theft of artwork, so nothing changes really.

[teflor the ranger]

So what you are saying is that without registering your artwork you wouldn't have much legal recourse in court?

Yeah, that's what I was pointing out in the first place jackass.

You have nothing to back you up and I'm the jackass? I'm afraid the label better applies to you. Look up some copyright cases before you go spewing your completely baseless thoughts. It is not difficult for those who try to provide sufficient evidence of origination.

[Nokar]

Where are people getting this idea that you'd have to pay to register every individual photograph? Everyone who's railed against this has brought it up but there's no reason to believe that would ever happen.

When you go to put stock photos up for sale you copyright each individual image. Same with when you do a wedding, or a personal shoot for a client. Each individual image is copyrighted. Just like if I give a client a cd of the images they choose from the shoot. I sign a waiver to give them so that they are allowed to print the images. All the images will have a mark somewhere on the image to identify it that I was the creator of that image.
Just like Olan Mills. If you were to get caught reproducing one of their images that would be within their right to take you to court for copyright infringement. It is akin to piracy of music and video.

So why wouldn't a photographer, animation artist, or any artist over the whole spectrum of media not want to register or copyright each individual work they have created? It is a necessity that they do so.

[Gormal]

Why can't you copyright a collected works? That should cover every photo in there.

[Ragorn]

When you go to put stock photos up for sale you copyright each individual image. Same with when you do a wedding, or a personal shoot for a client. Each individual image is copyrighted. Just like if I give a client a cd of the images they choose from the shoot. I sign a waiver to give them so that they are allowed to print the images. All the images will have a mark somewhere on the image to identify it that I was the creator of that image.
Just like Olan Mills. If you were to get caught reproducing one of their images that would be within their right to take you to court for copyright infringement. It is akin to piracy of music and video.

So why wouldn't a photographer, animation artist, or any artist over the whole spectrum of media not want to register or copyright each individual work they have created? It is a necessity that they do so.

Orphan works only refer to works for which the artist cannot be found. If you're watermarking your images, why is this an issue?

[Botef]

Your an artist and you create a painting you like very much and a friend snaps a picture to share. Your friend shares it with some of his friends, and it eventually circulates the internet like most things do. Down the road a business catches wind of it and wants to use the picture of your painting for some kind of promotion. They try to find you, but you only use the internet for e-mail. The company cant find any mention of you being the artist since the image has circulated through so many hands, and it isn't in the national registry. The company uses it for their promotions.

As the original artist you never intended your graphic to circulate in that way, it is part of a private collection. You still own the original painting, which hangs on your wall. Your not out to make money off the piece so why should you have to register it, it is just another painting of many in your private collection.

I don't fully understand this bill, but if it strips my rights to tell the company/individual to stop using my work because I didn't register it that seems pretty backwards. I own the original piece, and I can prove that in court so why should I lose my rights to do so? Those of you arguing that this bill empowers artists with an ability to 'prove' ownership have completely overlooked the fact that some of us already can, and this only adds another step and possible expense for the people it is supposed to 'protect'. While this bill may empower people who create graphic arts professionally like stock photos, it strips the rights from the people who create art for their own enjoyment by making their works fair game if they don't take additional steps to protect themselves (assuming I'm reading this bill right, I won't make claims that I fully understand it)

Some of you are just making some really daft arguments here. If I created an original piece of work that should be enough to have some assurance that if someone uses it illegitimately I can take them to court and prove my case. The only time someone should have to register a piece of art is if they intend to use it themselves, or license it's use, in a public venue like advertising. The internet argument just doesn't fit the scenario since ANYBODY could take your work and upload it to the internet without you even being active online.

The bill makes sense in some aspects. If I use a image for an advertisement and don't submit it for copyright registration then I've failed to take the steps to protect it after it leaves my hands. It does not make sense for artwork I never intended to be used that way. The problem is these are all circumstantial cases that the bill doesn't address, things better left to a day in court.

In short, I understand what this bill is trying to address but I just don't see it as an effective solution to anything but disputes over registered works. If your contact information with the registry is out of date, and a company/individual can't find you by other means, then the 'orphaned' concept makes sense. If the company/individual doesn't even know who the original author is then regardless of the status of registration they should NOT be immune to legal proceedings down the road.

To sum up what I don't like about this bill: If a company/individual can't confirm who the owner of an original piece is then they really have no right using it in the first place. If they choose to anyways, then the original artist should retain their rights to take them to court and prove ownership before a judge. Plain and simple.


One more example for you to chew. A similar scenario actually occurred with a family friend and some of his childhood pictures, and under the current laws he got the company to stop. You upload some pictures of your newborn baby. They circulate through e-mail forwards of cute babies. A business likes it and uses it as the 'display' picture for their line of picture frames after being unable to track down who's baby it is. Down the road you see this in a store and don't want your child's picture being used in that fashion. Since you didn't register your picture, do you lose your rights to order the company to cease and desist?

[Osheara]

Orphan works only refer to works for which the artist cannot be found. If you're watermarking your images, why is this an issue?

Because that act would not refer to works where the artist cannot be found, it would refer to works where the artist cannot be found in the registry. Even if those photos have a watermark identifying the creator, because they are not 'registered' someone could reproduce those images and it would be within their right to do so as long as they make a search 'in good faith' within the registery.

When you do submit something to be copyrighted, it takes 6 months to a year for it to be processed. The risk that time period creates is just not sensible for many situations out there. The government is notorious for waiting on things last minute and immense time periods. And if this becomes standard, there would be a significant increase in the amount of submissions. Has anyone tried to get a passport in the traditional time-length since it became required for cruises?

As far as the collected works, I'm pretty sure there is a way to cover say everything on a CD if you were doing music, but I'm not sure the details if you were doing a collection of written works or images. Because it might be officially copyrighted in the 'collected works' form but not individually.

To my understanding though, as it currently is the only difference in having the subject matter copyrighted is that you could sue for statutory damages. Which, technically you can't do if it is not officially registered. However, you can still order a cease and desist, permanent injunction, attorney's fees, etc...

[kiryan]

As the world population goes up, content becomes inherently more valuable. This is a land grab for content.

The bill sounds like its onerous for the artists. I tend to think that you shouldn't have to register with the government every time you create something. It may not be obvious to you that you have created something until someone "steals" it from you. I do see this as artists, especially poor experimental artists, losing the majority of their rights to their work and I don't think that is a good thing.

On the other hand, if some of the retarded artists who went to court and got stupidly high dollar judgements because some company used a photo they found but couldn't find a copyright on, there probably wouldn't need to be a bill. Artists seeking a gold mine are more responsible for this bill than they understand. There are bad companies, and I think thats what courts are for, but I believe the majority of companies are not out there trying to steal artists' work without compensating them.

To companies, this bill is a way to mitigate their risk of having to pay someone millions of dollars because someone made a mistake and used an unlicensed photo. Seriously, some photos may be worth millions, but if I'm putting together an advertising campaign I'm going to use the free one.

Last comment, if you make a work of art publicly available, I think its fair game for minor commercial use. Now I don't mean you blog a poem and someone puts your work in a book of poems to sell it without compensating you... But if a movie quotes a single stanza of your three page poem you shouldn't be entitled to more profit than the studio. Hell 99% of you cede all rights to content you post online to the site anyways.

[Ragorn]

Because that act would not refer to works where the artist cannot be found, it would refer to works where the artist cannot be found in the registry. Even if those photos have a watermark identifying the creator, because they are not 'registered' someone could reproduce those images and it would be within their right to do so as long as they make a search 'in good faith' within the registery.

What I need for you to do, right now, is to go read the text of the act. Not some artist's angry response, not some community outrage piece, go read the text of the article itself. I'm getting sick and tired of having to explain to people exactly what it is they're arguing against.

The Orphan Works act does not remove ownership priviledges from artists.
It does not require artists to register their work in order to secure copyright protection.
It does not enable corporations to seize artwork for commercial purposes.
It does not mean that your work is exposed unless it is in the database.

The Orphan Works act seeks to create a database by which artists can register their work, to enable others to contact them should their work be desired. If you produce a piece of art that isn't feasible to physically mark with your identification (a song, a sculpture, a story published under a psuedonym), you register it in the database to link yourself to it. Parties seeking to reproduce your work then have an avenue to contact you to discuss compensation.

This is the part that you're not getting -- the database exists to record ownership of unidentifiable works of art. That is what it DOES. It provides a method by which you can PROVE a piece of art is yours. You should be JUMPING UP AND DOWN with excitement at the prospect of finally being able to register ownership of your work.

The Orphan Works act does NOT remove existing copyright protection. It doesn't suddenly make watermarked photographs fair game unless they're in the database. I will quote you from the act itself:

Code: Select all

(A) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING SEARCHES-

              `(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I), a search is qualifying if the infringer undertakes a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright.

                   `(ii) DETERMINATION OF DILIGENT EFFORT- In determining whether a search is diligent under this subparagraph, a court shall consider whether--

                              `(I) the actions taken in performing that search are reasonable and appropriate under the facts relevant to that search, including whether the infringer took actions based on facts uncovered by the search itself;

If you put your website in the watermark on a photo, then the infringer must make a diligent effort to contact you via that information before infringing on your copyright. This is unchanged from how the law currently works.

Seriously.

Read the bill.

[Gormal]

With the ease of removing watermarks from digital imagery, this bill is a great thing. So many cries of outrage against artists' rights being trampled, but where are people getting this idea that this database will be the end-all for art registry? We get it, not everyone can afford to register their creations if they're mass producing stuff and not making any money off of it. If you can't afford a buck to register a picture, how are you going to afford the lawyer to fight for your property when a company tells you to get lost? Its just another layer of protection available to the artist, how is this an infringement on someone's rights?

Angry artists are angry.

[Osheara]

Okay.

Since I am just the idiot here...maybe you can pick apart the rest of the bill that I supposedly haven't read and explain it further.

OpenCongress Summary:
This bill would limit the amount of damages a copyright holder could collect from an infringer if the infringer performed a diligent search for the copyright holder before using their work. The goal of the legislation is to free up for reuse copyrighted works whose holders cannot be found. It would also set up a process for the Copyright Office to certify commercially-produced visual registries to help people locate the holder of a copyright and prevent the orphaning of works in the future.

Now. Before you jump on me, this is just a summary. I know.

1.

This bill would limit the amount of damages a copyright holder could collect from an infringer if the infringer performed a diligent search for the copyright holder before using their work.

This is the part primarily that has people in an uproar.

`(1) MONETARY RELIEF-

`(A) GENERAL RULE- Subject to subparagraph (B), an award for monetary relief (including actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees) may not be made other than an order requiring the infringer to pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright for the use of the infringed work.

So. You have the right to order a cease and desist. You can order a permanent injunction against the infringer. But you lose every other benefit that is currently available under the current system.

Sorry. I shouldn't have said ALL rights. Just most of the significant ones that would enable the average person to be able to defend their work.

Tell me, what would 'reasonable compensation' be to you? Even then it only applies to the individual work itself. You can't even get the fees of an attorney paid for. So those that might not be so well off to begin with and only want what is rightfully theirs would have to come up with everything out of pocket which could far exceed the worth of the individual product.

Conditions for Eligibility-

`(1) CONDITIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding sections 502 through 505, and subject to subparagraph (B), in a civil action brought under this title for infringement of copyright in a work, the remedies for infringement shall be limited in accordance with subsection (c) if the infringer--

`(i) proves by a preponderance of the evidence that before the infringement began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf of the infringer, or any person jointly and severally liable with the infringer for the infringement--

`(I) performed and documented a qualifying search, in good faith, for the owner of the infringed copyright; and

`(II) was unable to locate the owner of the infringed copyright;

So. Okay. The infringer goes on the copyright database, types in a few general things. But he's done a search. Heck, he didn't even have to do the search himself, he could hire someone to search for him. And if he does that, boom...is he in turn even responsible if hired person doesn't search appropriately?

`(ii) before using the work, filed with the Register of Copyrights a Notice of Use under paragraph (3);

GREAT idea. I fully agree with this.

`(iii) provided attribution, in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances, to the owner of the infringed copyright, if such owner was known with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on information obtained in performing the qualifying search;

For non-profit works this is how the current system already is, to my knowledge. What I'm not sure of is if this would open it up so you could make a profit off of something just because you put a little disclaimer on it saying 'so and so' created it.

`(iv) included with the use of the infringing work a symbol or other notice of the use of the infringing work, in a manner prescribed by the Register of Copyrights;

Again, another great idea.

`(v) asserts in the initial pleading to the civil action the right to claim such limitations;

`(vi) consents to the jurisdiction of United States district court, or such court holds that the infringer is within the jurisdiction of the court; and

Should go without saying, but people are idiots.

`(vii) at the time of making the initial discovery disclosures required under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states with particularity the basis for the right to claim the limitations, including a detailed description and documentation of the search undertaken in accordance with paragraph (2)(A).

Should go without saying, but people are idiots.


2. Injunctive Relief.

This benefits the original owners and I think is a fine and reasonable balance for both parties.

3. As far as the Database, I think it's a brilliant idea actually. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they proposed. Search engines have been mainstream for years and its about time the government look into modernizing that branch of it.

What I do not like, is that the 1st section of this bill would enable someone to use this exact database as a sole or near sole search for a piece of material. What this creates is a system where if you are not registered in this exact database, your work becomes compromised and all those rights that you currently have under the existing copyright act can in turn be taken away unless you pay the government to register your work.

Now, one thing I did just learn that I wasn't aware of is the World Intellectual Property Organization of Copyright Treaty. I was aware of something like it but not the details. Something I will have to look up when I have the time.

Now...since I have pointed out the rest of the bill that Ragorn so kindly did not take into consideration, what this creates is a system that concerns me and many others I've talked to.

Are there good points to the bill? yes.

Are some things needed in the bill? absolutely.

But in my opinion that first section would be a detriment on too many people for it to be allowed to pass.

[teflor the ranger]

Seriously.

Read the bill.

Seriously.

The bill is not on its last draft or signed into law.

[Corth]

Osheara,

Without looking too deeply into this, it seems that the purpose is to create some sort of 'safe harbor' so that individuals and corporations can avoid expensive money judgments upon using these so-called 'orphaned works' if they make a dilligent effort to locate the owner, and are unable to. As Ragorn mentioned, copyright protections are not being taken away at all. It just means that if the work cannot be identified, and after a due dilligence search (including, presumably, searching the registry), the owner cannot be identified, then it can be used safely without fear of ultimately being sued for a large amount of money. In the event that the copyright owner ascertains that the work is being used in violation of the copyright, he/she can still enforce the copyright by requesting that the user cease and desist and ultimately, if necessary, getting an injunction against its continued use. To me, it seems like a reasonable balancing act between the interests of artists to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and societal interests in mitigating the dampening effect of copyright litigation upon free expression and commerce.

[Gormal]

But what would a lawyer know?

[Botef]

For any of you that might be interested here is what Congresswoman Cathy Rodgers, WA, has to say on the subject:

This bill was introduced on April 24, 2008 by Representative Berman of California and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. This legislation would provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works, copyrighted material for which the original owner cannot be determined or located.

The Constitutional authorization of a limited monopoly to copyright holders is intended "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by producing incentives for creative works and their dissemination to the public. However, orphan works have in many ways become inaccessible because of the risk of infringement liability that a user might incur if and when a copyright owner subsequently appears. Consequently, many works that are, in fact, abandoned by owners are withheld from public view and circulation because of uncertainty about the owner and the risk of liability.

Our society is advanced by strong copyright laws to protect and promote creation and innovation. At the same time individuals, educational institutions, businesses, and artists gain when they are able to access and utilize the works of others. Please be assured that I understand this balance. Your thoughts are well noted. I will certainly keep them in mind as this legislation is considered and should it come to a vote before me in the House.

[teflor the ranger]

Nobody cares about what elected representatives take into account. We just want them to vote OUR way.

[Corth]

Actually, I thought the Congresswoman's statement was well reasoned and articulated.

[teflor the ranger]

Corth, Corth, Corth... just because it's good, it doesn't mean she's not a politician.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Found two interesting articles related to this:

Yellow hair is good. I really think I should take it out more often. Lest it sleep in a boxy coffin. People like these curly locks. They wonder hat lies beneath, Could it be only rocks? But if My hair were pink, would that make me smarter you think? Yellow, pink, green or blue. There is clown hair perfect for you. Try some on and you may find a clown inside. You can't hide. YOUR HAIR IS PURPLE! FOR PETE'S SAKE!
By Lynn Minix AKA Miss Priss the clown

What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. - Robert Heinlein

[Llaaldara]

I wrote that first, she must have stolen it from me and published it to this website without my permission.

Prove otherwise.

File Date for one.

Show a valid document file containing the material in question with a date previous to my post date. Show initial stages of the material in question before it was posted. With writing, there is a development process as I'm sure you have awareness of. Some writers even write original stages of story development on pen and paper, which can get tested and date proven as well. (Altho no one is really going to bother using this specific method unless the pay off is ultimately worth the cost.)

This is similar to visual art, especially photoshop'd images. If file date becomes disputed, the ability to fully show how the original was created, and more importantly have it directly re-created comes into play. Not to mention visual art becomes even easier to prove, as artists such as myself normally keep a much higher resolution to themselves compared to the compressed lower dpi jpeg they post on the internet. Think I don't have hi-res layered photoshop files of all that evils ezine stuff I did back in the day and saved to burned disks?

Artists/Writers can also simply load up a CD/DVD or two, and mail it to themselves, and never open said letter. This becomes admissible as evidence in a court of law. Ask Corth yourself. We basically call it 'Ghetto Copyright"

Did I have to pay some fee for each one? Pretty handy these DVD's and CD's for holding massive amounts of data and cheaply mailing it to one's self as opposed to paying a fee to register each and every single freaking piece.

So like I said..