The Orphan Works Legislation

[antiaircraft]

An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission.

 

If you don't like to read long articles, you will miss incredibly important information that will affect the rest of your career as an artist. You should at least skip to the end to find the link for a fantastic interview with the Illustrators' Partnership about how you are about to lose ownership of your own artwork.

 

Currently, you don't have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something. International law also supports this. Right now, registration allows you to sue for damages, in addition to fair value.

 

What makes me so MAD about this new legislation is that it legalizes THEFT! The only people who benefit from this are those who want to make use of our creative works without paying for them and large companies who will run the new private copyright registries.

 

These registries are companies that you would be forced to pay in order to register every single image, photo, sketch or creative work.

 

It is currently against international law to coerce people to register their work for copyright because there are so many inherent problems with it. But because big business can push through laws in the United States, our country is about to break with the rest of the world, again, and take your rights away.

 

With the tens of millions of photos and pieces of artwork created each year, the bounty for forcing everyone to pay a registration fee would be enormous. We lose our rights and our creations, and someone else makes money at our expense.

 

This includes every sketch, painting, photo, sculpture, drawing, video, song and every other type of creative endeavor. All of it is at risk!

 

If the Orphan Works legislation passes, you and I and all creatives will lose virtually all the rights to not only our future work but to everything we've created over the past 34 years, unless we register it with the new, untested and privately run (by the friends and cronies of the U.S. government) registries. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone wishing to steal your personal creations won't successfully call your work an orphan work, and then legally use it for free.

 

In short, if Congress passes this law, YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY FROM YOUR OWN CREATIONS!

Full article at: http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns...article_no=3605

 

Well I can get a pretty good idea of what the general response to this legislation will be, but I'll wait for the discussion to get going before starting a six-page rant.

[crxsnochic]

I've mentioned before on this forum that I am extremely uncreative, so my non-existent personal work will never be affected. Trust me, I can't even take a decent picture much less write or draw anything. However, I am still angered by this. There are so many creative people that do what they do for the fun of it. Look at the many numerous people even on this forum that create amazing av and sig sets, not only for themselves, but also for others to use. The idea that they would have to pay in order to protect their own ideas and creations is ludicrous. And what is even more disturbing is that if they decide not to pay money to register it, someone who sees something they like could decide to register it for themselves and prevent even the creator themselves from using it. It's nothing more than yet another example of how US bureaucrats have figured out one more way to make themselves even richer at the expense of everyone else. Free speech my bum.

[Guest Levy]

Does this include writing pieces? If it does then I ain't gonna upload my newest short story when its done unless this legislation fails! This has got to be one of the dumbest and most pointless legislations ever to be created. It doesn't do anything but line the pockets of the big corporations that continually do NOTHING for the general public. It benefits no one, if this legislation passes then it is clear there is corruption in Washington.

 

Everyone has been complaining about this on dA, and everyone hates it. So do I.

 

I AM NOT GOING TO PAY FOR SOMETHING I CREATED!!!!

[m3l3ana]

Does anyone know exactly how and why this legislation came about?

[Guest Levy]

This is not the first time this bill has tried to become a law. A similar bill proposed last year tried to do the exact same thing. Who wants this? We should vote them out of office come the next election.

 

The only difference between last year and this year is that last year is was kept sorta quiet, now it is mass hysteria!

[Ellie_Penguin]

Wow this is ridiculous. Shouldn't those who want our work, pay for it? Why in the world are going to pay for something that took us hours of hard work to complete? Shouldn't we get paid, instead? I think this is just an excuse for them to make money off of people.

[m3l3ana]

So if it is mass hysteria and everyone has their opinion what are the odds? I am not sure on the method of getting a bill passed, is it a voting system for parliment members?

[Guest Levy]

In order to get a bill to pass in the USA Congress or The House of Representative have to vote a majority vote, after that if it gains the majority then it goes to the president. If he vetoes it then it goes back to either the Congress or Hose of Representatives in an attempt to override the veto with a 2/3 vote.

((I am not too sure if that is right, but its the gist of things, please don't call me on it.))

 

To say the least, it takes a lot for things to happen here. I ain't sure about other countries.

[m3l3ana]

Thanks Levy, I thought it was something like that (only because I have seem Legally Blonde :P).

 

Anyway.. do the Reps make there vote known? Does anyone know the odds on the bill being passed?

 

I think this Bill is ridiculous! Why on earth should we pay to use our own work? The copy right system is there to protect the little people, as well as the big people. So why change it?

[Guest Levy]

The odds of this thing being passed are very low. Think about it, an equivalent bill tried to get passed last year quietly. Now we have mass hysteria. That hysteria has been crazy for less then a week and its here already! (The forums I mean)

One really popular artist is going to get so mad that they will publicly display their hatred for it and even more people will show their disgust for this bill.

TV commercials are just around the corner, just you watch.

 

Companies like Viacom will get mad because they would have to pay copyright on every episode of every cartoon, tv show, movie, etc they ever made. (Not to mention every single image on their websites, including Neopets)

Viacom would lose possible millions. And that would just be national, international copyright protection would cost a heck of a lot more.

 

Big music labels would have to pay to protect their artists' music from becoming orphan works, they are already losing money to piracy, imagine how much the RIAA would complain if this was passed.

 

This bill not only hurts the little guys, but it punches a huge hole in the giants as well.

[m3l3ana]

That is what I said, the copyright law is there to protect the little people as well as the big. It just seems stupid that anyone should have to pay for their own work. If you work etc, you are not expected to pay to do so, infact your actually get paid to work. A lot of people make their livings out of creating new images, music, stories etc so they also should not be expected to have to pay for their work.

[Guest Levy]

This bill is so outrageous, I don't know how else I can explain its outrageousness... (and stay forum-appropriate.)

 

I don't see why Theo made this in the debate forum, its not like anyone is going to go affirmative for this, unless they are an art thief.

[m3l3ana]

Lols... you never know maybe we have a head of some multi million dollar company as a member of TDN and they like to steal art?? It is possible, it is I tell you!!!

 

Anyway.. everyone is entitled to their opinion Levy, although I am not 100% sure if anyone would want to post a different opinion on this forum :P

[Guest Levy]

PAY ATTENTION, THIS IS VERY VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT AND WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE YOU SEE REASON AND MAY MAKE YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION!!!!!

 

Orphan Works, A Response from the Creator:

by =Joshi38 of deviantArt (I corrected any spelling mistakes, I am meticulous like that)

As some of you, I'm sure, are aware, a great deal has recently been made over the proposed Bill for a Solution to the Orphan Works problem.

 

First of all, as a quick explanation for those of you who don't know, Orphan Works are basically works of any art (from any media, film, music or just art like that prominently found on this website) that no longer seem to have a copyright holder. This could be because either, the copyright holder is now deceased, has willingly given up copyright, or can simply not be found. The problem comes from the latter source of Orphan Works, when no copyright holder can be found.

 

You see, when you can't find the copyright holder of a certain piece of work, it's difficult to reproduce, use it or otherwise since you don't have permission from said copyright holder. Until now it has been thought that if that is the case, the piece of work should be left alone, and this has caused a number of works (very old films, for instance) to not be seen by current generations, or be lost from use.

 

A better explanation can be found here. *

 

The Orphan Works bill seeks to fix this problem.

 

The Bill can be found here (PDF file). **

 

In essence, how it would work, is that, if someone wanted to use a certain piece of work (artwork, music, film, etc) for any reason and no copyright holder was clear after a reasonable search, that piece of work would be deemed an Orphan Work and free to use without fear of copyright problems.

 

Now, many people seem to think that this is a way of allowing people to steal your work legally. One main source of this idea is this blog by Mark Simon, worth a read, if only to see the fears that seem to be holding people such as ourselves because of this Bill.

 

Now, the first thing you need to realize about that Blog page, is that no where on it is a link to the Bill, only Simon's interpretation of it. This to me, is like reading a book report instead of a book, yes, you will get an idea of the book, but a book report is 1, written by one person, with one point of view and 2, won't cover everything. It is for that reason, I gave you a link to the Bill above, read it yourself, come to your own conclusion.

 

Even still, after reading it myself, I still needed some things clarified about it, and I figured, who better to go to than James Boyle, co creator of the Bill. He is one of the authors of the Bill and one of the people who submitted it to the Copyright Office.

 

What you'll find below is my Email to Boyle, along with his response. Unfortunately, Boyle has requested that his email not be posted here, so what I will give is a basic summary. I won't comment on what he said, I feel it speaks for itself so I urge you to come to your own conclusions.

 

Dear James Boyle

 

I am a young artist working out of the UK, specializing in digitally created art and concept work. I recently came across your Analysis and Proposal detailing the problem with Orphan Works in the United States, submitted to the copyright office in March 2005.

 

Now, for reasons I don't rightly know, this has been brought up now and caused some controversy among artists such as myself who have art stored for presentation on the internet. If you are not aware of this, I shall point you to one web log entry by Mark Simon, found here who fears that if such a law was passed, work created by people such as myself or him would be in danger of legally being used by others without our permission.

 

Instead of jumping on a bandwagon and declaring war on yourself or this proposal, I decided to do a little research into this first which is what brought me to your proposal and, ultimately to yourself.

 

I have read the majority of the proposal (the PDF found on your website), specifically the part detailing what is actually proposed in order to solve the problem of Orphan Works and their usage by users and I do have a few questions, merely clarifications on a few issues.

 

1. How exactly would this law, if passed, effect work created by artists, past and future who are still living and perfectly able to identify themselves as copyright owners of their work. Many, like myself have created work in the recent past and have done nothing more, in the knowledge that such work would already be automatically copyrighted to them at the moment of its creation. Were someone else to use said work without the artists permission, that would be considered as theft and the original copyright holder would be within his or her rights to request removal of said work or request credit where credit's due. Should this bill be passed, would we artists now need to register our work for it to be copyrighted under our name? And would we need to do that for all past creations?

 

2. If the above is the case and my work now needs to be registered for copyright, should I fail to do that and my work be deemed Orphan Work, free to use and it indeed does become used without my permission, would I still have the right to call copyright on said work and have it removed/ask for credit, or do I lose all copyright claim to the work once it has been deemed Orphan Work?

 

3. As you say, the UK and other countries already have laws dealing with such things as Orphan Works. How will this bill effect international work?

 

Looking forward to your answer.

Yours

Neil Joshi

 

--

 

Summary of his response:

1. Registering material for copyright will not be mandatory.

2. This bill wouldn't even apply to recent works, but would specify types and ages.

3. Rules on what constitutes a "reasonable search" for a copyright holder would be laid down, for which proof must be provided before a piece of work is deemed Orphan Work.

4. If a piece of work, deemed orphan work, is used, and then the original copyright holder appears and asks for it to be taken down, the user would be obliged.

5. The original copyright holder never loses copyright or control over their work.

 

I feel this article should be an exercise in not trusting the first source that you see on an issue. If you read a blog page or news article about something this controversial, don't immediately jump to the conclusion that they must be right (or indeed, wrong), but instead do your own digging and research, find the truth for yourself.

*Link to better explanation of Orphan Works: [LINK]

**Link to the proposal: [LINK]

 

I have yet to read the PDF proposal but what I get from the article, as long as you have copyright protection, you won't be infringed upon. This bill only frees works which the creater and all possible copyright owners can not be found or have passed on, therefore not hurting anyone and benefiting those who can use works that right now cannot be used due to the current copyright laws.

 

I never thought I would say this, but 'I support this legislation!'

[m3l3ana]

I haven't read any of the links, but I have read what Levy posted and after reading that I don't really see a reason why this Bill should not be passed? From what I gather this Bill will not affect artist such as the people on these forums, as copyright is still in place.

Guess we all should have done a little more research before we started discussing the topic huh?

[Guest Levy]

I guess so, I tried to find something but only found the thing from last year. I came across this when I didn't see the original news post on dA about the rumored bill. I did some searching for any other news pertaining to the bill and low and behold (is that the phrase?), I found this.

 

This bill benefits those who wish to use a work that doesn't have a copyright owner to what they could research. Of course if the copyright owner showed up then things would be different... things would be worked out. But like I said, any work that has no owner should be allowed use if no one is using it or owns it.

 

I feel much better after reading this... I can keep writing now without fear of having my creations not be mine. XD

[antiaircraft]

I feel much better after reading this... I can keep writing now without fear of having my creations not be mine. XD

We both agree on that point. :yes:

 

Now you see why I posted this in the debates forum - just in case somebody found a valid refutation to the article I quoted.

 

I am, however, neutral about the bill at present - I'll have to read through several pages of dry legislation stuff to get a better idea of how it will affect me. :P

[Guest Levy]

It shouldn't effect you unless you die without naming a copyright successor to your works. This doesn't hurt anyone.

[antiaircraft]

I was basically referring to the fact that I can't really say I support it if it doesn't benefit me in some way or other. :P But I'm not against it either.

[Guest Levy]

So you're abstained? If this passes you can bet we will see more creative ads so I think it does benefit us, so we won't be looking at the same old crap all the time.

[antiaircraft]

Hmm... well I'm living in Malaysia at present, and this bill isn't an international one, so it doesn't really have any effect on me. However, it is in general a good thing for people wherever it applies (as long as it is regulated probably), so yeah, I do support it. :yes: