Gee, I'll never pick up a pen again. Moving this to the front page because it is breaking news. Nice catch, Aku.

That sort of takes away all the purpose in registering a copyright, doesn't it? And couldn't offenders lie and say, "Well, I googled 'big busty anime girl' and you didn't come up..."

I hear that in Europe, artists' copyrights are protected way more than in America. Also, freelancers are treated less like a slave class.

Sing with me now! "I want to live Ger-man-ee... Won't you please sail a-way with me? I want to live in Ger-man-ee..."

****
I live under a bridge.

Source - http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/cspdproposal.pdf

Let’s look at this from another way. A lot of older works, be it film, writing, or whatever are potentially lost because the barriers that are in place to access “Orphan Works” There are costs involved to search and even license works that have long since fallen out a public access. So if an interested party, like a library, wants to republish an “Orphaned” book because there are no longer any copies left, this library would have to jump through a lot of hoops and spend some money to make this happen. Since they only have so many resources to spend, they’d more than likely drop the project and restore something in public domain.

I doubt the point of the “Orphan Works” revisions that the Copyright office is suggesting is to allow companies to rip off unknown creators. What would be the point of a company to get an unknown product that they would have to spend more time and money to promote than something by a known creator or a known property? If there was any ripping off, it would be off of known creators, and if you’re known enough to be ripped off then you’ll probably have an agent or lawyer that can fix that problem for you.

Besides it’s always been the Copyright Holder’s responsibility to enforce their Copyright. Sometimes a Copyright Holder will let infringements go because they feel it won’t affect their bottom line. Some Copyright Holders will act on an infringement that seems insignificant because to let it go would set a bad legal precedence for future infringements.

Thanks for bringing us the other half of the story, Doub.

What I fear is not so much "the big guys screwing the little guys" as "the little guys screwing the little guys." Take the instance of stock photos. Graphic designers use them all the time. They can either take the picture themselves, use a copyright free one from a site like morguefile.com, or use something that they have no rights to--literally. I almost did it once myself. There's a background image in 18 Revolutions that I got off of a college brochure. When I decided to actually print the comic (it had never been released to the public, nor had I previously intended to), I hunted down the man who took the picture and squared with him. He charged a fee, but it was worth it to avoid a later copyright battle.

Under these new guidelines, could I have feigned ignorance and gotten the used for free? What blockades are installed to prevent that sort of abuse? Or, if there are so many hurdles that your aforementioned library wouldn't bother looking into it, why allow people to do it at all?

I can see where they are trying to take this, but I wonder if the new rules will be easy to bend.

On the other hand, things like Mickey Mouse should have fallen into public domain years ago. For shame. Public domain has a purpose. Once the creator is dead and his estate has benefitted, the rest of society can have the cast-offs to do with as we please.

Ah, copyright law. So much fun. So much pain.

****
I live under a bridge.

Canada and the UK already seem to have a system for "Orphan Works" and both of them only say that it's orphaned after a "reasonable inquiry" has been made to contact the creator. Problem is that neither of them defines what a “reasonable inquiry” is and I don't think the Copyright office has a definition either. So my best guess is that “reasonable inquiry” would be defined on a case by case scenario by the Copyright office.

Currently there is a bill that is making it's way through the House that would require copyright owners to renew their copyrights by paying a $1 tax fifty years after a work’s publication and every ten years thereafter. So if you don’t pay your $1 tax, you lose the copyright. Problem is that doesn’t address the current "Orphan Works" already out there.

No, it doesn't (address current orphans, that is).

****
I live under a bridge.

David you bought up really great point from the other side. But don't you think it should be limited to just that. Works of art or literature that has been deemed lost and is a signifigant number of years old and not much known about it?

I'm concerned about the exact think rach is the "lil guy ripping of the other lil guy".

Hopefully there will be something to keep them form just doing a half assed search and saying I couldn't find it creator declaring it open season on someone's gallery or works.

And as far as taking legal action if one makes that desicion to pursue it could turn out to be a long and hard road. How would you get the information of the person stealing your art? Fees and Court hearings and while this is going on and on for possible months this person is still making profit off you artwork until it's proven stolen if at all.

-I met Mr.Fantastic at a Arms Deal...- MF DOOM

The sad thing is that net freedom might suffer from all this drama. There has already been talk of "limiting" the information one can use on the internet. I predict that if arguments against this bill start heating up and the internet is brought up as a point, search engine sites will be the first ones attacked.

Well the thing about Copyrights is the intention is to protect the money involved that one can gain from using a Copyright. Even if you steal a copyright and don't make money off of it, a company can argue that you are hurting the image of the copyright and harming its potential to earn money.

Now on the internet, a lot of the “art theft” involved basically concerns no money or not much money. It’s almost more of an etiquette problem and not a legal problem. A hall monitor is more needed than a lawyer. The only recourse one can really find on the internet is contacting the ISP to hopefully deal with the situation. For example when people on the internet were direct linking to images on my wife’s site, I actually called up the company managing these bandwidth thieves accounts and had their accounts deleted (mind you this was a free service and a US company).

So I really have a hard time believing that people will actually declare other people’s works “Orphan Works” on the internet. Most people steal because they’re lazy and stupid, so I don’t see them going through the effort to have works declared as Orphaned. Besides what would be the point? There’s no profit in it. I really only seeing this being a problem when money is involved. The immature “art theft” that runs rampant on the internet is another problem than what this “Orphan Work” issue addresses. Even the Digital Millennium Act was made to more address the piracy of Music on the internet (because movie piracy wasn’t as common then because broadband wasn’t common either). Internet “Art Theft” is still a “Community” issue and it would send a positive message if we could somehow police this issue ourselves

Would there not be a greater problem once art obtained through the internet is used to rake in profits offline as opposed to your typical "Wow! That drawing looks cool! Imma use it on my site without permission!"? You can't steal art of which you've never heard or seen, but the internet facilitates the process of exposure.

And, what if the use isn't entirely related to profits? Like, what if somebody uses one of your images in a banner ad? Theyshould have paid you $50. It's not worth court. It might not even be proved that they have to pay you anything. This actually happened, btw.

****
I live under a bridge.

It was pointed out that the terms were far too vauge. They have thirty days to regroups and refine their proposal.

It seems like a alot of people are backing this with hopes of money saved and gained. If this passes a company can save alot of time and money spent searching for the artist/creator/photographer saving them the hassle.

-I met Mr.Fantastic at a Arms Deal...- MF DOOM

Now I know how Sinn feels about capitalism.

With stuff like that, you only real recourse to address it with the ISP or Hosting Company or ect.

Well, this originally started in response to parody works, but as usual, congress always mucks things up.

A few years ago an artist had contacted Starbucks about making a parody of their logo. They did not respond to him after several months. Using the common-law rule of "silence implies consent," the artist published the work.
Starbucks then found out about this, and sued. They won, claiming that the artist had never contacted him even though he had proof that he had contacted them (he sent a certified letter and showed the return receipt.)

Well, when people found out about the second patriot act, it died in committee. Let's hope this bill suffers the same fate.

I will write to my elected officials about this, but that's pretty much in vain; Texas politicians are usually more screwed-up than the rest of the country. (Hell, we've got people in office here that make George W. look like a mensa member in comparrison.) V_V

Quamp's discount manga/anime fan fiction
The Texas Conventions a Collection of artwork I've collected over various conventions.

Why can't celebrities and companies take a joke?

****
I live under a bridge.

Their egos are too big

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

My theory is that they have so much money, it's become lodged in their anuses. You know how temperamental one can get with something lodged in one's anus.

But its even worse, the reason they get so temperamental...is because they think they can't find the money, perhaps would should send a letter telling them to look up their anuses.

"There is no reality in fantasy."

Apparently it has been passed by the Senate and has moved on to the House.

Wait... shouldn't that work the other way around? House then Senate?

Apparently some changes have happened to the bill and the current version was created/revised in the Senate and now need to go to the House for their approval. Word is that it won't get passed in the House this session because they're too busy with the Bank Bailout issue.

Score.

:) Does happy dance.

Re-reading this entire thing made my heart beat twice as fast, and I instantly went to my deviantart and started copyrighting and watermarking all my art.

Thankfully, I only got through one or two, so I suppose that was all for naught.

Here's to hoping that they lose the paper under a desk, and only find it when I am famous, dead and gone. :)

However, I don't understand how this would work. (Studying Habeas Corpus, guys, bear with me.) In merry ol' England, they are allowed life, liberty, and property - their farms and houses. Here in America, we have life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, which is supposed to be Thomas Jefferson's way of opening up from just farms and houses to jobs, works, etc. Isn't this bill-mabob an infringement on that right? Or am I just really stupid? XD

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

That's the thing: that's not a right protected by law or the Constitution. It was just an assertion Jefferson made in a paper he wrote (the Declaration of Independence) that has become a part of our national heritage/image.

Jefferson wrote "pursuit of happiness" because the it sounded more admirable and would thus receive more popular support. "Property" is what he really meant.

On the other hand, last week I heard a lecture by two economists at my school explaining that the bailout is technically illegal. The bill even has clause stating that processes undertaken for the bailout "may not be subject to review" by an other branch of government. Iffy, no?

Sincerely iffy.

But wouldn't the art technically be your property? *feels smart that she can have intelligent conversation*

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.