CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:37 pm**

I hope this isnt true.

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

As an artist, you have to read this article or you could lose everything you've ever created!

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.

i know this is a very long article, but please read all of it. i cant believe they are trying to do something like this.

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:46 pm**

That. Is scary.

I pray it doesn't pass. Art is not free, people!

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:47 pm**

Currently, you don't have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something.

I didn't know that was true. o.o I have a hard time believing that.

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:47 pm**

[font="palatino linotype"]No. No! JUST NO!!!!

I cannot believe Congress would have the GALL to do something like this!!!!!!

They CANNOT do this!
This is an insult to all the hours of blood, sweat, and tears that we artists put into our art!

It IS ours BY RIGHT.
We should NOT have to PAY for OUR work!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAGH! I'm so ANGRY now!

I will NOT pay for every sketch, photo, video, and song I write!

*tries to calm down*[/font]

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:53 pm**

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!

It gets even better. Anyone can submit images, including your images. They would then be excused from any liability for infringement (also known as THEFT) unless the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within a certain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.

That means you will also have to look through every image in every registry all the time to make sure someone is not stealing and registering your art. You could actually end up illegally using your own artwork if someone else registers it. DOES ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

ugh. ridiculous. i cant believe that!

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:54 pm**

ShiroiHikari wrote:Currently, you don't have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something.

I didn't know that was true. o.o I have a hard time believing that.

I don't know about artwork, but this is true for Photography work. When I taken a picture, I can put a copyright on it, without registering my work to own the copyright.

If I have the picture on my card or my computer and if someone takes it and calls it their own. I can take them to court, if I wish or tell them to take picture down, if they have it on a web site.

[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang[/font][/color]

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:56 pm**

This is absolutely ridiculous, and it really makes me angry that they would even think of doing this.

It's completely greedy and selfish. Art comes at a price. You can't just use whatever's "up for grabs;" if you want to use something someone else made, you're going to have to pay for it. Suggesting otherwise is cheating people out of their hard work, and that's just wrong.

And the part about registering every sketch, photo, every piece of art you create? That's just bull. That's WAY too expensive, and artists shouldn't have to put up with it. It makes me uneasy that they'd think of taking that kind of money away from artists, as I'm looking into art as a future career. It also bothers me that they're trying to legalize stealing. I guess it goes to show how far we've come (or how we've completely turned a 180). People used to be patrons for art, paying a lot of money to commission artists to do works for their churches, etc. And now they want to make it so that's free, and the artist has to pay to protect it?

No. That's just wrong. If this bill passes, I will be thoroughly disgusted.

Thoroughly.

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:58 pm**

i just emailed this to everyone i know...ARGH. >B[

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:01 pm**

Don't professionals get copyrighted formally and what not anyways?

That's besides the point. What a ton of bull crap.

PostPosted: **Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:07 pm**

I did a little looking around, and they tried to pass this in 2005.

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Info about it in 2005.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

Info on what they are trying to do this year.

[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang[/font][/color]

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:02 am**

If this were passed, it'd be murder for the artistic community. Art really consists of taking existing ideas and rearranging them in new, original ways. If you can't protect your ideas, you won't share them, and people won't share them with you. Art will suffer because we won't be able to feed off of each other's creative energies like we do now. We won't be able to inspire each other freely. This is completely and utterly disgusting.

.rai//

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:25 am**

This is really depressing! It really would mean the end!

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:26 am**

What I'd like to know is...what are they trying to accomplish with this?

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:24 am**

Would this apply to artists like film makers and musicians too? If so......way to make a problem get worse.....

Looking through this article, however, brings a question to my mind: While I know that ppl do "steal" other ppls "work" is there a good estimated number of ppl who do that with art stuff?

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:28 am**

...........

They can't do that. They just can't.

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:51 am**

Okay, I see what they're trying to do here.

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.

Actually, I don't think that's correct. According to that article by the US Copyright Office, orphan works are those which are still protected under copyright law, but the holder of the copyright cannot be located (or is dead). Since the owners of the copyright can't be contacted for permission to use the work, the work can't legally be used. This is the problem they're trying to resolve-- from what I understand.

" wrote:Instead, we recommended a framework whereby a legitimate orphan works owner who resurfaces may bring an action for “reasonable compensation” against a qualifying user. A user does not qualify for the benefits of orphan works legislation unless he first conducts a good faith, reasonably diligent (but unsuccessful) search for the copyright owner.

In other words, if someone uses your work, and didn't try to contact you, you can still bring the law down on them.

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:16 am**

So... It's not that horrible?

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:55 am**

No, it isn't. It sounds like they're trying to make it so that historical documents and images can be legally used by universities and other such places. Saying that an image can be used after an extensive and non-successful search for the author allows easier access to said image.

If you're alive and you don't live in the desert, you can probably be easily tracked down by anyone who wants to use your work. I don't think there's anything to worry about.

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:13 pm**

As much as I enjoy articles written in sensationalist language, there are so many things wrong and misleading in it that I don't know where to begin. The real issue with orphaned works (and the correct definitition!) and what is being done to solve it has already been brought up.

As for the issue of copyright, I'm of the opinion that our copyright laws are dangerously overprotective and actually stifling the spread of ideas and innovation. New works are always built on existing works, but copyright prevents us from incorporating existing ideas into new works. In effect, new works are monopolized by those who control the old works.

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:27 pm**

I think this article's reaction is part misinterpretation and part overreaction. Let's be realistic, the doomsday scenario it paints is so out-there that it can't be possible outside of a totalitarian state. It sounds a little too "BUSH IS GOING TO BAN ANIME WRITE OUR CONGRESSPEOPLE TO IMPEACH HIM," if you know what I mean.

I agree with blkmage; our copyright laws as they are should be edited to be MORE lenient, not less, in allowing others to draw from existing works. As for art theft, I think it's totally blown out of proportion on the "artists" interwebs. I think a lot of "artist's" reactions when other people post their art on the net, citing "art theft," are just ridiculous-- it's one thing if the person claims to have drawn it, but there is absolutely no harm in a little *****ning. (What's worse is if said art is fanart-- that's a completely hypocritical double-standard.)

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:00 pm**

Ah, lovely, a post on Boing Boing that just got posted links to an article that directly refutes the silly claims in the article.

Boing Boing post about the article.
"Six misconceptions about orphaned works."

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:24 pm**

I don't even now what to say... this is really confusing and misleading...and I don't want it to be passed.

It really does seem like they are wanting to make stealing legal...

grr..

I mean...will this hurt the people who post their work online? What about Webcomics and stories and photo galleries and stuff?

The implecations of this bill are down-right scary!

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:49 pm**

blkmage (post: 1216576) wrote:Ah, lovely, a post on Boing Boing that just got posted links to an article that directly refutes the silly claims in the article.

Boing Boing post about the article.
"Six misconceptions about orphaned works."

A fellow reader of boingboing. Wonderful. I am the only one I knew of other than those who must exist to leave posts.

That is much more logical and reasonable than anything I have read so far. I have been keeping up with this thread, but a lack of knowledge on the subject kept me from posting. If this bill doesn't actually exist yet, what made the author of the erroneous article think it did? Is this just an example of "The Herd Mentality" in digital format?

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:19 pm**

Doubleshadow wrote:I have been keeping up with this thread, but a lack of knowledge on the subject kept me from posting. If this bill doesn't actually exist yet, what made the author of the erroneous article think it did? Is this just an example of "The Herd Mentality" in digital format?

I know what you mean. That is why I search the bill and see what it said.

The guy that wrote the article to me was going all, "Hulk mad, Hulk smash things!"

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:54 pm**

this makes me feel better. XD

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:59 pm**

Wooo, just rant madly about a topic in spite of the actual facts and you'll have an army of internet sheep too lazy to do their own independent research of a topic fanatically supporting you in hours!

*resists urge to make a political joke here*

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:01 pm**

It probably wouldn't have been funny.

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:05 pm**

[font="palatino Linotype"]...Disregard my previous post.

((Has a bad temper about art))

I don't think they will go through with it.

Hey, if it didn't work in '05, what makes you think it'll work in '08/'09?[/font]

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:19 pm**

blkmage (post: 1216576) wrote:Ah, lovely, a post on Boing Boing that just got posted links to an article that directly refutes the silly claims in the article.

Boing Boing post about the article.
"Six misconceptions about orphaned works."

Thank you for the links. Guys, you should all take a look at those. And don't say "BUT TL;DR". XD

PostPosted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:34 pm**

Nate (post: 1216659) wrote:Wooo, just rant madly about a topic in spite of the actual facts and you'll have an army of internet sheep too lazy to do their own independent research of a topic fanatically supporting you in hours!

*resists urge to make a political joke here*

Wooo, just mock people without contributing to the topic and feel better about yourself! Seriously, Nate. What's the point? Mistakes were made, anyone who reads the other articles probably already feels dumb for getting excited about something that wasn't actually what they thought. What good do you think you're doing?

.rai//

CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Absolutely outrageous.

Absolutely outrageous.