Will You Lose All The Rights to Your Own Art?

[Gene]

Article:
Mind Your Business: You Will Lose All The Rights to Your Own Art

According to this guy's interpretation of the facts, you will lose rights to your own artwork if this pending bill goes through. I think he is a bit misinformed and it's a somewhat careless article, but the issue itself is worth serious attention.

The article is long, but very much worth reading:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&article_no=3605&page=1

After reading that, check out this viewpoint:
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html





.

 

[rjmlar]

Thanks for bringing this up. There's something very sinister a work here by both parties of Congress. For one thing, these bills go to the floor in the Fall with the November election providing the best distraction. Before you know it, today's copyright laws will be history.

House version:
The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R.5889)
Senate version:
The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S.2913)

How to voice opposition:
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

Nick Anderson's cartoon and blog entry:
http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/2008/05/orphan_works.html

 

[labrocca]

Interesting since this really reverses the current stance on copyrights which are not automatic when content is created. This would mean unless you say it's copyrighted and register it...you have no copyright. Very interesting and I think it requires more careful consideration before a commit to an argument.

 

[Jacklin]

You have done a great job.. Really impressive

 

[rjmlar]

Interesting since this really reverses the current stance on copyrights which are not automatic when content is created.

The Copyright Act of 1976 states exclusive rights to creators without registration. Common perception is that once the (c) symbol is attached the work is copyrighted. It's actually simpler than that. Not even the (c) is required for a work to be copyrighted. Copyright is inherent in a work, published or not, the moment it is created.

This would mean unless you say it's copyrighted and register it...you have no copyright. Very interesting and I think it requires more careful consideration before a commit to an argument.

The new 2008 laws affect orphaned works and don't necessarily negate existing copyrights. But the new laws do take away power from artists, writers, etc., that the 1976 laws extended for good reason: abuse. A so-called "orphaned work" is described as one where its copyright cannot be determined, or the original copyright holder cannot be found or is dead. In that case, the new laws will allow anyone to claim orphaned works and re-copyright them. i.e., Works that should go to the creators' heirs or the public domain will become fodder for commercial interests. Not to mention the new industry of copyright registrars these laws are designed to create. It's about money, as usual, and has nothing to do with rights. The 1976 copyright laws need to be left alone and creators should have final say on how their works are used or abused. The timing of the vote on these bills says a lot, too.

 

[NP41215]

new laws will allow anyone to claim orphaned works and re-copyright them. i.e., Works that should go to the creators' heirs or the public domain will become fodder for commercial interests. Not to mention the new industry of copyright registrars these laws are designed to create. It's about money, as usual, and has nothing to do with rights. The 1976 copyright laws need to be left alone and creators should have final say on how their works are used or abused. The timing of the vote on these bills says a lot, too.

It will surely benefit the search engines, the entertainment industry, the media, big corporations and certainly those professions and entities who handle and process the avalanche of copyright registration redtape.

The burden and cost will be borne by the creators, the artists and writers who did the creative work in the first place, but who have the least money or clout, and can least afford.

This is getting to be a pattern.

 

[labrocca]

Alright..thinking about this...I believe orphaned work should just become public domain. It's obvious to me that if you weren't original copyright holder and never sold off those rights exclusively then why should someone be able to take that position. Public domain would still allow places like photosnap and others to use uncopyrighted work for income but wouldn't allow them to sue others for doing the same. Also would prevent a lot of abuse in the system where a copyright holder might just not be around for a couple years or has suddenly found out his work has been effectively stolen. At least if a work is declared abandonded and into public domain a copyright holder hasn't given away his rights to one person. Just seems unfair overall.

 

[rjmlar]

...I believe orphaned work should just become public domain.

As the laws are now, that's how it works if a copyright lapses, which I believe is a 75 year period (or 75 years after the creator's death--I can't remember exactly).

...It's obvious to me that if you weren't original copyright holder and never sold off those rights exclusively then why should someone be able to take that position.

And there is already enough theft to go around with existing laws, so why normalize it?

...At least if a work is declared abandonded and into public domain a copyright holder hasn't given away his rights to one person.

And heirs should have first refusal rights. For now they do.

Just seems unfair overall.

It is. If change in my pocket falls between the sofa cushion, does that make it somebody else's money?

Sometimes we just need to forget all the semantics and trust our instincts. If it looks bad, smells bad, and we don't need it, it's probably garbage.

The burden and cost will be borne by the creators, the artists and writers who did the creative work in the first place, but who have the least money or clout, and can least afford.

Professionals, employed or not, usually have the good sense to copyright their works and cover all the bases. In some cases employers or their agents take care of the red tape and expenses (or own the copyrights themselves). But it's not a practical choice for the majority of creative professionals, especially ones who are self-employed. And in specific fields like photography there are still a lot of questions that need answering. e.g., Do I need to worry about every frame I ever shot? or just the ones I published?

On the surface the new laws seem like a new tax. They're definitely a big waste of everybody's time.