CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Orphan works: Proposed copyright legislation steals your work
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Orphan works: Proposed copyright legislation steals your work

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I sent this out to my friends, and given the amount of creative types on CHUD, thought I'd share here. This is the long and short of it.

I'm not usually one for mass activist emails, but this subject is one that is incredibly important to me and very likely all of you. At the very least, click on this link and skim the article. See if you are not angered to the point of firing off a few impassioned emails at your local politicians. The gist: if this goes through, the ownership of any creative work not registered for copyright automatically reverts to a corporate agency.

Simple analogy to make the point abundantly clear: You bake some muffins. Everyone enjoys a nice, warm muffin, right? Not anymore. See, now there's the Muffin Registration Act, policed by the Muffin Agency. To eat your muffins, to share your muffins, to sell your muffins, to donate your muffins to the local bake sale, you have to register your muffins with the Muffin Agency. Don't have the cash? Those muffins are the Muffin Agency's muffins, Jack, and they will do whatever they want with their muffins unless you pay them for each one to recognize those muffins as yours.

Let's say you don't have a lot of cash, though. Who does these days? Write a really moving poem and post it to your blog? Not your muffin. Snap a beautiful photo of the Eiffel Tower and post it to flickr? Not your muffin. That random sketch you posted on deviantart two years ago you suddenly find the new corporate logo of Hot Topic? Not your muffin. That kickass D&D character you created 20 years ago, post about fondly on a blog, and now find has his own cartoon series, action figure line, and upcoming major motion picture starring Bruce Campbell? Not. Your. Muffin.

I know, an unlikely scenario, but an entirely possible one if this passes. This is not alarmist. This is becoming law. Even if you have no intention of ever creating a single image, song, or fictional character, remember that a lot of aspiring and even established creative folks could be completely screwed by this measure. They will have to pay for the right to call what they created their own. There are even more terrifying implications to this stuff the article sums up better than I could (here's a choice one: multiple muffin agencies = multiple agencies you have to pay to register each and every muffin), but the most important tidbit is this:

Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml to quickly find the phone number, address and e-mail of every U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor and state legislator.

Not only does this measure further corporatize art, it emboldens our government to sacrifice even more of our rights at the altar of the dollar. You can take it from there. Do something about this.
post #2 of 22
as an art student this hit close to home, the fact that this can be done is well, stealing. To register every photo you take, or every work that you complete is not only insane but very expensive. I see this as just more ways for the government to take more money from the people, and for the corporations to find more ways to get what they want without paying for it.. I also find it hard to believe that just some government official was sitting around one day and thought of this...
post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Venkman View Post
I also find it hard to believe that just some government official was sitting around one day and thought of this...
What gets me is that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore. This helps no one but the rich to get richer and disenfranchise everyone else in the process. As an experiment, I defy anyone reading this thread to come up with a way a politician could spin this positively.

The saddest part is that this is likely to succeed because of ignorance.* This kind of shit would not stand in an informed electorate, which actually makes more cynical than the legislation itself.

*including my own. I would know nothing about this if I weren't bored at work trolling for entertainment news.
post #4 of 22
Any idea on when this might try and be passed? is this an ear-mark in another current bill or what?
post #5 of 22
I just sent emails to my State senators and local representatives. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, bendrix. I'm going to pass the information along to every creative person I know.
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Venkman View Post
Any idea on when this might try and be passed? is this an ear-mark in another current bill or what?
I am woefully underinformed on the topic (and to be completely honest, I only skimmed the last few pages before I let my impulsive "I need to compose a mass email in justification of my anger" urge get the better of me). When I get more time, I will research further and post here.
post #7 of 22
Im going to dig into this as well. I just gave the link to a buddy on the West coast so he's going to look into it as well, and since i'm still in art school, this might have to be a flyer..
post #8 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Venkman View Post
Im going to dig into this as well. I just gave the link to a buddy on the West coast so he's going to look into it as well, and since i'm still in art school, this might have to be a flyer..
Cool. Anything you find, please relay it back here.

And make sure you copyright the art on the flyer now rather than later...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Olson View Post
I just sent emails to my State senators and local representatives. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, bendrix. I'm going to pass the information along to every creative person I know.
And thanks, Chris.
post #9 of 22
You should read about the things that when I talk about them no one wants to even believe.

In 20 years we will all be asking how the fuck did we get here!
post #10 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
You should read about the things that when I talk about them no one wants to even believe.

In 20 years we will all be asking how the fuck did we get here!
As much as I hate to say it, a lot of people are asking that now.
post #11 of 22
Well that's only completely fucked. Good thing I file everything of mine as public domain, so NO ONE can profit off of it.
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Well that's only completely fucked. Good thing I file everything of mine as public domain, so NO ONE can profit off of it.
I'm not so sure about that. Say some eager young ad exec is surfing the net and comes across "What's wrong with me?" As it's free for use, he then proceeds to have some anonymous-sounding studio musicians re-record it. It now sounds like a Jet song or something. Anyway, young ad exec guy then takes said re-recording and makes it a central feature of his new ad campaign for some penile enhancement drug with absolutely nothing crediting it (neither the song nor the penile enhancement) to Patrick Ripoll. Seeing as he's being paid for what he does, he actually would be profiting from your work.
post #13 of 22
Here are a couple of sites with more information about all this:

http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php
post #14 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Olson View Post
Here are a couple of sites with more information about all this:

http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php
Excellent. Thank you, Chris. Now I have some info to distribute outside of an animation newsmagazine.
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I'm not so sure about that. Say some eager young ad exec is surfing the net and comes across "What's wrong with me?" As it's free for use, he then proceeds to have some anonymous-sounding studio musicians re-record it. It now sounds like a Jet song or something. Anyway, young ad exec guy then takes said re-recording and makes it a central feature of his new ad campaign for some penile enhancement drug with absolutely nothing crediting it (neither the song nor the penile enhancement) to Patrick Ripoll. Seeing as he's being paid for what he does, he actually would be profiting from your work.
Exactly, Patrick, that's why I pointed you to the creative commons site. If you really want to control how your work is used (say you can use it but can't profit from it, or just be credited) you need to have a license that specifies that.

BTW bendrix I think the explanation of this bill, and even the motivation you provided are not exactly accurate and somewhat unfair. This is trying to solve a legitimate issue, and the bill seems to follow what the copyright office proposed as a solution in a very open process, it doesn't really seem to be something being pushed by corporations to own your work. It is meant to fix the mess they have created by perpetually extending copyright which has gotten out of hand.

This provides a more balanced background on this legislation and a more balanced and studied critique of its flaws;

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyr...han_works.html
(I recommend the video presentation, but its 30+ minutes)
post #16 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post

This provides a more balanced background on this legislation and a more balanced and studied critique of its flaws;

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyr...han_works.html
(I recommend the video presentation, but its 30+ minutes)
Thanks, Capitan, I'll look at it. I'll be the first to admit my reaction was kneejerk.
post #17 of 22
Of course, the best way to clean up the mess caused by perpetually extending copyright is to...stop perpetually extending copyright.

As it currently exists, this law seems like it's going to screw over the little guy and do absolutely nothing to affect the huge corporations (who are the reason copyright keeps getting extended in the first place).

As a Canadian, I'm not 100% sure where I fit in to this law, or what I can do to help.
post #18 of 22
Thread Starter 
Another case against the hysterics I succumbed to in my first post.

http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html

I'm really starting to think I was all kinds of wrong.

http://ursulav.livejournal.com/758643.html

And it gets even better:

http://kynn.livejournal.com/799971.html

I will think before I post in the future.
post #19 of 22
bendrix;

thx for the update, lots of links to further information on that blog post, will check them out. For some strange reason, I find IP/patent/copyright law to be fascinating (even if its a bit of a mess)

[quote=The Prankster;2205034]Of course, the best way to clean up the mess caused by perpetually extending copyright is to...stop perpetually extending copyright.

Quote:
As it currently exists, this law seems like it's going to screw over the little guy and do absolutely nothing to affect the huge corporations (who are the reason copyright keeps getting extended in the first place).
The extensions have been upheld by the supreme court, so not much can be done there I guess. That's going to take a long time to change ...

Quote:
As a Canadian, I'm not 100% sure where I fit in to this law, or what I can do to help.
In their review the copyright office reviewed the Canadian way of dealing with this. They have a single office that you appeal to to submit something as an orphaned work, and they rule on it. They've only done a few hundred, and it's not free.

I'm not sure this approach will scale in the US, probably works in the US because you guys don't produce much interesting copyright worthy content. I kid, I kid ...
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 
Of particular note:

Quote:
Is this actually the case, though?

Well, we could look up the bill and check.

As per Mark Simon's column, and the information on the Illustrators' Partnership web site, the H.R. bill number in the house is ...

Oh, wait.

They don't list a number for the bill. Anywhere. Nobody does.

Why?

Because there is no bill before Congress that enacts any sort of Orphan Works Act.

Repeating that:

There is no bill before Congress that enacts any sort of Orphan Works Act.

There was a bill in 2006, called the 'Orphan Works Act of 2006' (H.R. 5439), introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on May 22, 2006, with no co-sponsors. H.R. 5439 was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee, which assigned it to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The subcommittee passed it back up to the full Judiciary Committee with a voice vote.

The full committee did nothing with the bill and it died in committee.

The Orphan Works Act has not been reintroduced during the 2008 congressional session.

Will it be? Possibly.

What will it say? Nobody knows yet -- Illustrators' Partnership admits as much in an update on their web site.
From http://kynn.livejournal.com/799971.html
post #21 of 22
But then there's this.

It's all getting a bit confusing for me. Granted the Illustrator's Partnership could be full of shit, but their response is well-argued.
post #22 of 22
Your country is fucked! That is all!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Orphan works: Proposed copyright legislation steals your work