PDA

View Full Version : Orphan Works Legislation Threatens Our Copyright Protection



lesford
04-11-2008, 10:38 AM
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605

This is a scary article on new legislation that will overturn copyright protection as we now know it.

It will add to business costs for small businesses that need to be assured of copyright. I, for example would have to set aside hours each week to track my production and register copyrights and would have to pay per image to retain the rights I now take for granted.

This one has to be stopped or we all lose.

Les Ford

Intuition
04-11-2008, 11:07 AM
Hmmm..... I think he may be going a little over the top.

Yes, I think he's right about the fact that people should be concerned about ownership of their works but I don't think any level of legislation will change what is assumed copyright laws.

It would destroy whole segments of the economy and no govt is dumb enough to want to mess with their income.

I think this guy, his motives and concern genuine, is actually lessening the value of what he is trying to say by being alarmist about it.

"Corporations being all greedy and stuff" goes against some basic fundamental truths like the fact that many corporations depend on the very same copyright laws he says they are going to ruin.

There is enough virtue in selfishness to stop this legislation on even a corporate level.

Those that defend good Capitalism (i.e. me) will come out in droves to make sure the current law will not be infringed.

Yes I do agree though that there are many archtypical "Artists types" that are hellbent on having so called apathetic "integrity" that they would allow this to happen right in front of their faces with not much to fight it other then a "that sucks" comment.

lesford
04-11-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm with you all the way on the good capitalism thing, but the recent history of copyright legislation has more than proved a willingness to take a shot in the foot.

Les

CMT
04-11-2008, 11:40 AM
Interesting how they are proposing that you pay for the right of ownership. Those that can't afford to do it for every piece of work they create will be at risk. That's making legal ownership of your own property directly related to wether one can afford to do it. To me that's the very definition of unconstitutional. As soon as you have to pick and choose what you will legally own FROM YOUR OWN CREATIONS... that goes against everything copyright protection should stand for.

Off to write a letter....

theo
04-11-2008, 11:45 AM
M take is somewhat different: This law will require artist to be less apathetic and far more responsible than many currently are. If you don't want orphans being used then resist the urge to let your creations lie about higher and yon without a properly applied copyright.

This may not be nearly as bad as one would think. I am already excessively cautious about my creations in nearly every fashion so this legislation will have little effect on me other than a slight nod to the affirmative.

CMT
04-11-2008, 11:58 AM
A properly applied copyright is one that I shouldn't have to pay for. I wouldn't mind actually having to take time to register my art. But I would however find it unconstitutional to PAY a public or government run registry to gain a right that should be inherently mine to begin with for each and every piece of art I do.

theo
04-11-2008, 12:03 PM
A properly applied copyright is one that I shouldn't have to pay for. I wouldn't mind actually having to take time to register my art. But I would however find it unconstitutional to PAY a public or government run registry to gain a right that should be inherently mine to begin with for each and every piece of art I do.

Copyrighting a creation costs money as of this moment and has for quite some time. Most, if not all, IP attorneys have recommended for years that one purchase a certifiable copyright for a work completed and exposed to the public.

CMT
04-11-2008, 12:43 PM
Copyrighting a creation costs money as of this moment and has for quite some time.

Actually it doesn't.

Here's an except from the following link:
From the U.S.Copyright Office Site (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what)

"Q. Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
A. No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

But in order to pursue damages, you'll need to register. But as far as rights, you gain them the moment you create the work.

theo
04-11-2008, 01:25 PM
Actually it doesn't.

Here's an except from the following link:
From the U.S.Copyright Office Site (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what)

"Q. Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
A. No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

But in order to pursue damages, you'll need to register. But as far as rights, you gain them the moment you create the work.

I realize that a creation can be copyrighted with token symbolism. I wasn't being clear. If you are in business selling artwork or creations that are licensed for use it will absolutely be in your best monetary interest to register that copyright outright rather than just relying on the copyright symbol.

You can create a design, for example, that you are licensing to a client for use on a t-shirt. If you wish to protect that license you are well advised to register the copyright before the client does, plus you will the resulting documentation that can be used in negotiating pricing structures.

I am mainly referring to the more commercial nature of copyrighting rather than the general use category. If you are in business selling creations with IP rights attached the fact that you are registered does work in your favor when doing business with buttheads, the which seem to prevail at many levels in the marketplace.

If the art is for general use and is of little commercial value then who cares about orphan-potential?

CMT
04-11-2008, 02:12 PM
Unfortunately you are correct. In order to actually take action to protect your work, you should register. This is where I think present copyright law is lacking. But that's the current law.

If I create a canvas painting and someone steals it and sells it, I could file charges (if I knew who it was and could prove it) without registering anything at all. But that same thief could, if the opportunity presented itself, scan the image and sell it without repercussion, unless the creator happened to pay and register before the theft occured.

I think that's kinda ridiculous.


If the art is for general use and is of little commercial value then who cares about orphan-potential?

If someone creates a piece of art for fun and doesn't register it, yet some company sees it and decides there's a lot of commercial value to it and decides to infringe their copyright and make a profit from it, then yep, I think I would care about it. I think that the original creator should be compensated for their efforts. Definitely.

Shoplifting a pack of gum is still shoplifting and still a crime. Selling copies of someone else's 5 minutes sketch without their say so is still copyright infringement.

theo
04-11-2008, 02:53 PM
If someone creates a piece of art for fun and doesn't register it, yet some company sees it and decides there's a lot of commercial value to it and decides to infringe their copyright and make a profit from it, then yep, I think I would care about it.

Absolutely. Can't agree more, which is EXACTLY why we need to see artists being far more circumspect with how and where their creations are displayed. If these people would have been doing this all along art would be far more valuable than it currently is.

As it stands now, the marketplace has always been rife with five minute sketches. Perhaps forcing the registration of copyright will make artists more discerning in how they conduct their business. Which I would absolutely be delighted to see.

For once in the history of mankind creatives are forced to be more responsible which makes the marketplace very healthy for people who create as a living.

CMT
04-11-2008, 03:54 PM
I understand what you're saying about artists taking more responsibility for their art. But I think it's a two way street. Companies should be held more responsible for any infringements. They are the one's doing the infringing.

I shouldn't have to post an image WIP on a forum and worry about someone stealing it who might find it sellable as it is, remove your artist identification mark and use it. Not that this happens often, but it's a growing concern.

And now with this new legislation being considered, it's going to be far worse if it passes.

This Q&A from the Illustrator's Partnership (http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00221) explains much better what's really going on with this bill. Basically there will be no penalty for infringers. If a company wants your art, they could say they did a good faith search, came up with nothing and just pay what amounts to "reasonable compensation". So basically they get their profit and you are forced to take your meager share. And that's ONLY if they are caught. And that doesn't include they attorney's fees it may cost you to recover that "reasonable compensation" which could be less than the fees.

theo
04-11-2008, 07:29 PM
I understand what you're saying about artists taking more responsibility for their art. But I think it's a two way street. Companies should be held more responsible for any infringements. They are the one's doing the infringing.

Not even debatable. This is obviously correct to the point I am not entirely sure why you even posted it.



I shouldn't have to post an image WIP on a forum and worry about someone stealing it who might find it sellable as it is, remove your artist identification mark and use it. Not that this happens often, but it's a growing concern.


This is a possibility irregardless of the state of laws governing copyright. Look at the music industry. They have wallets thicker'n hogs and even they cannot fully control the extent to which thieves will resort to steal music.

Just keep your art out of WIPS and galleries if you really want to safeguard a piece. No law is capable of fully protecting your creations online.


Basically there will be no penalty for infringers. If a company wants your art, they could say they did a good faith search, came up with nothing and just pay what amounts to "reasonable compensation". So basically they get their profit and you are forced to take your meager share. And that's ONLY if they are caught. And that doesn't include they attorney's fees it may cost you to recover that "reasonable compensation" which could be less than the fees.

Art creation dates can be locked in stone with digital methods and proper bookkeeping. With this in mind, if a company decides to deem a piece of art as orphan status and proceeds to re-register the copyright my guess is that a win in court would be a slam dunk in your favor if you, indeed, have to file a lawsuit to reassert your ownership of the piece. Attorney's fees can be paid by the losing party in this case.

My gut feeling is art orgs will come out swinging on this one and go for the jugular if a case presents itself-which it will.

robertoortiz
04-11-2008, 08:02 PM
For those who want more information:

Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests of Copyright Owners
and Users (Video webcast )

from Thursday 03/13/2008

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427

And here is a great blog with current information:
http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/

And if you guys want to spread the word...
well DIGG away:
http://digg.com/design/You_Will_Lose_All_The_Rights_to_Your_Own_Art_Photo s (http://digg.com/design/You_Will_Lose_All_The_Rights_to_Your_Own_Art_Photo s)

CMT
04-11-2008, 11:05 PM
Not even debatable. This is obviously correct to the point I am not entirely sure why you even posted it.


If it was obvious to everyone, there wouldn't be this problem, would it?


Art creation dates can be locked in stone with digital methods and proper bookkeeping. With this in mind, if a company decides to deem a piece of art as orphan status and proceeds to re-register the copyright my guess is that a win in court would be a slam dunk in your favor if you, indeed, have to file a lawsuit to reassert your ownership of the piece. Attorney's fees can be paid by the losing party in this case.


The point is that it's pointless to sue under the new proposal. You'd only be getting "reasonable compensation" which probably wouldn't even cover legal fees for your lawsuit. So even if you "win", there's no real deterrent for the infringers to not do it again. It actually becomes a sound business decision to do it. Take the risk, if you don't get caught, you don't pay royalties. Get caught, pay them "reasonable compensation". Some deterrent....

robertoortiz
04-11-2008, 11:42 PM
Guys I am trying to make the frontpage of digg to get more people on board...

Please click here:

http://digg.com/design/You_Will_Lose_All_The_Rights_to_Your_Own_Art_Photo s
Thanks

-R

jin choung
04-12-2008, 01:19 AM
on board what?

cuz if it's fighting orphan works reform, i'm gonna digg you down.

jin

Glendalough
04-12-2008, 06:00 AM
Don't think this is going anywhere as it's against international law which isn't going to change therefore it can't be implemented.

pumeco
04-12-2008, 06:16 AM
No offence intended, but I have only one thing to say to this :

ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!!!

I'm not sure I've ever heard such an impossible proposal in my entire life. They cannot pass such a thing. When people create stuff with, and of their own material, it is theirs, and there is nothing anyone can (or ever will) be able to do about that.

No offence to the Americans in general (you know I love you), but really, such a proposal could only come out of America. If nothing else, I'd just like to thank you for bringing this little bit of nonsense to our attention. I've been in need of a bloody good laugh recently.

Hey, I might burst into a Lamborghini showroom and drive off with a Countach. I'll just tell 'em it's not theirs because they forgot to tell some American company that it IS theirs. Same thing, same stupidity, same impossibility.

Chill folks, it can't and won't happen - period.

ROFLMAO!!!

theo
04-12-2008, 07:00 AM
If it was obvious to everyone, there wouldn't be this problem, would it?


In the context of this conversation it is obvious... anyway, my comment came across more prickly than intended.

CMT
04-12-2008, 09:39 AM
You're right pumeco, it is the same thing basically. But their rational is saying that its for the good of everyone. I'm an American and I'm right there with you. It seems a lot of adult Americans these days have an entitlement mentality which is very childish. They think they should have everything at their disposal. Americans are as spoiled as they come. As a nation, we don't know how good we have it. And we still want more. Now, in our greed, we want to gut the rights of some to basically legalize the theft of their work. I don't think its funny at all.

My profession as an illustrator will be greatly effected by this new proposal and those same spoiled Americans will be voting on the issue. I've written to my senators and pray that they have read the many thousands of letters other artists & photographers have sent and realize as we all do here that this is the most insane bill we've ever heard of. We all know it's insane. But to the spoiled "me first" attitudes that seem to dominate society these days, who knows what will happen.

And Jin, He means on board with us. Our position is clear. The issue is pretty clear. You don't have to read all the blogs or interviews or whatever. The proposed bill is very straightforward if you care to read it. Then decide which side you're on. Here it is in black and white.

Orphan Works Bill PDF (http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/ow-act-2006.pdf)

pumeco
04-12-2008, 01:34 PM
CMT, it always nice to know that there are people in this world for whom nationality is no boundry, so well said.

What really amuses me about it though, is that this proposal is typical of American mentality (i'm sorry friends, but it is). If you live in America then you will likely not realize how this looks to others living outside of America looking in at you. The fact is that when someone creates a work of art, some music, whatever, it is the product of an individuals mind. It is what makes us human, different, and so on. No person or company, American or otherwise, is going to charge me for being me. There is NO WAY on this earth that I will EVER ... pay ANYONE ... or ANYTHING ... absolutely ANYTHING ... to be able to say that I own something that I created.

For f*ck sake, get real.

Anyone who votes for such a proposal is clearly a retard as far as I'm concerned. Needless to say that if I were an American, I'd get off my fat burger-munchin' arse and put a stop to this bollocks before it even has time to get a foothold. All I know is this; If I create a render, it is my creation and is under my copyright. I do not, and WILL NOT pay anything to be able to say it is mine because I don't need to ... it IS mine!

There are times when rebellion is called for, and if they're serious about this crap, I suggest you all go and rebel, and keep rebelling until it is well and truly history! They simply do not have the right to do this to you because it is, in essence, an invasion of freedom and of being who you are.

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 02:50 PM
The question is this: If I make it, don't I also own it?

I think the answer to that question is yes.

That being obviously the case, why the h*LL should I have to pay some pirate entity* to maintain my rights to own and profit from work that I created?!?!?!?

If corporate interests are against this legislation that doesn't make it good or bad. They simply have their own interest and they are looking out for them. So if their interests happen to coincide with mine, I don't feel I have to jump the fence just to be on the other side. Besides I suspect there are corporations that are for this legislation while other corporations are against it. I am sure they will all be heard since they have the money to pay their lobbyist. The real crime here is we have a runaway government that no longer cares to listen to it's people.

We have the very best government money can buy, and unfortunately that makes for very poor government. This whole situation looks like another instance of creeping government encroachment on the rights of the people. We are loosing our rights hand over fist and putting up with it. It is time for this to stop.

pumeco
04-12-2008, 03:24 PM
You're right, it sure as hell does need to stop. But I think the real question is; do you Yankies have the balls to make it stop :)

Like I said, rebel, and don't stop till it is stopped :thumbsup:

Believe it or not, a rebellion is your only option. If people don't rebel against this, you will get this legislation. When governments etc, mention that these things could happen, what it actually means is that it's going to happen. I've personally always thought that British TV users being forced to pay for the BBC channels (even if they don't want to view them) was the biggest legalised con in existence, but this beats even that into oblivion.

The only reason Brits are stupid enough to be forced to pay for something we don't want is because we are too spineless to rebel against it. It shouldn't be allowed, but we stand for it - and therefore we pay for it.

If you guys stand for this bullsh*t, you too will pay for it.

jin choung
04-12-2008, 04:22 PM
oh jeez... just read the beginning of the bill....

‘(A) before the infringing use of the work
began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf
of the infringer, or any person jointly and sev-
erally liable with the infringer for the infringe-
ment of the work—
‘‘(i) performed and documented a rea-
sonably diligent search in good faith to lo-
cate the owner of the infringed copyright;
but
‘‘(ii) was unable to locate the owner;


and consider the title of the subject: "orphan"

it's this kind of reactionism that leads to people invading iraq pre-emptively.... sigh.

jin

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 04:31 PM
This must be what they were talking about when they said "the revolution will not be televised" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCQSk2l8bc)They didn't want to get ripped off. Soooo prophetic. :D

By the way I have always found the arrangement you have in the UK regarding television was a bit strange. I think if I lived there I wouldn't own one.

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 04:47 PM
oh jeez... just read the beginning of the bill....

‘(A) before the infringing use of the work
began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf
of the infringer, or any person jointly and sev-
erally liable with the infringer for the infringe-
ment of the work—
‘‘(i) performed and documented a rea-
sonably diligent search in good faith to lo-
cate the owner of the infringed copyright;
but
‘‘(ii) was unable to locate the owner;


jin

I'm sorry but what has that got to do with compelling me to pay a corporate entity a fee to register my work? If people want to make their work free to the public they can already do it. END OF STORY.

Artist should not be compelled to pay a fee for the privilege of owning the rights to their own work. This legislation is a step back to the time before copyrights. Besides I just don't feel protected by phraseology like
a reasonably diligent search in good faith

WE already get better protection than that, right now, for free, automatically.


it's this kind of reactionism that leads to people invading iraq pre-emptively.... sigh.

I disagree you on how we got into Iraq. We got into Iraq by believing our government knows what is best and we should all shut up and be quiet. We got into Iraq because not enough people rocked the boat! We also got the Patriot act the same way. No the problem here is we are getting soaked by our government and the corporations that own it. It is time to react. The reaction is in fact long overdue.

jin choung
04-12-2008, 05:15 PM
I'm sorry but what has that got to do with compelling me to pay a corporate entity a fee to register my work? If people want to make their work free to the public they can already do it. END OF STORY.

Artist should not be compelled to pay a fee for the privilege of owning the rights to their own work. This legislation is a step back to the time before copyrights. Besides I just don't feel protected by phraseology like


please point out to me where it says this in the pdf so graciously linked.

also, be aware, the side OPPOSING this bill is DISNEY, TIMEWARNER, VIACOM, etc etc.... think about what that means. they DON'T care about YOUR rights as an artist. so what's going on? think about it.

the side FOR orphan works reform is lawrence lessig, the electronic frontier foundation, .orgs. think about it.

you're on the other thread as well but for people who are not aware, there are links there for the other side of the argument.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=82864

I disagree you on how we got into Iraq. We got into Iraq by believing our government knows what is best and we should all shut up and be quiet. We got into Iraq because not enough people rocked the boat! We also got the Patriot act the same way. No the problem here is we are getting soaked by our government and the corporations that own it. It is time to react. The reaction is in fact long overdue.


you're certainly free to disagree but it seems to me we got into iraq because we heard the term "9/11" and the public went apesh1t.... i'm not saying people were not gullible and trusting but it was also a reactionary "jingoistic i'm with america" sentiment that put up the blinders.

yeah the bush administration pulled off their lie but the american public was EAGER to go bomb the sh1t out of something.

and i'm saying we should not be the same way - eager to be fooled. the architects of the opposition of reform (the big media companies) are selling us their agenda (like bush and cronies). we shouldn't be eager to dig in.

but don't believe me.

and don't believe a single post from anyone.

and don't believe that crap animation magazine article....

research and find out before you get angry and mobilized. see who's on what side. read the opposition. don't be a corporate shill.

jin

jin choung
04-12-2008, 05:23 PM
WE already get better protection than that, right now, for free, automatically.

oops, missed this.

yeah, we may get more protection now.... but it may also do more harm than good. it locks down stuff and opens up the potential for lawsuits on stuff where EXTREME ATTEMPTS have been made to locate a rights owner and none has been found. this causes works to lie fallow and dead instead of vibrant and participating in innovation.

that means that things that can and should be used to create new things are just locked down and made to die.

it seems the opposition wants us to believe that corporations will then be using your stuff willy nilly and you lose the rights to your work.

but COME ON. especially for a large corporation with large resources, a GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO LOCATE YOU will... guess what... FIND YOU.

again, look at the words of the issue: ORPHAN WORKS.

it doesn't sound like this is something designed to rip us off... it's designed to prevent litigation against the little guy who can't afford the lawyers to fight back.

and if you are someone who believes in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, read the other side and how opposition to the bill may impact that.

again, all this plays into the big media companies.

jin

jin choung
04-12-2008, 05:26 PM
sorry, one last thing:

read that PDF -

it says that if a rights owner steps forward, they are indeed entitled for compensation. just not PENALTIES for violating the copyright. just not PUNITIVE damages.

yeah this does not sound something that impacts US harmfully.

if you're not osama binladen TRYING to hide in a cave, this does not harm you.

jin

adamredwoods
04-12-2008, 05:57 PM
Hm.

This bill doesn't make sense, unless I'm reading it wrong. Currently, it is the owner's job to enforce a copyright, so most people can use works until the get the "cease and desist" letter. I don't see how this bill fixes anything.

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

I can see how somehting like this would be used for evil, but in the bill there are compensation amendments for if the original copyright holder finds the work in use.

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 06:32 PM
please point out to me where it says this in the pdf so graciously linked.

[QUOTE]‘‘(iii) A reasonably diligent search includes7
the use of reasonably available expert assistance8
and reasonably available technology, which may9
include, if reasonable under the circumstances,10
resources for which a charge or subscription fee11
is imposed.12


In other words, they can say they have done due diligence if they check a commercial database that charges a fee. If your work is not in that database because you chose not to subscribe to that service then you are S.O.L.

Like a lot of legislation they don't come right out and tell you how it's going to hurt your interests. That sort of thing tends to get people upset and they start piping up. If you only look at each paragraph as a separate entity you won't see the full implication of the law. You have to look at how that section of the law relates to the whole. This legislation has more loopholes that a shag carpet.

Sure we have a problem with orphan works, but that is why copyright protection automatically expires after a period of time.


The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As far as what is not available to me in the public domain right now, well I can wait because it sure beats getting ripped off. Boohoo for all those poor orphan works everybody is worried about not seeing, but just maybe the originator had an interest in not licensing them or putting them in the public domain. Shouldn't we respect that? We will get to see them by and by. What is the rush?


also, be aware, the side OPPOSING this bill is DISNEY, TIMEWARNER, VIACOM, etc etc.... think about what that means. they DON'T care about YOUR rights as an artist. so what's going on? think about it.

That is interesting, but it is in itself not a compelling argument. IE. Hitler was a vegetarian ergo vegetarianism must be evil. To make this a relevant point you would need to illustrate how how big horrible Disney is served by the status quo, and even then I'm not sure that your argument for this legislation would be any stronger for it.


the side FOR orphan works reform is lawrence lessig, the electronic frontier foundation, .orgs. think about it.

This is also not relivent for the same reason as stated in the case above. More over their endorsement does not make an argument for changing the rules midway through the game any more than the good housekeeping seal of approval would cause you to buy a particular brand of mop.


I disagree you on how we got into Iraq.


Iraq is definitely a worthy subject for a debate but it really doesn't have much to do with copyright law.

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 06:36 PM
Hm.

This bill doesn't make sense, unless I'm reading it wrong. Currently, it is the owner's job to enforce a copyright, so most people can use works until the get the "cease and desist" letter. I don't see how this bill fixes anything.

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

I can see how somehting like this would be used for evil, but in the bill there are compensation amendments for if the original copyright holder finds the work in use.

I don't think this law is about protecting the original author of the material. In fact I think it will have quite the opposite affect in that regard, but that's just my take after reading the proposed legislation.

paulk
04-12-2008, 07:25 PM
. . .Chill folks, it can't and won't happen - period.



Actually, it already has.

I found out about orphan works on the "Cagle's Column" blog on the political cartoon website www.cagle.com.

An artist had created an image of a woman with a new-wavey kind of hair-do, wearing headphones and with her mouth open, singing along with her music. This was the artist's "signature" piece, used on promotional postcards.

The image was ripped off from one of the postcards and used in an advertising campaign by a tobacco company. The artist sued and won, after something like $100,000 in legal expenses. The tobacco company claimed it had tried really, really, really hard to find out who the artist was, but that a multi-billion dollar company just didn't have the resources and skills to find out.

I know if I were sending out promotional material, I'd never put any contact information anywhere on it, so it would seem really mysterious and exotic, and people wouldn't rest until they found me.

Sarcasm aside, this happened under the current copyright system, where artists supposedly have the law on their side. Just imagine what could happen if a work in dispute was presumed to be "orphaned".

pumeco
04-12-2008, 07:56 PM
oh jeez... just read the beginning of the bill....

‘(A) before the infringing use of the work
began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf
of the infringer, or any person jointly and sev-
erally liable with the infringer for the infringe-
ment of the work—
‘‘(i) performed and documented a rea-
sonably diligent search in good faith to lo-
cate the owner of the infringed copyright;
but
‘‘(ii) was unable to locate the owner;


and consider the title of the subject: "orphan"

it's this kind of reactionism that leads to people invading iraq pre-emptively.... sigh.

jin

Jin, I wonder if you realise it's your kind of lax attitude that gives these people the bare faced cheek to even come up with such ******** in the firstplace. I suggest you re-read what I wrote and think very carefully about what this "bill" is actually going to do to you in real terms.

It's not just this bill you want to be worrying about. Don't tell me you're so nieve that you don't realize it's just another great American legal farce designed to give the 'big boys' a nice sturdy stepping stone to do as they wish. It's not there for your benefit, it's for theirs.

Still, if you like your human rights being stolen from beneath you just so that the "big boys" can rip you off even more than they already do, then I'm lost for words (and lets face it, that doesn't happen often).

Trust me, they aren't splashing out millions of dollars on legal crap for your sake, man.
For crying out load, Jin, wake up.

pumeco
04-12-2008, 07:58 PM
paulk, then I suggest you start the rebelling ... FULL-TIME!!!!
Good luck fellas :thumbsup:

robertoortiz
04-12-2008, 08:18 PM
Guys, I would suggest t fight by spreading the word

Go to
http://www.congress.org

The "My Elected Officials" box on the left is a quick way to get all your representative's contact info.

Tell them exactly what you think of this proposed law.

And please Digg the article...

http://digg.com/design/You_Will_Lose_All_The_Rights_to_Your_Own_Art_Photo s

So we can spread the word.

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 08:22 PM
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REMEDIES IN CASES INVOLVING1
ORPHAN WORKS.2


In laymen's terms that translates to "We are taking the teeth out of the law":twak:

This takes away any fear a company may have of violating your copyright... unless of you upgrade to Copyright 2.0 which is a fee based arrangement between you and a non government corporation.:thumbsup::beta:

Remember that a remedy is where you are allowed to seek compensation after some other party has stepped on your rights and privileges. Please read it again :)


SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REMEDIES IN CASES INVOLVING1
ORPHAN WORKS.2


Now how is that better than what we have now?

U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork)


What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.


When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.


Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

robertoortiz
04-12-2008, 08:48 PM
Well in the spirit of fairness, here is a counter argument...



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

rakker16mm
04-12-2008, 09:38 PM
OK lets start with...


For instance, suppose that you have your parents' wedding album, and the photos in it are starting to fade. You go to a photo shop to get the pictures scanned and digitally retouched, so that you can save them on DVD to show your kids in ten years. However, the copyright on those photos belongs to the photographer, not you or your parents. The photo shop tells you that unless you can get permission from the copyright holder, they can't do anything with the photos. Do you know who your parents' wedding photographer was? Do they remember? What if the company the photographer worked for has since gone out of business, and nobody can track down the individual person who took the photos? The pictures are "orphaned works", and no one knows who owns the rights on them.

Although many professional photographers would turn you away most people have flatbed scanners or friends with flatbed scanners and you are probably with in reasonable shouting distance of the fair use guidelines. In any case you probably aren't going to jail for archiving wedding picture.


Or what if you're cleaning out your great-aunt's attic, and you find a box full of pictures of your town as it was 100 years ago? The local history museum would love to add them to its collection -- but it can't, unless you, your great-aunt, or somebody can track down the original photographer and secure his or her permission (or the photographer's estate's permission, if the photographer's dead) to donate the photos. (Copyright in the United States lasts for life of the creator plus 75 (EDIT: 70, for works created today, older works are weird, see here for details; thanks for the correction, internets) years, so chances are, even 100-year-old photos are still under copyright. Thank Disney for that one, guys.)

If this is the problem then it can be fixed with out gutting every one els's copyrights. If the life + 70 years is too long it could be shortened or better yet an exemption could be made for museums and libraries.


But Mark Simon apparently believes that enacting legislation to handle orphaned works in a way that protects people who legitimately try to find the original copyright holder, but can't, will lead to the effective invalidation of copyright on ALL UNREGISTERED ART EVERYWHERE OMGZ CALL OUT THE CAVALRY. His article, which I linked above, is miserably poorly researched, jumps to completely illogical conclusions, and, most retardedly of all, implores artists to letterbomb Congress in protest of proposed legislation which does not actually exist. Someone please tell me where this guy is getting the crack he's smoking, because I want to avoid that streetcorner and everything in a six-block radius, kthx.

It is rather interesting that she is accusing him of hyperbole while engaging in it herself. Pot calling the kettle black and all. No where in her argument thus far does she counter any of his points with a logical argument. She feels the need for whatever reason to call him a crack addict before she takes on any of his positions. By doing so she is attempting to prejudice us against him before we have a chance to come to our own conclusion.

This is an appeal to emotion, and is not generally considered acceptable debate tactic. I think this is a very important debate that potentially affects us all and I hope we can find a way to debate this issue without degrading others for their opinions, no matter how strongly we may disagree.

I'm not going to go in and counter all her arguments. If you want to read them for yourself I would recommend disregarding all the name calling and see if her arguments make sense to you. She does go on to advise that people do some research which I think is a great idea. I suggest starting with reading the proposed legislation and coming to your own conclusions rather than letting some one els come to it for you. All the legal mumbo-jumbo may be a little off putting but doing your own thinking still seems like the best bet for avoiding the wool being pulled over your eyes.

jin choung
04-12-2008, 11:36 PM
For crying out load, Jin, wake up.

actually, i say that right back at you.

and i'm not being LAX. urgency without knowledge is the height of stupidity.

stop being a reactionary headless chicken and stop long enough to breathe and think.

don't end up being a pawn of VIACOM, DISNEY, etc....

it's stuff like this - latching onto the first blush of something that may possibly potentially be against your interests in the slightest way - that makes society so predictably idiotic. so easily manipulatable by politicians.

the ludicrous logic of "we've been attacked by terrorists! let's go beat up a random muslim person! or trash the storefront of an ethnic business that's not flying the american flag! i don't want to think, i want to be angry and act!"

or

"let's burn dixie chicks albums!!!!"

but with such, there is no discussion. so go ahead. do as you will, there is no talk possible that will change your mind. so go rage.

no sense in wasting my breath on the likes of you.

jin

jin choung
04-12-2008, 11:49 PM
[QUOTE=rakker16mm;686234]In other words, they can say they have done due diligence if they check a commercial database that charges a fee. If your work is not in that database because you chose not to subscribe to that service then you are S.O.L.

be honest enough with me that you can see how your interpretation does NOT follow necessarily from what is written.

there is NO mention of EXCLUSIVITY of that kind of paid registration service. in fact, i've never seen such a clustering of "MAY" and "INCLUDE"... as in may NOT and included among other acts of due diligence.

AS I SAID - UNLESS YOU ARE BIN LADEN HIDING IN A CAVE, "DUE DILIGENCE" and "GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT" will find you.

ALSO, continue reading. if you become aware of your work being used, you can SECURE COMPENSATION. it is not about trying to RIP SOMEONE OFF.

but it IS about limiting PUNITIVE DAMAGES against someone who made a good faith attempt at finding the proper copyright holder.

Sure we have a problem with orphan works, but that is why copyright protection automatically expires after a period of time.

large corporations like disney constantly revise the law to extend this "period of time".

That is interesting, but it is in itself not a compelling argument. IE. Hitler was a vegetarian ergo vegetarianism must be evil. To make this a relevant point you would need to illustrate how how big horrible Disney is served by the status quo, and even then I'm not sure that your argument for this legislation would be any stronger for it.

and neither am i arguing that this in and of itself is a compelling argument.

but it is a COMPELLING POINT! WHY? DISNEY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. DISNEY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US.

so what's in it for them?

i'm not saying that guilt by association is enough to scuttle the argument.

i'm saying THINK ABOUT IT. evidently, people are more apt to get pissed and wanting to lynch something than THINK. but i'm saying THINK.


This is also not relivent for the same reason as stated in the case above. More over their endorsement does not make an argument for changing the rules midway through the game any more than the good housekeeping seal of approval would cause you to buy a particular brand of mop.

again, i'm not saying this definitively proves anything either.

BUT JUST CONSIDER:

DISNEY, VIACOM, TIMEWARNER, BIG MEDIA COMPANIES on one side
lawrence lessig, eff, .orgs, library associations on the other.

corporations don't champion anything except that which is in THEIR BEST INTEREST.

the .orgs and eff and such fight for individual rights.

and yet, people go around saying, "fight this or else corporations are going to steal your images". but these corporations are somehow on the same side of this fight as you - the artist?! WHY DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO ANYBODY?

again, it is NOT conclusive. BUT IT'S FING INTERESTING DONTCHA THINK?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

again, i'm JUST ASKING PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT IT.

instead of going off half-cocked. people always go off half cocked. that's how lynchings happen. that's how mobs happen. that's how politicians manipulate people. appealing to their fears. blinding them.

i'm saying don't be a pawn for anybody.
also, follow the money. who's paying for the support of reform, who's paying for the opposition. ask why.

PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR MINDS AT THE DROP OF A HAT. people have made up their mind in these threads. even though they just heard of it. i'm saying that's stupid. i'm saying look into it. look into it on your own. google. look at the other side of the argument.


jin

rakker16mm
04-13-2008, 12:45 AM
[QUOTE=rakker16mm;686234]In other words, they can say they have done due diligence if they check a commercial database that charges a fee. If your work is not in that database because you chose not to subscribe to that service then you are S.O.L.

My point is this. The proposed legislation in it's current form seems very loosely worded. I prefer a body of law that is more narrowly defined. Call me anal if you want to, but I just hate being the victim of "Unintended" consequences.


be honest enough with me that you can see how your interpretation does NOT follow necessarily from what is written. I'm sorry. I have no idea what you are asking here, but I feel you may be impuning that I have come to my conclusion casually or dishonestly. If you could clear that up, perhaps I can answer your point



AS I SAID - UNLESS YOU ARE BIN LADEN HIDING IN A CAVE, "DUE DILIGENCE" and "GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT" will find you.

Enough people are getting ripped off right now even as uptight as the status quo may seem to people who want more legitimate access to our cultural assets, and given that so many people are getting screwed as it is I just don't see how limiting reparations can possibly be a good idea. As I pointed out in an earlier post there are other remedies for orphaned works. Lets talk about specific exemptions for instance. IE Libraries, Museums, Educational and Scholarly Institutions.


ALSO, continue reading. if you become aware of your work being used, you can SECURE COMPENSATION. it is not about trying to RIP SOMEONE OFF.

but it IS about limiting PUNITIVE DAMAGES against someone who made a good faith attempt at finding the proper copyright holder.

Yes and by limiting punitive damges, you also take the teeth out of the law which increases the likelyhood of abuse, and then when that abuse occurs you may find you have a hard time getting a lawyer to take your case pro bono, since there will likely by very little for them to gain. In other words it's you against Goliath.

Sure we have a problem with orphan works, but that is why copyright protection automatically expires after a period of time.


large corporations like disney constantly revise the law to extend this "period of time". And this hurts me how?

That is interesting, but it is in itself not a compelling argument. IE. Hitler was a vegetarian ergo vegetarianism must be evil. To make this a relevant point you would need to illustrate how how big horrible Disney is served by the status quo, and even then I'm not sure that your argument for this legislation would be any stronger for it.


and neither am i arguing that this in and of itself is a compelling argument.

but it is a COMPELLING POINT! WHY? DISNEY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. DISNEY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US. That's OK. I don't care about them either. I'm not going to try and rip them off by pirating their intelectual and artistic property. I would rather make my own.



BUT JUST CONSIDER:

DISNEY, VIACOM, TIMEWARNER, BIG MEDIA COMPANIES on one side
lawrence lessig, eff, .orgs, library associations on the other.

Again we can remedy that with a more narrowly defined law that makes such exemptions for such institutions.


corporations don't champion anything except that which is in THEIR BEST INTEREST. But sometimes their interest coincide with that of mom & pop business and artists. The copyright laws that protect Disney's claim on Mickey Mouse also protect my claim on Charlatan Spoonman.


the .orgs and eff and such fight for individual rights.But that is a bit of a simplification isn't it? They don't all have the same agenda. In fact there are some non profits out there that are advocating some very narrow minded stuff.


and yet, people go around saying, "fight this or else corporations are going to steal your images". but these corporations are somehow on the same side of this fight as you - the artist?! WHY DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO ANYBODY? I'm not one of those people who goes running around at corporations just because they are corporations. I have corporations that I don't like such as Enron, and I have some that I do like such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (http://www.cpb.org/) and KQED (http://www.kqed.org/about/) Just because an organization has become a corporation doesn't make them evil. My Mom formed a corporation. All it is, is a legal status. Nothing more.



instead of going off half-cocked. people always go off half cocked. that's how lynchings happen. that's how mobs happen. that's how politicians manipulate people. appealing to their fears. blinding them.

I hope you are not talking about me. Are you? I have given this subject quite a bit of thought and besides I'm not forming a lynch mob. I am sorry but I have to say that you are resorting to hyperbole in this case instead of countering with a compelling argument. My feeling was actually that you yourself have only recently become aware or this particular legislation, but perhaps I have read too much into your post.


aha... i knew this sounded like a sham/bait and switch/notasblackandwhite as you thought issue.... just google it... orphaned works to see a broader outlay of the issue.


PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR MINDS AT THE DROP OF A HAT. people have made up their mind in these threads. even though they just heard of it. i'm saying that's stupid. i'm saying look into it. look into it on your own. google. look at the other side of the argument.

jin choung
04-13-2008, 01:16 AM
[QUOTE=jin choung;686293] I'm sorry. I have no idea what you are asking here, but I feel you may be impuning that I have come to my conclusion casually or dishonestly. If you could clear that up, perhaps I can answer your point

i am not "impugning" your honesty. i am saying that your argument does not follow NECESSARILY from the words of the bill.

you are making conclusions that do not reflect the language of the bill.

i am saying read it again and ask yourself what "may" and "including means.


tbc

jin choung
04-13-2008, 01:17 AM
[QUOTE=jin choung;686293]
Yes and by limiting punitive damges, you also take the teeth out of the law which increases the likelyhood of abuse, and then when that abuse occurs you may find you have a hard time getting a lawyer to take your case pro bono, since there will likely by very little for them to gain. In other words it's you against Goliath.


that doesn't make sense at all. it's saying you'll get what's coming to you, what is fair. and not some trumped up, "i spilled hot mcdonald's coffee" on myself.

tbc

jin choung
04-13-2008, 01:21 AM
[QUOTE=jin choung;686293]
I hope you are not talking about me. Are you? I have given this subject quite a bit of thought and besides I'm not forming a lynch mob. I am sorry but I have to say that you are resorting to hyperbole in this case instead of countering with a compelling argument. My feeling was actually that you yourself have only recently become aware or this particular legislation, but perhaps I have read too much into your post.

i am NOT talking about you. that's why i'm still talking to you. but the topics as posted in these forums and the attempt at mobilizing people on something that they're evidently only half informed of - that's what i'm talking about.

and yes, i have JUST NOW become aware of this.

and what am i doing about it?

NOTHING. because i don't know enough about it yet.

correction. i am doing ONE THING. i am asking people to THINK ABOUT IT. to get all the information. to don't be a shill.

i have not come to even a firm conclusion for myself yet. i fully admit that i can be COMPLETELY WRONG about what this reform bill is supposed to be. but i'm seeing a lot of things that are validating the other side.

i have JUST NOW BECOME AWARE OF THIS AS AN ISSUE. absolutely. and i'm saying THINK ABOUT IT FIRST.

jin

jin choung
04-13-2008, 01:25 AM
regarding corporations:

one of the arguments posted in one of these threads is that this bill somehow empowers corporations to rip off the little guy like us - artists.

you say that interests may coincide. fine. possible. but the argument made above is that we would be at the mercy of corporations.

but i'm saying - how does it make sense then that the corporations are the ones that are against this bill?

i am saying that that does not make sense. there's bs going on here.

regarding lawrence lessig, eff and library .orgs... as i said, not conclusive evidence and may be a generalization that they look out for the interests of individuals. but look at what they fight for. look at their agendas. look at their track record. it doesn't mean nothing either.

jin

rakker16mm
04-13-2008, 02:17 AM
OK that's fine, but I did read the proposed legislation and I do find some things about it to be at least a little bit troubling. Much of it is vaguely worded. For instance terminology such as "Due Diligence" is highly contextual, and "Good Faith" is another one that raises big red flags for me as well. There's a lot of wiggle room in there, IE loopholes, and loopholes get used to screw people.

Even though I would like to see more orphaned works making it into the public domain, I think this legislation will cause more problems than it solves. It doesn't really matter what the authors of the law are trying to achieve, what really matters is what happens after the law is passed. There is one law that always seems to supersede all the other laws, the law of unintended consequences.

jin choung
04-13-2008, 02:56 AM
right. good.

and i've no doubt you read the bill and carefully. and i'm certainly not contesting your intelligence. but here's the thing. i'm not a lawyer. are you? i'm assuming not.

the language seems EXTREMELY VAGUE to me too! and not just that - some of it seems BARELY COMPREHENSIBLE!

but that might really be because i am not a lawyer. for example, the words "due diligence" and "good faith attempt" may be extremely loaded legal words for all i know.

also, have you read a lot of bills? I HAVE NOT. but it might be that this bill is worded no more or less precisely than any other bill in history that has passed into law. it may be no more or less precise than the previous bill that has become CURRENT COPYRIGHT LAW . so holding this specific bill, that has by circumstance, drifted into our attention to an arbitrarily high standard of precision is not necessarily valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------
that's why i keep making appeals to look at the SIDES - because reading that bill may do US very little actual good. who's on what side? as you remind us, this does not say EVERYTHING. it is not conclusive of ANYTHING.

BUT... neither is it NOTHING.

it is not ALL TELLING but it IS TELLING - who initiated the reform and backs it? what is their agenda? what has been their agenda? and who opposes it? what is their agenda? what has been their agenda?

and that's why i am saying google. look around. you, i and nobody here (i assume) are lawyers. and so we are at the mercy of this stuff being INTERPRETED FOR US (rightly... by people who are more cognizant of laws and such).

and i don't think i need to say that the interpretation of one vested interest will seem very different from the other.

so my exhortation to the community is merely read both. follow the money. who's backing what and why. and don't get excited because it casts a shadow on your interests. it might just be a drifting leaf.

jin

theo
04-13-2008, 07:13 AM
Orphaned works do need to be defined, somehow, in a way where they can be utilized fairly by interested parties.

The crux of the entire legislative piece is narrowed to a rather unsettling aspect (to creatives) of what constitutes a reasonable search for the owner of a copyright and the resulting ease at which a work can be declared orphaned if, indeed, the owner of the copyright cannot be located.

My contention is that this process is not going to be very easy to defend in court, whether or not 'orphan' is attached to the piece.

In other words, the same exact steps you would be forced to undertake at the present to receive proper compensation for the misuse of your work would duplicate the effort required if the work was illegally declared an orphan.

Sleazebags are going to work quite hard to rip artists off well into the coming centuries no matter what the art is declared. It is the classic entanglement struggle between creativity and capitalism.

Unfortunately, capitalist interests have far better management principles in place with which to govern the creative, whose bohemian approach to business pretty well sucks as a historical whole.

pumeco
04-13-2008, 12:52 PM
...no sense in wasting my breath on the likes of you.

jin
Then please ... don't ... it'll save me having to put a few hours aside to wade through your nonsense. We'll see if all this bandering around the reality with fancy sentences and words will actually get you anywhere or make you any the wiser.

You guys need to put a stop to this crap or you'll pay for it through your eyes and nose - and that's that. If you can't see that, then I'm actually quite sorry for you. I'm not going to argue this point any longer. Only time will tell whether the pum' is right on this one, and I'm 99.9% sure he is so if I were you, I'd stop talking crap and listen...

...to the likes of me :)

rakker16mm
04-14-2008, 12:31 AM
I just wanted to add a couple of hypotheticals that might help add a little perspective to this debate.

Just suppose that some one starts using your work with out your permission. Really this kind of thing happens all the time and that is why we need to have copyright laws. So now you need to take some action to protect your interests.

Naturally you start with politely worded C&D order, but to no avail. This also happens and when it does your only remedy to to take the offending party to court.

Now then, when you get your day in court under the current system your rights are very clear. They offending party has either violated your copyright or they haven't. It's very easy to prove... well if you keep good records it should be anyway.

In contrast, under the proposed system, the offending party can argue that they have exercised "Due Diligence" and made a "Good Faith" effort to find the originator of the work. Gee that doesn't seem quite as cut and dry does it? AND PLEASE don't forget these are the people who didn't bother to stop using your work for their own gain when you sent that nicely worded C&D, BUT if they can convince the judge that they did their level best to find you then you don't get diddley-squat for compensation. This law is intended to limit remedies and that is I suspect exactly what it is going to do.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
further less related thoughts

This law may be intended to help bring important works into the public domain, but when I weigh the stated benifits against the potential harm this law doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Further more there really is no reason to go this route when the "Fair Use Guidelines" could be strengthened to accomplish what they were originally intended to do. The real problem that this law is attempting to fix was caused by a few bench mark cases back in the 90's that weakened the fair use guidelines. This is actually the stated purpose of the legislation.

There were a lot of high profile lawsuits in the 1990's. One of the most memorable had to do with a Scholarly paper written about Elron Hubbard. Unfortunately a google search did not turn up any evidence of it, but the Church of Scientology is a very litigious organization so I was able to present you with some other interesting tidbits.


The Post does not deny that it copied the AT dcouments and quoted from them. It argues, however, that this copying and these quotations fall squarely within the "fair use" exception. Thus, the dispositive issue as to the copyright claim is whether or not The Post's use of the AT documents falls within the fair use exception to the copyright law. Under that exception, "the fair use of copyright ...for purpose such as criticism, comment, newsreporting ... or research, is not an infringment of copyright." 17 U.S.C.A. & 107 (West Supp. 1995) (emphasis added).

If you want to reference the doc you can follow this link > http://www.spaink.net/cos/coskit/ks-047.html

Fair use: Use it or loose it.....

jin choung
04-14-2008, 12:43 AM
In contrast, under the proposed system, the offending party can argue that they have exercised "Due Diligence" and made a "Good Faith" effort to find the originator of the work.

...

you're not a lawyer. neither am i. so it's not really doing anything pro or con in discussing matters as if we were.

do you know what the burden of proof for "good faith effort" is? or the one for "due diligence"? in a court of law?

NEITHER DO I!

you can assume that it's easy to fake.

i can assume it's not.

who's right?
--------------------------------------------------------------

in any case, read the bill again if you must. either they pay you for the privelege of using, they pull it or something something....

there's nothing in there that allows them to just take off with your work after you step forward and claim it.

---------------------------------------------------------------

jin

rakker16mm
04-14-2008, 01:19 AM
Right and neither of us are rocket scientist either but I think we can tell that a Buick won't fly us to the moon and back. Discounting what I say because I am not a lawyer is not the same thing as a logical rebuttal, because a logical argument can stand on its own. That is the beauty of logic.

The stated purpose of the law is very clearly written in the first few lines. It seeks to limit remedies. I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand that. In other laws where that phraseology has been people soon found out they didn't need to bother suing since they weren't going to get anything out of it. Mind you it isn't so much that I would like to sue, but that if and when the day comes I want to have some redress. Being able to bring a lawsuit also serves as a deterrent to would be copyright violators. Under the new legislation they now have what in effect is plausible deniability.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that there is a big difference between a true dichotomy such as: the violation took place or the violation did not take place Verses the much weaker proposed Due Diligence & Good Faith Effort

I understand the difference because it is a simple matter of logic, but if you wan to contend that you are not qualified to debate this topic because you are not a lawyer that is your choice. I however will keep writing because I am seriously concerned about this legislation.

It is not as if this stuff is all hypothetical you know. As a creative you have a vested interest in the copyright system being a strong healthy body of law with plenty of teeth in it. I'm sorry if you don't recognize that or if it is that you have some other agenda like make every work of art created public domain... then you can argue that point as well. I personally am not the biggest fan of unfettered capitalism but it is the system we have for now, and that being the case I need to take care of my rights so that a can survive in this system.... at least until we come up with something better.

I have family that has been ripped off for their intellectual property so this is something I have been looking at for some time now. To me this is not abstract. So I'm here to have my say.



...

you're not a lawyer. neither am i. so it's not really doing anything pro or con in discussing matters as if we were.

do you know what the burden of proof for "good faith effort" is? or the one for "due diligence"? in a court of law?

NEITHER DO I!

you can assume that it's easy to fake.

i can assume it's not.

who's right?
--------------------------------------------------------------

in any case, read the bill again if you must. either they pay you for the privelege of using, they pull it or something something....

there's nothing in there that allows them to just take off with your work after you step forward and claim it.

---------------------------------------------------------------

jin

jin choung
04-14-2008, 05:21 AM
Right and neither of us are rocket scientist either but I think we can tell that a Buick won't fly us to the moon and back.

ugh.

the analogy is wrong. that would be like us saying that bill is about dog leashing. the correct analogy is that we're not rocket scientists and yet we're trying to decide the significance of a gyroscope for attaining a proper orbit.

....

the logical rebuttal: you are not qualified to judge legalese with any degree of significance.

this is not an insult.

just as it is not an insult to say that you are not qualified to perform brain surgery.

LOGIC ONLY GOES SO FAR. logic does not make you an expert at anything. logic does not make you capable of arguing a court case. people don't STUDY law because they've got nothing better to do. there may be all kinds of ramifications of the language that we are missing because we don't know law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DO YOU READ A LOT OF BILLS?

(cuz i don't)

and YET you are criticizing the language of the bill, even though it may be no more or less precise than other bills. or even the bill that became our current copyright law.

have you even read the previous bill that has become our current copyright law? ( cuz i haven't )

i'm saying THAT'S not useful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

but...

you evidently feel qualified to parse the language of the bill and render judgment on it.

by all means, have your say. be my guest.

the stage is yours. i'm heading for the exits.

jin

CMT
04-14-2008, 09:08 AM
Come on, Jin..... What's the deal with you Jin? You must like the drama.... You keep arguing and arguing about this as if we have jumped to the wrong conclusion when you've even pretty much stated you don't know what you're talking about. That's like the pot calling the kettle black, when the pot was blind to begin with.....

I have read the proposed bill thoroughly. It's not like it's written in greek. It's in plain english. This isn't brain surgery or anything beyond the comprehension of the average person. We aren't stupid. Anyone taking the time to read through it in it's entirety can see the picture. There's no big words in there. Just a lot of redundant text which is necessary to keep it clear as to who gets what rights (as in most legal documents).

And who are YOU to say that someone isn't qualified to understand something? You have no credentials which says you know the intellectual capacity of anyone, despite their profession.

And knowing that there are some areas of wording in it that are vague, we can see how some will twist it to their advantage. I don't WANT to interpret the bill that way, but rest assured others will. Because THAT'S the way it's worded.


read that PDF -

it says that if a rights owner steps forward, they are indeed entitled for compensation. just not PENALTIES for violating the copyright. just not PUNITIVE damages.

yeah this does not sound something that impacts US harmfully.


God! Think about what you just said..... If the punishment for copyright infringement becomes profits we would have received anyway if we would have done business with the infringing company, then there's no real penalty, is there? In essence legalizing the theft and becoming a sound business decision. Only the artists' right to decide has been removed from the equation..... Their RIGHT TO DECIDE to run their business how they want to.

Doesn't impact the US harmfully.... Pshhhh!

CMT
04-14-2008, 09:34 AM
that doesn't make sense at all. it's saying you'll get what's coming to you, what is fair. and not some trumped up, "i spilled hot mcdonald's coffee" on myself.

tbc

Hold on. Your perspective on this seems skewed.

This isn't about some frivolous issue. This is about someone stealing the work of another. If a big company uses my work without my permission. It's theft. Whether they realized it or not. Just like a car accident where one didn't "mean to" hit the other car. They are still liable. Under present law, I would be entitled to any additional damages the law allows. I'm sure that if the company can prove it made a good faith attempt in court, then the judge would take that into consideration and damages would be small. But they would think twice about using art they weren't 100% sure belonged to someone. And so would other companies thus there is now some deterrent to doing it.

Under the new proposal, that same company wouldn't pay any damages other that (reasonable compensation) if caught whether they meant to steal it or not.

jin choung
04-14-2008, 11:27 AM
....

and the point that everybody so easily ignores....

protections do not apply if you can show that there was not a good faith attempt to find you. and that is the point that you guys are saying is so easy circumvent? that with all the ludicrously robust resources of the interwebs where a few moments search can turn up not only the identity but most probably the social security number of any denizen of it, it would be easy for someone to say, "gee i couldn't find him"? i disagree. i'm not a lawyer. you're not a lawyer. so who's right? sigh.... blah....

i leave it you guys then. light the torches. break out the pitchforks. mobilize the frenzied mob.

as i said, i'm done.

jin

CMT
04-14-2008, 12:31 PM
:confused: Huh?

Jin, the point isn't being ignored, what are you talking about?

How easy is it really? Have you even tried to find the identity of someone who created a piece of artwork without an identifying mark and tried to contact them? You might not have much of a problem if the art is well known and posted on several sites and you had a few weeks to research it. But with a piece that isn't as well known, then you'll be hard pressed to find the creator at all without any info other than an image. It isn't as easy as you think. Yet how easy is it to remove an identifying mark from an image?

If it's so easy, how about you show us? I'll post a random image without the creator's mark and see if you can locate the owner. How about that? I'll even narrow it down to someone I know - an artist buddy of mine, if he's willing. I'll help you out a little more. He's even here in Cincinnati with me. He lives only 15 minutes from my house here in West Chester. And you don't even have to find contact info, just let me know who it is. It shouldn't take you what.... a day or two? heh.

You're so quick to dismiss the issue without even understanding it.....

jin choung
04-14-2008, 12:40 PM
alas, i think the same about you. so we're even.

as for identifying marks, if you're putting your work out there, wouldn't you bother to put some? pffft. talk about not understanding....

and have YOU tried to find out? how do YOU know that it's so hard? talk about not understanding....

anyway, this predictably facile inflammation of vested interests wearies me. as i said, there's no common ground to discuss.... no good to be gained from it.... i am done... please don't address me further and just go ahead and whip your troops into a frenzy.

jin

CMT
04-14-2008, 01:33 PM
Mmmm no, I think I'll address you further since you left us a little fire before you left....

Yes, Jin, I HAVE tried to find the creator of certain works, so that I could see what else they might have created. That's how passionate I am about art. I love seeing what other art those artists might have created and am willing to take some time and look for other works they have done. Occasionally, but not very often, it's taken weeks or months to find someone (but not searching every moment of my free time, obviously). Some artists I have never found.

And I DO put my identifying mark on my final art. But I shall also start putting it on my WIP images as well.

FYI, I've worked with artists for the last 8 years who license their art and I license my own art as well. And as I've stated before, I've been following this issue for 2 years now. So I know my s#!t about this business and the issue. You may want to think twice before jumping to the conclusion that people don't know what they are talking about.

jin choung
04-14-2008, 02:14 PM
i'm not assuming anything. neither do i assume you know what you're talking about just cuz you say so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
he11 yes, label your works in progress... WHY NOT? and if it's a wip is it really in danger of getting ripped off?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
if it's your JOB to find the ownership of work, you'll find it.

if you post a work up for me to find the process is straightforward enough:
1. find out who posted the work
2. get in contact with the person who posted the work
3. ask the person (with your friend, you know, case closed)
4. if they DON'T know, ask where they found it.
5. go to where they found it. see who posted it there. ask around.
6. rinse and repeat.

and, the nice thing here is since you are interacting with people you are leaving a paper trail (e-trail) so that the degree of effort you spent in searching is DOCUMENTED and can be submitted as proof if the issue of "good faith attempt" or the other term comes into question!

also - google is really a wonderful new tool that's heatin' up the interwebs these days.

and that's just me, a LAY PERSON scrounging around on their own resources.

i've asked "are you a lawyer?". now i'll ask "are you a detective?" there are people out there whose job it is to find people. there are people who can find not only where you live but your SS#, date of birth, probably your romantic history. and if a corporation appropriates your work without going to trouble of even hiring one of these professional folk to find you - say, that doesn't sound like an honest effort has been made.

THIS IS WHY I KEEP ASKING ARE YOU A LAWYER. WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SOMEONE HAS TO OFFER TO SAY THEY'VE MADE "A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT"? DO YOU KNOW?

and if it's loose and vague (which, as a lawyer, i don't know if it is or not) then it can be wrangled by either side for abuse. this favors the defendant any more than the plaintiff.

and finally, i am NOT saying that what i say is necessarily correct. but i'm saying don't just jump at shadows either. look into it: WHY WAS THE BILL CREATED? WHO INITIATED IT? WHAT ARE THE SIDES? HAVE YOU READ THE OTHER SIDE? DO YOU KNOW WHO LAWRENCE LESSIG IS?

THESE THINGS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE.

BUT THEY ARE SOMETHING.

and can inform the issue, especially when the bill is being parsed by lay people.

jin

CMT
04-14-2008, 04:09 PM
i'm not assuming anything. neither do i assume you know what you're talking about just cuz you say so.

Well, I can't help you there. And sounds like no one else can either.

You'll just have to grab that lawyer you keep mentioning and have him explain it to ya. Cuz from what you've been saying, that's the only way you'll ever know what the issue is about.

Guess every single one of us lay persons need to consult a lawyer for that matter.... us pea brains ain't got nuff edumacation to figger it out areselfs. :rolleyes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------
he11 yes, label your works in progress... WHY NOT? and if it's a wip is it really in danger of getting ripped off?

Why wouldn't it be if someone thinks it's sellable as it is? I've seen finished art by artists that have been slapped on product which to me looked like a rough sketch.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
if it's your JOB to find the ownership of work, you'll find it.

if you post a work up for me to find the process is straightforward enough:
1. find out who posted the work
2. get in contact with the person who posted the work
3. ask the person (with your friend, you know, case closed)
4. if they DON'T know, ask where they found it.
5. go to where they found it. see who posted it there. ask around.
6. rinse and repeat.


I've done that before to some degree of success. But not always successful. Sometimes, it could start with just an image from some publication. Not everything starts with the internet these days.



and, the nice thing here is since you are interacting with people you are leaving a paper trail (e-trail) so that the degree of effort you spent in searching is DOCUMENTED and can be submitted as proof if the issue of "good faith attempt" or the other term comes into question!

also - google is really a wonderful new tool that's heatin' up the interwebs these days.

and that's just me, a LAY PERSON scrounging around on their own resources.

i've asked "are you a lawyer?". now i'll ask "are you a detective?" there are people out there whose job it is to find people. there are people who can find not only where you live but your SS#, date of birth, probably your romantic history. and if a corporation appropriates your work without going to trouble of even hiring one of these professional folk to find you - say, that doesn't sound like an honest effort has been made.


Sure, an "internet sleuth" could probably have more success than me overall. But paying for the service doesn't guarantee success at all. Ask any real detective. Don't know what gave you that idea..... Ever heard of missing persons? Hey maybe you could help out in that area since it's so easy.



THIS IS WHY I KEEP ASKING ARE YOU A LAWYER. WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SOMEONE HAS TO OFFER TO SAY THEY'VE MADE "A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT"? DO YOU KNOW?

and if it's loose and vague (which, as a lawyer, i don't know if it is or not) then it can be wrangled by either side for abuse. this favors the defendant any more than the plaintiff.


Right here....

Excerpt:
"A reasonably diligent search includes
the use of reasonably available expert assistance
and reasonably available technology, which may
include, if reasonable under the circumstances,
resources for which a charge or subscription fee
is imposed."

It goes on to talk of the registry too. Basically a company should seek professional services "if reasonable under the circumstances" (whatever that means, this area of vagueness works to the advantage of the company doing the search) to find the original creator, which again, does NOT guarantee success. At a minimum they need to search this proposed registry. The proposed registry even has a margin of error of 1%. That's 1 of every 100 searches that could be orphaned even if it's registered.

And how much do you have to spend to constitute "reasonable under the circumstances"? $1? $5000? Depends upon how long it takes to find the creator, if at all. They may decide at $50 that that's good enough even though not all leads have been explored. Doesn't say anything about exploring all leads. All you have to do is meet the requirements. Doesn't mean you have to find the images creator. It definitely favors the company much more than the creator. The company loses a few bucks... the artists potentially get their work orphaned....



and finally, i am NOT saying that what i say is necessarily correct. but i'm saying don't just jump at shadows either. look into it: WHY WAS THE BILL CREATED? WHO INITIATED IT? WHAT ARE THE SIDES? HAVE YOU READ THE OTHER SIDE? DO YOU KNOW WHO LAWRENCE LESSIG IS?

Yes. I've read the other side. Many times. Yes, I know who he is. That info does not change the content of the proposal.



THESE THINGS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE.

BUT THEY ARE SOMETHING.

and can inform the issue, especially when the bill is being parsed by lay people.

jin

Lay people, meaning non lawyers? Here you go again..... Use your own brain. It ain't that hard to understand.

You know, it's not that I have a problem with every single aspect of this proposed bill. I just have a problem with the lack of penalties for those companies who decide to take the risk that a work is orphaned and lose. By all means, we can set up a registry, use professional resources to determine if a work is orphaned or not. Just let there be some type of REAL repercussion for infringing one's copyright. "Reasonable compensation" won't cut it.

jin choung
04-14-2008, 04:33 PM
"A reasonably diligent search INCLUDES
the use of reasonably available expert assistance
and reasonably available technology, which may
include, if reasonable under the circumstances,
resources for which a charge or subscription fee
is imposed."

argh.... right. including "internet sleuths" or detectives, agencies and detectives. but ... fine... i'm going to play lawyer... gee what fun... the operative word seems to be "INCLUDING". neither does this language make the registry the "EXCLUSIVE" method that needs to be adhered to to satisfy the requirement of the search.

it DOES NOT give anyone an EASY WAY OUT or an EASY WAY TO SIMPLY DECLARE SOMETHING ORPHANED.
--------------------------------------------------------

look at it another way-

you are sony or disney or dreamworks or whoever... these are NOT companies that play fast and loose with things like IP. they've got lawyers checking every copyright on every billboard of every shot in every movie they put out.

BECAUSE, they don't want to get f'd by overlooking something like that. if they make a billion dollars, they end up owing half that to somebody they didn't account for, WHO GOT F'd?

if they spent 200mil on a movie and all of a sudden find out that they have to pull it because of an unsecured trademark they feature prominently on the villains wardrobe, WHO GETS F'D.

IF IT CAN BE SHOWN IN A COURT OF LAW THAT DUE DILIGENCE (again , "INCLUDING" not "EXCLUSIVELY AND EXHAUSTIVELY SET OUT IN THIS LIST" was not exercised, THEY ARE

F
U
@
!
^

because then NONE of the orphan protections can be applied.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL NOT CROSS ALL Ts and DOT EVERY I when it comes to this? THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS.

AND IF THEY EXERCISE FULL DUE DILIGENCE UTILIZING PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES, do you think that they will NOT FIND THE ARTIST? IF THE ARTIST IS ATTACHED TO THE WORK IN ANY WAY THAT SHOWS THAT HE STILL CARES ABOUT IT?

AND IF IT IS A BIG BUDGET PRODUCTION, DO YOU THINK THEN THAT THEY MIGHT MAYBE CHANGE THEIR MIND AND USE SOMETHING ELSE TO COVER THEIR ASSES ANYWAY?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's the big guys.

with the little guy, what's at stake is not so much millions of dollars but the possibility that their passion project is gonna get fd up because they were careless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IT SIMPLY... DOES... NOT... MAKE... SENSE.

you are COMPLETELY EXPENDABLE.

i am COMPLETELY EXPENDABLE.

as human beings in the labor force, we are a commodity.

there's not a single thing that anyone can do that someone else cannot do 50x better. there is NOT A SCARCITY OF TALENT. if you haven't been paying attention, competition is stiff and it's only getting stiffer. factor in 3rd world countries comin' up in the world and you can throw in CHEAP too.

THAT BEING THE CASE, why oh why would ANYBODY big or small, RISK THEIR BUSINESS VENTURE BY RIPPING YOU OFF?!?!?!?!

jin

robertoortiz
04-14-2008, 04:52 PM
Guys can we agree to disagree?
Both arguments have been made quite well.

CMT
04-14-2008, 05:08 PM
Jin, I'm not worried about the big film companies. They do their homework. I never suggested that they wouldn't.

It's the smaller companies similar to the giftware company I work for that I worry about. We are a 5 million dollar privately held company with a shrewd businessman at the head. I can't count how many times he has come up to me and asked me to basically copy, in no uncertain terms, the idea of another artist. This happens a lot in our industry. And every time I tell him I'll create a similar item but I won't infringe someone's copyright on the item, then I come up with something more unique.

But those kinds of businessmen are out there. You can believe me or not, but it's true. He's been sued several times (thankfully never over anything I've designed) and won most of the lawsuits because of the vagueness of the present copyright laws. If this proposal comes to pass, it will be much worse.

And it does offer an easier way out. As I said, no real penalties occur.... vs how it is now.

jin choung
04-14-2008, 05:08 PM
finally,

you folks are looking at this bill under the filter of:

they're doing this IN ORDER TO RIP ME OFF.

try looking at it from the filter of:

i'm making a documentary that is derogatory of the studio system and there's this candid from the 1940s that i'm using for a segment. i've spent a year and a half trying to track down the clip and hired 2 different investigation agencies, went through available studio records, copyright office, the county clerks office, talked to old people, whatever... but dang it, i just couldn't find it. and either because of the nature of its use or the duration, it does not fall within fair use parameters.

so since i am settled in my mind that this is orphaned, and at the confirmation of my lawyer, i use it.

without the orphan protections though - hey, it turns out that warner bros steps in at the last second and reveals records that show that they are the rights holder - records that were not obtainable by due diligence or good faith but requiring EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES - and they want not only punitive damages but the shelving of the film whose message they dislike.

seems to me that this is the FAAAAAAAR more likely scenario. isn't this the kind of thing the bill is meant to address? of studios who hold TONS of copyrighted stuff, even stuff that they are not aware of. being able to control that stuff and to a more or lesser degree control the speech of others not of their flock?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so what's the more plausible scenario? enterprises risking ripping off an individual, dime a dozen artist and staking either their pet project or billions of stockholder dollars when they have the resources to probably find the individual in question.....

or

big business trying to control everything it can including speech.

and considering whose side big media corporations are on when it comes to the issue?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

STILL NOT A SLAM DUNK... but what am i saying? i'm saying just look into it before going off half-cocked. don't be like dubya who'd rather act than think. don't be a "decider".

if YOU have looked into it. if YOU are an expert on the subject, i'm obviously not talking to you.

but as i also keep on saying, people are reactionary d1psh1ts that get their panties in a bunch if the slightest shadow is cast on their interests. every campaign ad on TV, whether it's for or against a proposition says it's looking out for your interest to manipulate you using this kind of flashpoint psychology. i'm saying don't be that.

jin

calilifestyle
04-14-2008, 05:18 PM
normally i disagree with Jin. In this case i agree with him. it does seem people maybe jumping the gun. if jin is right about Disney and Sony ect. are the ones against this bill, they don't care about us/ you. do they?

jin choung
04-14-2008, 05:19 PM
He's been sued several times (thankfully never over anything I've designed) and won most of the lawsuits because of the vagueness of the present copyright laws. If this proposal comes to pass, it will be much worse.

And it does offer an easier way out. As I said, no real penalties occur.... vs how it is now.

"most" so he lost some? i can't speak to the merits or liabilities of any of his cases of course. but anything's possible - it might be that the other artists didn't have a good case....

but i DON'T see how this would have HELPED YOUR BOSS. if he operates the way you say he does, how easy would it have been for him to show that he made a good faith effort and exercised due diligence. i would contend (RIDICULOUSLY BECAUSE I AM NOT A LAWYER) that he would be f'd.

this bill would not make it EASIER. it just addresses a specific kind of situation.

and let's continue to be precise - the penalties are not punitive and overarching (to wipe out the documentary film maker in prev example). but it doesn't mean they get off scott free. again, it says it in the bill - either you pull it, you pay a percentage or yadda yadda.

if you've looked into it for 2 years and you feel the way you do, great. fine. you are certainly welcome to your opinions on a subject. and with you, i'll agree to disagree.

again, i am saying to johnny come latelies [like myself] (rather futilely i might add, hence my attempts to extricate myself from this conversation) look into it before you "get activated".

people are dopes and dupes. i'm just sayin' don't be a part of the problem by being quick to get inflamed.

jin

CMT
04-14-2008, 05:35 PM
Bottom line....

If you think that "reasonable compensation" is penalty enough for infringing one's copyright, and if enough people think like you do, then the artistic industry in this country is in deep trouble.

jin choung
04-14-2008, 05:43 PM
If you think that "reasonable compensation" is penalty enough for infringing one's copyright, and if enough people think like you do, then the artistic industry in this country is in deep trouble.

no it's not.

as a now-lawyer,

jin

CMT
04-14-2008, 06:46 PM
no it's not.

as a now-lawyer,

jin

Yeah, that makes me feel better.... Good luck with that lawyer thing. I'd suggest taking that course in Legalese.....

rakker16mm
04-14-2008, 08:38 PM
....

and the point that everybody so easily ignores....

protections do not apply if you can show that there was not a good faith attempt to find you. and that is the point that you guys are saying is so easy circumvent? that with all the ludicrously robust resources of the interwebs where a few moments search can turn up not only the identity but most probably the social security number of any denizen of it, it would be easy for someone to say, "gee i couldn't find him"? i disagree. i'm not a lawyer. you're not a lawyer. so who's right? sigh.... blah....

i leave it you guys then. light the torches. break out the pitchforks. mobilize the frenzied mob.

as i said, i'm done.

jin

Oh OK... Now you can judge the language of the bill? What happened? Did you sleep in a Holiday Inn last night? And then after you make your point you suddenly say your not qualified.

Come on Jin, at least be consistent if you are going to make that a part of your rebuttal.

rakker16mm
04-14-2008, 08:46 PM
normally i disagree with Jin. In this case i agree with him. it does seem people maybe jumping the gun. if jin is right about Disney and Sony ect. are the ones against this bill, they don't care about us/ you. do they?


What ever Disney and Sony decide is in their own best self interest to to they will, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this is a good law. Sometimes the interest of the little guys and the big guys coincide.

It should never be assumed that just because Disney is for something that makes it bad. For one thing Disney has done a lot to strengthen copyright law, and those stronger laws have helped a lot of artists and play rights secure compensation when they got ripped off by people stealing their work.

rakker16mm
04-14-2008, 09:26 PM
finally,

you folks are looking at this bill under the filter of:

they're doing this IN ORDER TO RIP ME OFF.
jin

That is your supposition. Personally I'm looking at this from the point of view that some people would like to fix the copyright system so they can make use of "orphaned works" when what they really ought to be doing is fixing the "fair use exemptions" That is what makes this whole situation so reDUCKulouse. It isn't even necessary.




try looking at it from the filter of:

i'm making a documentary that is derogatory of the studio system and there's this candid from the 1940s that i'm using for a segment. i've spent a year and a half trying to track down the clip and hired 2 different investigation agencies, went through available studio records, copyright office, the county clerks office, talked to old people, whatever... but dang it, i just couldn't find it. and either because of the nature of its use or the duration, it does not fall within fair use parameters.

So fix the fair use exemption. That is the exact job is was intended for. Further more the fair use exemption was supposed to cover not just orphan works, but to also allow for scholarly papers, critical, derogatory or satire of CONTEMPORARY work. SO even if this law does pass we still aren't where we were twenty years ago, and to top it off now we've weakened copyright protection for every one. Not just Disney... and not just Sony.


so since i am settled in my mind that this is orphaned, and at the confirmation of my lawyer, i use it.

Under the proposed legislation the burden of proof will be on you that you did in due diligence and good faith search for the copyright holder.... where as if we would fix the fair use exemption the burden of proof would would be on the copyright holder to show that you exceeded the fair use exemption. What is so great about that? Please, Let's fix the system we have instead of weakening it because we don't like getting sued. Will every one PLEASE get a backbone?


isn't this the kind of thing the bill is meant to address? of studios who hold TONS of copyrighted stuff, even stuff that they are not aware of. being able to control that stuff and to a more or lesser degree control the speech of others not of their flock?

In the words of Charlton Heston "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"
What is wrong with Disney owning copyrights? Fix fair use instead. If your aims of producing something "derogatory of the studio system" are legitement then you should be covered under fair use.

I'm letting the rest of your post pass without a rebuttal since you weren't even bothering to make a point.

CMT
04-15-2008, 08:10 AM
rakker, you're exactly right. The present copyright law seems pretty sufficient for the most part. But the fair use exemptions is where the real problem lies and could use some attention.

When your fan belt is busted, you don't replace the whole engine....

robertoortiz
04-16-2008, 02:49 PM
And for those not on the list, here is part one of the Illustrators Partnership response to the 'six misconceptions':

FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS’ PARTNERSHIP


Orphan Works: No Myth


We’ve seen “Six Misconceptions About Orphan Works” circulating on the Internet. It’s a well-reasoned piece, but has one problem. The author cites current copyright law to “debunk” concerns about an amendment that would change the law she cites.


How would the proposed amendment change the law? We’ll get to that and other questions in a minute. But first, let’s answer the broader charge that news of an Orphan Works bill is just “an internetmyth.”


Q: There is no Orphan Works bill before Congress – one was introduced in 2006, but it was never voted on.
A: Correct. The last bill died in Congress because of intense opposition from illustrators, photographers, fine artists, and textile designers. The Illustrators' Partnership testified against it in both the House and Senate. http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00203


Click the link for more....

http://www.lostpencil.com/wordpress/?p=225

rakker16mm
04-16-2008, 04:34 PM
We’ve seen “Six Misconceptions About Orphan Works” circulating on the Internet. It’s a well-reasoned piece, but has one problem. The author cites current copyright law to “debunk” concerns about an amendment that would change the law she cites.

Is he referring to the article by Meredith L. Patterson on her blog Radio Free meredith (http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html)? I was certainly not impressed as much by her reason as the amount of hyperbole she used. He is being unnecessarily generous characterizing it as a well reasoned pice IMOHO.

BigHache
04-17-2008, 12:19 PM
There are always going to be those who look for loopholes in any system for their own advantage. You can't mandate morality, though we keep trying.

I don't believe the intent of this proposed bill is aimed at taking advantage of anyone, but certainly there will be those who intend to do so.

rakker16mm
04-17-2008, 01:41 PM
There are always going to be those who look for loopholes in any system for their own advantage. You can't mandate morality, though we keep trying.

I don't believe the intent of this proposed bill is aimed at taking advantage of anyone, but certainly there will be those who intend to do so.

:agree: People tend to see the problems caused by the copyright law and forget the reason it was drafted in the first place. The reason we have copyright laws isn't to protect us against accidental infringement out our copyrights, but to prevent the wholesale theft of our work by unscrupulous person's for their own gain.

I also believe this legislation is intended to help people gain legitimate access to orphaned works, but I can also see unsavory characters licking their chops in anticipation of it passing.


To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide for limitation of remedies in cases in which the copyright owner cannot be located, and for other purposes.

I was working for some one [ very very briefly ] who wanted to start a pay website and tried to get me to surf around on the web to grab images to use. I brought up the issue of copyrights and was told we could do it until the copyright holder issued a C&D order. Um sorry wrong answer. Any way his defense was always going to be to plead ignorance. So to a guy like that you can just imagine how appealing the phrase "Due Diligence and Good Faith Effort" sounds. AND when you consider that the proponents of this legislation cite reducing costly litigation as one of their reasons for proposing the change, you have to wonder if they have really thought this through. After all how does one measure "Good Faith"? How does one determine whether or not the violator was simply going through the motions of due diligence?

More over when litigation over allegedly orphaned works does occur the burden of proof will on the copyright violator to show that they did due diligence and good faith to find the copyright holder. So they will still have to retain expensive attorneys and go through the whole nine yards. Under fair use the guidelines are very specific as to what is allowed. It looks to me like this law doesn't even serve the people who are proposing it.

Fair use exemptions provide for legitimate use of copyrighted material without permission and without weakening every one's copyright protection. If some one actually has a legitimate use that is not already covered by the fair use exemptions, then let them come forward and we can consider adding it.

robertoortiz
04-22-2008, 11:24 PM
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS’ PARTNERSHIP


Today the House and Senate sent us draft copies of the new Orphan Works Act of 2008. They haven’t officially released it yet, but we’ve been told the Senate will do so this week. A quick analysis confirms our worst fears and our early warnings. If these proposals are enacted into law, all the work you have ever done or will do could be orphaned and exposed to commercial infringement from the moment you create it.


You’ve probably already heard Mark Simon’s webcast interview with Brad Holland. If not, please listen to it at:
http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html. <http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html>


Then forget the spin you’ve heard from backers of this bill. This radical proposal, now pending before Congress, could cost you your past and future copyrights.


The Illustrators’ Partnership is currently working with our attorney - in concert with the other 12 groups in the American Society of Illustrators Partnership to have our voices – and yours - heard in Congress. We’ll keep you posted regarding how you can do your part.


Please forward this information to every creative person and group you know. Mr. Holland and Mr. Simon have given their permission for this audio file to be copied and transferred and replayed.


For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185


If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: [email protected]
Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.

jin choung
04-22-2008, 11:44 PM
and the yang

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/12/countering-the-fud-a.html

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/392
her replies to a predictably irate "artist" are also quite good.

and of course,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWR6eiiBhf8

jin

robertoortiz
04-23-2008, 12:12 AM
Ok here is a counter point

Read this

Orphan Works – No Myth (A direct response to those blogs)

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00264


These are the people who fought this in 2006.

jin choung
04-23-2008, 12:20 AM
read it before. same ole diatribe.

take this:
1. creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it.
3. free societies enable the future by limiting the control of the past
4. ours is less and less a free society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWR6eiiBhf8

give it TWO MINUTES. turn it off if it's not interesting.

but since you're jumping all over the web posting this, i think you owe it to yourself to have an understanding of what the other side perceives to be at stake.

jin

robertoortiz
04-23-2008, 08:09 AM
Saw the clip...
It is fine and dandy, but has these people ever made money out of ROYALTIES?
Have they tried to pay a mortgage with "free society ideas"
Have they tried to pay for food with "free society ideas"

And Yes I have re-posted this in other forums.

To be honest it is my reponsabilty to look out for my rights
and for those for the artists in my own forums.
And to be honest this sort of law WOULD KILL my forums.

And of course I am scared, very scared.

Fpr those joining us, Ill bottom line it

If you are

A Freelancer
A Photographer
An Indie artist


And make a living out of royalty checks, with this proposal,
your livelyhood is in danger.

If you have a:

Sketchbook,
Diary
Webblog


and IT IS NOT copyrighted, according to this proposal it is an
orphan work.


If you someone uses your work without your permission,
and you SUE:


The offender could claim that he did a "reasonable" search.
You could be limited on the amount of damages you could claim.
It is your responsability to track your work online for possible illegal use.


I know Jim you will reply to me and I am game.

But man lets be practical here.
Seriosly, no joke man this is not academia. People will get hurt if this bill passes. And no amount of circular logic can hide that.


for example:
If you are a 70 year old artist living of the artwork you did back in the 80

Should you be told that "all your artworks is derivate from something else
thus it shoudl be free"

CMT
04-23-2008, 08:33 AM
I just wouldn't listen to Jin, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He made up his mind before even thoroughly researching the issue. He just doesn't see the big picture. And none of us have any credibility in his eyes for some reason. Yet he read someone's blog and sites it as a counterpoint when they are argueing points that are faulty to begin with. He just thrives on controversy and this is the latest fad to him.

Jin, you better have a copyright lawyer read you the bill and explain it to you. You're in the same boat buddy, unless every piece of work you do is work for hire, then you're in the same boat with us. Your images are at risk as well. But if all you do is work for hire, then it won't effect you and you should exit the discussion.

jin choung
04-23-2008, 11:22 AM
lol.... talk about pot callin' kettle black.

that was amusing. thanks.

and don't listen to me. i don't know what i'm talking about. listen to stanford law professor larry.

1. creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it.
3. free societies enable the future by limiting the control of the past
4. ours is less and less a free society.

jin

CMT
04-23-2008, 12:09 PM
It was obvious with your very first post on the subject you didn't have a clue what this was really about. In your quest for a free and utopian society you so passionately describe to us often, you've blinded yourself to the underlying issues.


1. creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it.
3. free societies enable the future by limiting the control of the past
4. ours is less and less a free society.


You don't have a free society by removing what should be inherent rights to one's own work/property. What kind of thinking is that?

Your logic is so flawed you can't see this and have no clue what it really means. You just keep quoting and misreading things.

Let me reword this so you can understand...

1. creativity and innovation always builds on the past.

In context of this arguement, the past creative works of artists.

2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it.

Meaning that artists like to have control of their own art. Sure. Why not?

3. free societies enable the future by limiting the control of the past

OK. Here's where it gets interesting. Meaning that this "free society" "enable the future" by limiting an artists right to his own work. In context of this proposed bill, it will do just that.

"Limiting control of the past" shouldn't mean taking away the rights and property of others. Under the new proposal, a work will be orphaned the moment of creation (until you happen to register it in some registry which doesn't guarantee with 100% certainty that someone looking for the creator will find you, which STILL orphans the work.) which effectively removes the right of the artists' copyright immediately.

4. ours is less and less a free society.

As far as I'm concerned, a free society doesn't need rights to my work to be creatively "free". One can be inspired by old works to freely create something entirely new.

jin choung
04-23-2008, 12:19 PM
hey,

for someone asking me to go get copyright lawyers to explain this to me, you're the one that's arguing with the stanford law professor. what was it you had a degree in?

good luck with that.

jin

CMT
04-23-2008, 01:06 PM
My degree is in Common Sense.

If you read carefully Jin, Lessig, to his credit, has actually voiced concerns over the new bill himself and offered concerns about those points in the proposal which will threaten newly created works. He's not blindly behind the proposed bill as it presently exists. It's right there in his blog.

Thing is, his proposed revisions don't go quite far enough to protect new works. There needs to be some REAL accountability for those who infringe on others work even if they don't mean to (but take the risk anyway).

jin choung
04-23-2008, 01:49 PM
Let me reword this so you can understand...

1. creativity and innovation always builds on the past.

In context of this arguement, the past creative works of artists.

2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it.

Meaning that artists like to have control of their own art. Sure. Why not?

3. free societies enable the future by limiting the control of the past

OK. Here's where it gets interesting. Meaning that this "free society" "enable the future" by limiting an artists right to his own work. In context of this proposed bill, it will do just that.

"Limiting control of the past" shouldn't mean taking away the rights and property of others. Under the new proposal, a work will be orphaned the moment of creation (until you happen to register it in some registry which doesn't guarantee with 100% certainty that someone looking for the creator will find you, which STILL orphans the work.) which effectively removes the right of the artists' copyright immediately.

4. ours is less and less a free society.

As far as I'm concerned, a free society doesn't need rights to my work to be creatively "free". One can be inspired by old works to freely create something entirely new.

as i said,

you're the one that's arguing with a stanford law professor. those points are his, not mine.

and it just so happens that i agree with him. not you.

but good luck trying to take him down.

jin

CMT
04-23-2008, 02:49 PM
you're the one that's arguing with a stanford law professor. those points are his, not mine.

and it just so happens that i agree with him. not you.


I'm not the only one disagreeing with him. There happens to be lawyers on both sides of the argument. And just because he's a "Stanford Law Professor"*doesn't mean his views aren't beyond criticism just as our senators' and congressmen's views aren't.

jin choung
04-23-2008, 03:45 PM
I'm not the only one disagreeing with him. There happens to be lawyers on both sides of the argument. And just because he's a "Stanford Law Professor"*doesn't mean his views aren't beyond criticism just as our senators' and congressmen's views aren't.

absolutely. but this is why i keep stressing, you are not a lawyer. i am not a lawyer. we are lay people.

you tell me to consult your lawyers to "help me understand" - i'm throwing it right back at you.

in whatever way you think your lawyers could obliterate my arguments, i think that larry lessig can annihilate yours.

now who's right?

anyway, i keep popping in not necessarily to change your mind. you have a right to your lay opinions as i do to mine. but merely remind on-lookers that greater minds than yours and mine see that this is not "clearly wrong" - this is NOT onesided. though it is often portrayed that way by the "fearful artist mob".

jin

CMT
04-23-2008, 04:15 PM
absolutely. but this is why i keep stressing, you are not a lawyer. i am not a lawyer. we are lay people.

you tell me to consult your lawyers to "help me understand" - i'm throwing it right back at you.

in whatever way you think your lawyers could obliterate my arguments, i think that larry lessig can annihilate yours.

now who's right?

anyway, i keep popping in not necessarily to change your mind. you have a right to your lay opinions as i do to mine. but merely remind on-lookers that greater minds than yours and mine see that this is not "clearly wrong" - this is NOT onesided. though it is often portrayed that way by the "fearful artist mob".

jin

Hehe... You keep thrusting Larry Lessig as some prophet for your arguement when he's already come halfway toward our side of the arguement with his proposed revisions to the bill. He just needs to come a little further.

You were 100% against our little uprising to begin with against the proposed bill, which meant you were for it. Now you hail Larry as some all knowing lawyer whose free society speech you've taken completely out of context and who now is more in the middle of both extreme sides. (But middle doesn't necessarily mean right) So where do you lie? Either your opinion hasn't changed since you first blasted our opposition, or your along side new hero, Lessig, who's actually voiced concerns over the bill.... Which is it?

It really seems you come in here just for the sake of stirring things up. Which I now truly believe to be the case. Because from what I've read about Lessig, the impression I get is that he's trying to be fair to both sides. Whereas you don't really care.

calilifestyle
04-23-2008, 04:34 PM
I had my lawyers look at this and they haven't replied back to me and by my lawyers i mean my friend studying law lol.

jin choung
04-23-2008, 04:51 PM
Hehe... You keep thrusting Larry Lessig as some prophet for your arguement when he's already come halfway toward our side of the arguement with his proposed revisions to the bill. He just needs to come a little further.

You were 100% against our little uprising to begin with against the proposed bill, which meant you were for it. Now you hail Larry as some all knowing lawyer whose free society speech you've taken completely out of context and who now is more in the middle of both extreme sides. (But middle doesn't necessarily mean right) So where do you lie? Either your opinion hasn't changed since you first blasted our opposition, or your along side new hero, Lessig, who's actually voiced concerns over the bill.... Which is it?

It really seems you come in here just for the sake of stirring things up. Which I now truly believe to be the case. Because from what I've read about Lessig, the impression I get is that he's trying to be fair to both sides. Whereas you don't really care.

hahaha... hilarious. you are free to believe whatever you want. ain't nothin' to me man.

and again, for someone who is coming over to your side, YOU are the one arguing with lessig's points and disparaging free society (for some reason)... lol... not me. that's no way to treat a purported ally.... pfffft.

and why get all sore and pouty and hurt cuz everyone doesn't agree with your position? you're not gonna take your ball and go home now are ya?

jin

CMT
04-23-2008, 05:10 PM
hahaha... hilarious. you are free to believe whatever you want. ain't nothin' to me man.

and again, for someone who is coming over to your side, YOU are the one arguing with lessig's points and disparaging free society (for some reason)... lol... not me. that's no way to treat a purported ally.... pfffft.

Did I actually say I was against the whole concept of his free society speech? No. Did I imply that he was an ally?. No. Again you jumped the gun with your assumptions. That's a recurring pattern with you. And it's a trait that does you no credit.



and why get all sore and pouty and hurt cuz everyone doesn't agree with your position? you're not gonna take your ball and go home now are ya?

jin

I ain't goin' nowhere. Pouty and hurt? Naw. Just wondering where you stand. You say your against this little opposition, yet what part? All of it as you stated from the start, or just part of it like Lessig who's become your new hero?

jin choung
04-23-2008, 05:51 PM
Did I actually say I was against the whole concept of his free society speech? No.

yes.

you contradict enough of his tenets to qualify as opposing his concept of a free society. what in the world do you mean that you agree with his vision if you disagree with the major details of it? lol.


Did I imply that he was an ally?. No.

"Hehe... You keep thrusting Larry Lessig as some prophet for your arguement when he's already come halfway toward our side of the arguement with his proposed revisions to the bill. He just needs to come a little further."

evidently, in your opinion, he does not represent my side? and he's a "halfway ally" to you then?

Again you jumped the gun with your assumptions. That's a recurring pattern with you. And it's a trait that does you no credit.

so what have i assumed? your evident inability to comprehend the english language as written and read does you no credit. no i take that back. illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of.

you may somehow cite him as being more agreeable to your position but the CORE ESSENCE of his arguments are diametrically opposed to you. he WANTS copyright reform. he WANTS your works to be subject to POTENTIAL orphan status in 14 years.

have YOU read his proposal? http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyright_policy_orphan_works.html

his law aptitude says that "diligent search" is a mess. so what does he propose? a registry. do you like that better?

as for "new hero".... ummmm... you evidently also have a short memory combined with your compromised language skills. go back in this discussion and see how early i bring up larry and eff. go ahead. it'll be like a refreshing kick in the head.

finally, if we can agree that there should be orphan works reform and that larry's proposal is the best way to go about it (read it here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OWMR.pdf), then we've got no argument.

that alright with you sunshine?

jin

CMT
04-23-2008, 10:21 PM
yes.

you contradict enough of his tenets to qualify as opposing his concept of a free society. what in the world do you mean that you agree with his vision if you disagree with the major details of it? lol.

No, no, no, Jin. I only contradicted your interpretation of his speech in the context of the proposed bill. There's so much more meaning in his speech and relevance to other issues than just how it pertains to this particular issue.


evidently, in your opinion, he does not represent my side? and he's a "halfway ally" to you then?

Didn't say that either. My statement only implied he's not as one sided on this issue as you make him out to be. You made the stretch to "halfway ally" if there even is such a thing....


so what have i assumed? your evident inability to comprehend the english language as written and read does you no credit. no i take that back. illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of.

I'll get to your insult in a second...

But to answer your question, you've assumed:
1. That Lessig shares your radical view, when he himself opposes certain terms of the present draft of the bill.
2. That I suggested that Lessig is actually an ally to some degree when I clearly didn't say anything of the sort.
3. That by refuting Lessig's free society points (actually just 1) within the context of the proposed bill that I disagree with it's entire philosophy.
4. That some blog "debunking" the orphan works bill myth was valid (referring to Meredith's) when the article's fundamental argument was flawed to begin with.
5. That Lessig's proposal will work. It's already been stated that there's an error margin predicted at 1% for every search.
6. That you have to be an expert on this subject to understand what's at stake.

These are just the one's I remember off hand.

Oh yes, almost forgot.
7. That I'm illiterate somehow. Well, that one's really more of an inaccurate insult (Since I obviously am communicating my views to you quite effectively) than an assumption, isn't it?


you may somehow cite him as being more agreeable to your position but the CORE ESSENCE of his arguments are diametrically opposed to you. he WANTS copyright reform. he WANTS your works to be subject to POTENTIAL orphan status in 14 years.

have YOU read his proposal? http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyright_policy_orphan_works.html
I didn't say he was more agreeable to our position than those who are for the proposed bill. I only said that he has come halfway. And I'm not going to get into whether he's more for or against. He has good points and he has bad points. He's not quite come halfway in retrospect, but he's definitely demonstrated more empathy for artists than you have.

And I have read his proposed revisions. You think I would refer to it if I hadn't? That might be how you work, but I prefer knowing before assuming.


his law aptitude says that "diligent search" is a mess. so what does he propose? a registry. do you like that better?
Not really no. But, it shows that he's at least trying to think of alternative ways to handle companies/people that might want to take advantage of the vagueness of the "diligent search" terms which further suggests that he has at least some concerns about fairness of the proposal to copyright holders.


as for "new hero".... ummmm... you evidently also have a short memory combined with your compromised language skills. go back in this discussion and see how early i bring up larry and eff. go ahead. it'll be like a refreshing kick in the head.

Yeah, your third post after your first post dismissed the opposition entirely.
Refer to point 7 above regarding my illiteracy....


finally, if we can agree that there should be orphan works reform and that larry's proposal is the best way to go about it (read it here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OWMR.pdf), then we've got no argument.

that alright with you sunshine?

jin
Sure, sweetiepie. Too bad I don't agree with it. Orphan works reform? Yes. Some exemptions are needed. Reworking the entire copyright system? Not needed.

jin choung
04-23-2008, 10:58 PM
Reworking the entire copyright system? Not needed.

yawn.

sigh....

uuuuuuuuuuh....

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

whooooooooooo....

do you think that what you just said is compatible with lessig's vision of a free society?

why the double talk? with the views that you have expressed throughout this thread, WHAT PART OF LESSIG'S PHILOSOPHY DO YOU AGREE WITH?!

jin

rakker16mm
04-23-2008, 11:37 PM
It has been asserted by a non-lawyer that if one is not a lawyer... then ones opinion regarding this legislation is somehow invalid. So the question is, how can one who is not a lawyer make such an argument and still try to convince people that his opinion about this legislation is the correct one?

An argument divided against itself cannot stand.

jin choung
04-24-2008, 12:05 AM
errrrr, i dunno, according to my posts, i am not so much arguing that my side is right as putting forth the idea that the popular (vested interest) idea is not necessarily right. that there IS another side.

i am NOT a lawyer. i am NOT qualified to parse fine details of law. i say numerous times that my opinion is bunk - and by implication or better, that most lay people's opinion is bunk(ish).

so i'm bringing actual lawyers into it. again, to present the fact that there is another side.

problem?

i don't really see one.

jin

rakker16mm
04-24-2008, 12:17 AM
If you are not a lawyer, and cannot understand what lawyers are talking about, how are you able to judge which lawyer has made the most reasonable argument? How do you know who to believe?

CMT
04-24-2008, 08:42 AM
errrrr, i dunno, according to my posts, i am not so much arguing that my side is right as putting forth the idea that the popular (vested interest) idea is not necessarily right. that there IS another side.


I call ********. At NO time have you even suggested that your side might be wrong, therefore you entirely believe it to be right. Not an assumption, but a logical conclusion based on your pattern of ONLY attacking the opposition.

So, rakker's excellent point from post 101 is still very valid.



do you think that what you just said is compatible with lessig's vision of a free society?


Why does it have to be?


why the double talk? with the views that you have expressed throughout this thread, WHAT PART OF LESSIG'S PHILOSOPHY DO YOU AGREE WITH?!

OK. I'll humor you, not that it's relevant to this argument (as I told you earlier) but most of his arguments about P2P were particularly interesting and agreeable. Also his points about the "Homerian Tragedies" and the Sony dog robot.... There's other issues he's talking about besides orphan works. And he has good points there.

That satisfy you?

As you can see, there's no double talk here (as you incorrectly assumed, yet again). I've told you straight up what my views are. It IS possible to agree with parts of an argument as he himself has shown by drafting his proposed revisions.

Yet another incorrect assumption you've made (over and over): That just because we have a vested interest in the outcome, that somehow our argument deserves scrutiny. And that those with vested interests somehow cannot see the other side of the issue.

CMT
04-24-2008, 09:07 AM
I call ********. At NO time have you even suggested that your side might be wrong, therefore you entirely believe it to be right. Not an assumption, but a logical conclusion based on your pattern of ONLY attacking the opposition.


Let me be clear on this before you go apeshit on us....

At NO time have you even suggested that your side might be wrong AFTER you read the bill and were enlightened by Lessig's free society speech, therefore you entirely believe it to be right.

jin choung
04-24-2008, 11:47 AM
If you are not a lawyer, and cannot understand what lawyers are talking about, how are you able to judge which lawyer has made the most reasonable argument? How do you know who to believe?

because i am not parsing law. when he writes (or is teaching his class) he is not talking as if to a room full of lawyers. not a difficult concept to grasp eh?

jin

jin choung
04-24-2008, 12:16 PM
Why does it have to be?

OK. I'll humor you, not that it's relevant to this argument (as I told you earlier) but most of his arguments about P2P were particularly interesting and agreeable. Also his points about the "Homerian Tragedies" and the Sony dog robot.... There's other issues he's talking about besides orphan works. And he has good points there.

That satisfy you?


not really.

so you're saying you agree with bits of the argument but not the actual THRUST of the argument? lol.

you're agreeing with the bits and details but in terms of his MAIN IDEA - that a free society needs radical copyright reform... you disagree with.

lol.

seriously.

you DON'T see that as doubletalk? ...whatever...

he is addressing more than just orphan works OF COURSE... but his concept of a free society, his core argument at least in that presentation calls for a complete revision of the copyright system.

which you oppose.

have YOU watched the presentation that i linked to? you keep questioning my familiarity with the source material but you seem pretty dang ignorant yourself.

and if you go watch the link - you think *i'm* radical? : )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for lessig's free society speech changing my opinion - how would it do that? how does it argue for NOT having orphan works reform?

see this is the problem - he DOES differ in details of implementation. but he is STILL ARGUING THAT WE NEED ORPHAN WORKS REFORM! again, that's the MAIN THRUST! he is NOT saying, "naw, this orphan works stuff is ********".

sure, it's NOT in the exact form of the current legislation. but in lessig's words, it both goes too far and not far enough.

he differs in the details of the implementation but it CERTAINLY does not argue that works should remain under copyright into perpetuity!

he certainly does not argue that YOUR WORKS should be protected forever. and that at some point, people should be able to take YOUR WORK and do whatever they want with it.

in whatever ways lessig's take on the legislation differs with it in its current form, i DO DEFER TO HIM. as i've said, he's the lawyer. he can see the implications of the language better than i can.

so if you're asking if i accept LESSIG'S version of the bill, ABSOLUTELY. FINE. let's have that registry and let's give new works 14years of protection. great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

and what in the WORLD are you calling ******** on?

i am informing people of the OTHER SIDE.

and even though i am open to changing my mind if someone comes up with a really cogent, compelling argument against orphan works reform - which i have NOT HEARD - that does NOT imply that "a messenger from the other side" NEEDS to be open.

i am saying i'm a messenger from the other side - informing readers of this thread that there IS another side.

what part of that do you disagree with? what part of that do you find factually in err?

what in the world are you calling ******** on?

jin

rakker16mm
04-24-2008, 12:51 PM
because i am not parsing law. when he writes (or is teaching his class) he is not talking as if to a room full of lawyers. not a difficult concept to grasp eh?

jin

You would still be no better a judge of his point of view at the end of the day if he were speaking to kindergardeners.

Actually what is difficult to grasp is the way you manage to do gymnastics around all the holes in your argument. You are totally inconsistent. Every time some one makes a point in this debate that is difficult to counter you come back with the "we aren't lawyers so wee couldn't possibly understand the law" argument, but then you think you can tell everyone the lawyers who are advocating a particular point of view are interpeting the legislation more correctly. Sorry you can't have it both ways. How about going after the logic of the argument rather than attacking the qualifications of the person. It is a far more effective debate strategy and besides that it is far more respectful of your opponent. Good logic stands on it own

You also have said that you are not taking sides in this debate but that doesn't wash either because you haven't rebutted a single argument of any one for this legislation. You are as polarized on this issue as any one here and that is fine, but you are knocking people who disagree with you instead of knocking their logic, and that kind of sucks. It is also not doing much to change any ones point of view.

I am here and listening, and if you come up with a solid argument that this legislation was a good thing then I might change my point of view, but your arguments thus far have been 1) that non-lawyers can't understand this legislation 2) You know which lawyers are right about this 3) Big evil companies with vested interest are against this legislation 4) DOT-ORGS are for the people 5) and when all els fails
yawn.

sigh....

uuuuuuuuuuh....

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

whooooooooooo....

When you take a moment to think about what it actually takes to convince some one your point of view has merit I would think you would want to stay away from all of those arguments.

jin choung
04-24-2008, 01:37 PM
You would still be no better a judge of his point of view at the end of the day if he were speaking to kindergardeners.

ooooooo... good one... burn... having fun yet? again, i am citing lawyers INTERPRETING the details of law to lay people. if you don't get why that makes sense, i can't help you.

You are totally inconsistent. Every time some one makes a point in this debate that is difficult to counter you come back with the "we aren't lawyers so wee couldn't possibly understand the law" argument, but then you think you can tell everyone the lawyers who are advocating a particular point of view are interpeting the legislation more correctly. Sorry you can't have it both ways.

you are the one that is not only being inconsistent but failing in the logic you hold in such high regard.

there is no BOTH WAYS ABOUT IT,

i am not dodging arguments that are difficult to counter. i am saying that arguments made by lay people about legal language is ********.

so what do i do? i CITE LAWYERS who are interpreting the laws to REGULAR FOLK. NOTHING CONTRADICTORY ABOUT THAT. bang your head a little bit and see if the marbles don't fall into place for you.


How about going after the logic of the argument rather than attacking the qualifications of the person. It is a far more effective debate strategy and besides that it is far more respectful of your opponent. Good logic stands on it own

are you crazy?

logic is NOTHING ON ITS OWN. given bad or insufficient data, someone could very logically come to a conclusion that is COMPLETELY BASSACKWARDS WRONG. "GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT" ... sound familiar?

and i CERTAINLY AM NOT respectful of an opponent who thinks he is qualified to judge every conceivable subject authoritatively.

You also have said that you are not taking sides in this debate

i don't remember saying THAT... that's pretty clearly not true. refresh my memory? i do remember saying that i have the right to my lay opinions as anyone.

but you are knocking people who disagree with you instead of knocking their logic, and that kind of sucks.

when i say you are not qualified to authoritatively judge legal language, that should be just as offensive and provoke just as much outrage as if i said you are not qualified to perform brain surgery or qualified to program the flight computers for the nasa mission to mars.

if you take that as a "knock", so be it.

jin

CMT
04-24-2008, 01:53 PM
Jesus, Jin.... Why do you insist that this is "doubletalk"?

This is soooo simple. Let me break it down so you can understand. I agree that there's problems as Lessig has stated. I don't agree with some of the methods he proposed to solve them. It's as simple as that.

I don't have to lay out every single issue of Lessig's and state what I agree with and what I don't for you and how to approach it. Or explain to you why.
-----


as for lessig's free society speech changing my opinion - how would it do that? how does it argue for NOT having orphan works reform?

Show me where I said that his speech argues for not having Orphan works reform? You missed the point ENTIRELY.... Not even worth the time addressing it at this point.

And I was calling ******** because you said:

errrrr, i dunno, according to my posts, i am not so much arguing that my side is right as putting forth the idea that the popular (vested interest) idea is not necessarily right. that there IS another side.

You're previous posts ONLY contain material which support the "other side" therefore logically, the pattern of your posts suggest that you are in fact FOR the radical reform and that it IS your position. Just because you didn't come out right away and say that you were for it, doesn't mean you get to play the "messenger" role.

But wait...there's more! Haha.


so if you're asking if i accept LESSIG'S version of the bill, ABSOLUTELY. FINE. let's have that registry and let's give new works 14years of protection. great.

So now you actually say your for it. Point proven.


you are the one that is not only being inconsistent but failing in the logic you hold in such high regard.

Why don't you actually attempt to poke holes in our logic instead of dancing around it with statements like...


logic is NOTHING ON ITS OWN. given bad or insufficient data, someone could very logically come to a conclusion that is COMPLETELY BASSACKWARDS WRONG. "GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT" ... sound familiar?


and i CERTAINLY AM NOT respectful of an opponent who thinks he is qualified to judge every conceivable subject authoritatively.
So you'll respect someone who claims ignorance of the subject?


when i say you are not qualified to authoritatively judge legal language, that should be just as offensive and provoke just as much outrage as if i said you are not qualified to perform brain surgery or qualified to program the flight computers for the nasa mission to mars.

Didn't we go over this already? You make it sound like it's like translating Latin or something. It's definitely not. It's in English. There's nouns and verbs and adjectives, prepositions, etc... meaning isn't somehow obscured in weird names for body parts or advanced programming code. It's in plain English. All it requires is a little effort.

CMT
04-24-2008, 01:59 PM
and i CERTAINLY AM NOT respectful of an opponent who thinks he is qualified to judge every conceivable subject authoritatively.
Even though we may be....

And by "every conceivable subject" you mean those in this thread that have to do with the Orphan works? It stands to reason that those in the industry know a lot about this.

Funny how you've been judging our position from the get-go, under the guise of your "messenger" position....

I definitely have no respect for those who unduly insult me with no truth behind it, who judge, then claim ignorance, who then go on to contradict themselves by claiming they actually DO have a position on the subject.

CMT
04-24-2008, 02:17 PM
logic is NOTHING ON ITS OWN. given bad or insufficient data, someone could very logically come to a conclusion that is COMPLETELY BASSACKWARDS WRONG. "GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT" ... sound familiar?

Right. But we in fact have all the info we need, don't we? We have the actual bill proposal, the blogs for both sides represented, the arguments for and against. So what info are we lacking, Jin?
Your statement doesn't apply here.

jin choung
04-24-2008, 02:28 PM
"i am not so much arguing...." if you read that statement as a declaration of complete neutrality - we have nothing really to discuss - just on the basis of language.

as for logic not being the end all be all - you danced around it. do you deny it's true? you get the smell of it but if you're gonna invalidate yourself, might as well go whole hog and put it in writing.

as for legal language - yes, nouns verbs adj.... brilliant.... but ya know the thing about legal documents is that they may contain implications and ramifications that we are not aware of. you never heard of the presence or absence of mere COMMAS to result in radically unexpected consequences?

and great! we agree that we have no respect for each other. not that this wasn't completely obvious but it's good to get it out there explicitly.

jin

jin choung
04-24-2008, 02:39 PM
Right. But we in fact have all the info we need, don't we? We have the actual bill proposal, the blogs for both sides represented, the arguments for and against. So what info are we lacking, Jin?
Your statement doesn't apply here.

it applies here because especially rakker argues from the language of the bill. he even criticizes the language of it. even, as i said, he does not read a lot of bills or has much of a point of reference.

it applies here because while i have been citing lawyers, you guys have not been.

you guys have been championing the superiority of "logic"... you just now ceded that logic is not all. great. you're not insane.

so in lieu of professional expertise, i have been citing lawyers and looking at other lay man appropriate observations like breaking down who is on what side.

jin

CMT
04-24-2008, 02:39 PM
"i am not so much arguing...."
Your statement suggested distance between you and the position you just officially took a couple posts ago.

And I have not been doing any dancing. We have everything we need to come to our own conclusions. I'm pulling out specific points of yours to refute, whereas you have been doing very little of that.

And yes, of course I've heard of commas altering the meaning of sentences before in contracts. But I see none of that going on here. I usually see it in contracts between companies doing business.

jin choung
04-24-2008, 02:48 PM
But I see none of that going on here.

sigh...

do you realize that that doesn't mean much?

if you are not qualified, how would you know what you're not seeing?

jin

CMT
04-24-2008, 02:51 PM
you guys have been championing the superiority of "logic"... you just now ceded that logic is not all. great. you're not insane.
Pardon me, but I've only been using logic as a tool for debating here. Not as ultimate knowledge.


it applies here because especially rakker argues from the language of the bill. he even criticizes the language of it. even, as i said, he does not read a lot of bills or has much of a point of reference.

it applies here because while i have been citing lawyers, you guys have not been.

you guys have been championing the superiority of "logic"... you just now ceded that logic is not all. great. you're not insane.

so in lieu of professional expertise, i have been citing lawyers and looking at other lay man appropriate observations like breaking down who is on what side.

jin

So let me get this straight.
1. We don't have the info we need because we aren't lawyers.
2. None of us can understand the language of the bill since we aren't lawyers.
3. You agree with Lessig because he's a lawyer, not because you understand the language of the proposed bill.

Talk about bassackwards.....

jin choung
04-24-2008, 02:54 PM
you've got absolutely nothing straight.

good luck with that.

jin

CMT
04-24-2008, 03:00 PM
sigh...

do you realize that that doesn't mean much?

if you are not qualified, how would you know what you're not seeing?

jin

See again... You're assuming things....
1. That I am not qualified to understand the bill.
2. That you're qualified to judge whether I am qualified.
3. That my understanding of COMMAs are limited. I mean really, Jin!

CMT
04-24-2008, 03:00 PM
you've got absolutely nothing straight.

good luck with that.

jin

Like how? Examples please?

rakker16mm
04-24-2008, 03:28 PM
so you're saying you agree with bits of the argument but not the actual THRUST of the argument? lol.

you're agreeing with the bits and details but in terms of his MAIN IDEA - that a free society needs radical copyright reform... you disagree with.

lol.

seriously.

you DON'T see that as doubletalk? ...whatever...

It is not inconsistent to agree with the premises of an argument and disagree with the conclusion, if the conclusion is not actually supported by the premises.



In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences known as the premises (singular is also spelt "premiss" in British English), along with another declarative sentence known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.
Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, not ambiguous.

The sentences comprising an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and conclusion using the terms declarative sentence, statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative utterance. The reason for the variety is concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false and nothing else: they are truthbearers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

rakker16mm
04-24-2008, 03:43 PM
You also have said that you are not taking sides in this debate

I really don't recall saying that, and if I did it certainly does not reflect my opinion on the subject. I think I have been pretty consistent in my position on this legislation, but you are welcome to misinterpret me as much as you like.




when i say you are not qualified to authoritatively judge legal language, that should be just as offensive and provoke just as much outrage as if i said you are not qualified to perform brain surgery or qualified to program the flight computers for the nasa mission to mars.

if you take that as a "knock", so be it.
jin

When I say you are knocking you opponents here this is what I am talking about.


i am not dodging arguments that are difficult to counter. i am saying that arguments made by lay people about legal language is ********.

bang your head a little bit and see if the marbles don't fall into place for you.

are you crazy?

and i CERTAINLY AM NOT respectful of an opponent who thinks he is qualified to judge every conceivable subject authoritatively.

CMT
04-24-2008, 03:51 PM
I don't really care if he insults me or "knocks me" because it's a sign of someone who doesn't know what else to do. He can't refute the logic, so he attacks the credibility of the people themselves or calls them illiterate....

"I've refuted your logic" I'm sure he'll come back with... But without examples or facts and only "I'm citing lawyers", I'm afraid it just won't hold any weight.

robertoortiz
04-25-2008, 07:05 AM
while we fight, Rome burns...

RebeccaK posted this on cgtalk...

It looks like the bill/s have been introduced - here is a pro-Orphan Works article:

Orphan Works 2008: House and Senate Bills Introduced
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1537

Judiciary Leaders Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Orphan Works Legislation
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html

From the second link:


Quote:
What this bill does not do is create a “license to infringe.” In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so.

Another link on the subject:
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/376191.html
(From the woman that said that there is no law)


Quote:
You can look for (the bill) on THOMAS when it's posted there. I expect it'll be up by tomorrow. (ETA: according to Alex Curtis over at Public Knowledge, the bill numbers you're looking for are S.2913 and H.R. 5889. They have PDFs which you can download, too.)

A discussion of the differences between the 2006 and 2008 bill, which gives credence to the Illustrators Partnerships' worries over the 2006 bill, but allays artists fears about the 2008 bill:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswi...t_id=1003794301

robertoortiz
04-27-2008, 01:02 AM
For the few you may care...

Here is some light reading...
Here is the bill introduced last week to BOTH the US House and Senate.


H.R. 5889 (20 pages)
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/HR5889draft.pdf

Paul_Boland
05-03-2008, 01:05 PM
Has anyone got any further news on this bill? Has it passed? Is it still in consideration? Or has it been rejected?

Adrian Lopez
05-03-2008, 05:07 PM
It's a shame we have to resort to stuff like orphan works legislation instead of adopting a reasonable copyright term limit. We as a society have forgotten that the purpose of copyright is, first and foremost, to promote the creation of valuable works that eventually add to the public domain. I dislike orphan works legislation not because it somehow violates the rights of copyright holders, but rather because it feels like -- compared to shorter copyright terms -- we're giving up ground to those who place copyright holders' interests above those of the public.

robertoortiz
05-03-2008, 07:11 PM
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP


You are cordially invited to attend an important industry-wide event


Don’t Let Congress Orphan Your Work
An open forum to oppose the Orphan Works Act of 2008
Tuesday, May 6 6:00 PM
The Society of Illustrators
128 East 63rd Street
New York, NY 10065
Admission will be free


The Orphan Works Act of 2008 will endanger the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property.


It will expose your art to commercial infringement. It will include work from professional paintings to family snapshots. It will include published and unpublished work. It will include any image that resides or has ever resided on the internet. It will force you to register every picture you do with privately-held commercial registries. It will make all unregistered works potential orphans.


This radical change to U.S. copyright law will shift the burden of diligence from infringers to rights holders. It is wrong to give infringers the right to make money from your property without your knowledge or consent. You should not have to pay businessmen to keep the work you’ve created.


The Orphan Works Act is an assault on national and international copyright laws. It’s an assault on the property and privacy rights embodied in them.


Illustrators, photographers, fine artists: let’s come together and act to keep Congress from orphaning our work.

This event will be webcast live.
Panelists at this forum will include:


- Brad Holland Hall of Fame artist who has testified against the Orphan Works Act of 2006 in both the House and Senate
- Cynthia Turner Award-winning medical artist who has collaborated in written testimony to both the House and Senate
- Constance Evans Photographer, painter and Executive Director of Advertising Photographers of America
- Terry Brown Director Emeritus of the Society of Illustrators, currently Director of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership
- Others to be announced

To learn more about the Orphan Works Bill, listen to the interview with Brad Holland:


mp3 version: http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
YouTube version: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc

For additional background on Orphan Works, go to the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
http://www.illustratorspartnership....earchterm=00185

If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: [email protected]
Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.

Anti-Distinctly
05-06-2008, 03:48 AM
Any more news? I still can't find anything on how this will effect those outside the US, as much as I try. I only hear rumors of how Europe may be introducing something similar...

robertoortiz
05-06-2008, 07:39 AM
The Stock Artists Alliance Speaks Up About Orphan Works 2008
Quote
"SAA has just published extensive commentary about 2008 Orphan Works legislation just introduced by both Houses of Congress, as a resource for artists and other members of the visual arts community who will be affected by this legislation."


http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/05/stock-artists-alliance-speaks-up-about.html

robertoortiz
05-07-2008, 12:19 PM
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP

Take Action: Don't Let Congress Orphan Our Work

We’ve set up an online site for visual artists to e-mail their Senators and Representatives with one click.

This site is open to professional artists, photographers and any member of the image-making public.

We’ve provided sample letters from individuals representing different sectors of the visual arts.

If you’re opposed to the Orphan Works act, this site is yours to use.

For international artists and our colleagues overseas, we’ve provided a special link, with a sample letter and instructions as to whom to write.


2 minutes is all it takes to write Congress and protect your copyright:

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

Please forward this message to every artist you know.

If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: [email protected]
Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.

To learn more about the Orphan Works Bill, listen to the interview with Brad Holland:


mp3 version: http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
YouTube version: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc

And if you wish to read the bills

S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (SENATE)
H.R. 5889: The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (HOUSE)

robertoortiz
05-09-2008, 08:03 AM
Update for those who still care:
"H.R. 5889 (the Orphan Works bill in the House) unanimously sailed through the House IP Subcommittee yesterday"


Since yesterday, over 31, 000 letters have gone out from our Orphan Works advocacy site.

Q: What can we do next?

1. Write the House Judiciary Committee. We’ve set up a special alert to contact members of this important committee.

Go to our Take Action/Alert site: http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/

Look for the sample letter labeled "Contact House Judiciary Committee NOW" and send it.

If your Representative is not a member of the House Judiciary Committee, this will send him a message asking him to contact his colleagues on that Committee on your behalf, urging them to oppose the bill.


2. Ask for support from family and friends:
Please ask your friends and family (5 to 10 others) who support your creative work to also go to the site. They can follow the instructions to easily send a message of opposition to this reckless bill.

Look for the sample letter labeled "For Supporters of Visual Artists - Wrong to Weaken Copyright Law" and send it.


3. Spread the word to the public: Photosharing on Web will now be at risk:
Please alert your friends who post photos to the web their personal property will be at risk.

Look for the sample letter labeled “For the Image-Making Public - Protect Personal Property”and send it.


For more information about the Orphan Works Act of 2008:
IPA Statement to House Subcommittee March 20, 2008:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/a rticle.php?searchterm=00261
IPA Senate Mark-up Comments April 30, 2008: http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/ow_docs

Geneva/ May 7, 2008Orphan Works Bill Catches Global Attention/ Intellectual Property Watch/
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1028
MP3 Interview: http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
YouTube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc


Please post this message or forward it to any interested party.

If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: [email protected] Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.

robertoortiz
05-10-2008, 09:10 AM
for those still on the fence about this....
Well I would suggest to read the summary of the law
FROM THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html (Click for more)


And this opinion on Orphan works is Posted by Bruce Krysiak
on another site:

From Stephen Donager (http://donigerlawfirm.com/): "I have been working with a handful of attorneys in opposition to the orphan works legislation for about a year now and have fully researched it. The "orphan works problem" is only a problem for those who profit from the unauthorized commercial use of the works of others and want to keep those profits. The copyright act provides for either statutory damages of profit disgorgement as damages for a claim of infringement. For non-commercial uses, there are no profits to disgorge. For "innocent" infringement statutory damages are as low as $250. Thus, the photograph shop and museum examples below are serious red herrings - the reality is that no one is bringing claims against innocent non-commercial users.

Although there is not much in the law that is really simple, this issue is. One of the fundamental principals of copyright law is that: "No one should profit from the unauthorized reproduction of the work of another," regardless of whether the infringement was innocent or not. Orphan works legislation destroys this principal. It will allow people to use works they come across and keep (at least most of) the profits as long as they can show that they undertook reasonable efforts to find the owner.

The problem is that there is no effective way to search for the owner of a work. There is no image recognition software or other vehicle that would make the Copyright Office registrations searchable, and there is no other existing search mechanisms. So anyone can SAY that they undertook reasonable efforts to find the owner (a meaningless statement in most cases),and then use works that they should know they have no right to use with virtually no recourse.

Orphan works legislation is a horrible "fix" to something that is not broken. Among its sponsors are marketing companies, corporations that profit from the use of music, art, and photography in their advertisements, and large studios that are well equipped to protect their works. Artists ARE at risk.

I turned my attention away from this issue about 6 months ago when it appeared that the legislation was not going to get to the floor of Congress that session. I got an email today indicating that it was being sent to the floor again. I agree that last-minute hysteria is suspect, but this is a real issue, a bad piece of legislation, and a good opportunity to communicate with our government representatives (who I understand to be among the uncommitted on this issue)."
__________________

robertoortiz
05-13-2008, 07:17 AM
For those who may care:
A copyright LAWYER posted this on cgtalk

Tammy Browning-Smith, a practicing COPYRIGHT LAWYER has taken some of ther time to comment on this law...



Greetings!

Many of your wonderful members asked if I would join in order to answer some questions since I am a practicing attorney who works extensively in copyrights and trademarks. I would be happy to do so if it will clear up some confusion on this OW issue. I just ask if you do ask a question, you be patient with me. My letters to Congress have become quite popular and I am being pulled in all ends. I have skimmed the postings and I have a few comments for you:

1) The biggest problem with OW from my perspective is that it truly changes the system of registration. Formality has not been required (i.e. - registration, copyright notice, etc.). It also places a strong burden on an artist to protect his or her work and NOT on the person wanting to use a so called "Orphan." The procedure set forth in the proposed language of both the House and the Senate Bills are terribly inadequate and will cause so many problems than help.

2) There are other countries using excellent systems for true "orphans." Canada is a poster child for this. It places the burden on a potential user to truly prove it is an orphan and that the potential user has done everything to do something to find him or her or it. The heart tugging stories being used are truly fluff. There are "fair use" exceptions and the like that can apply. The amount of orphans that LEGITIMATELY should be used are very small for the drastic impact this legislation would have. There are truly motives for profit here for databases, "orphan royalties", and the like.

3) Graphic Artist Guild and the some others are stating that this Bill WILL pass and that we should not write letters. I could not disagree more. First and foremost, it is a persons responsibility to let his or her government know his or her opinion. Secondly, there is a significant amount of education that MUST take place. I continue to speak to legislative offices that have no idea what these bills are all about. It is a crime, many of them think this is just "administrative" and will not affect very many people.

4) Finally, these Bills punish persons who have followed the law since 1976. The law has not required registration and/or notice provisions. These persons would truly be hurt the most. This will have a strong impact on rural artisian communities and others who create amazing works that represent our country. To this point, the only way their work has not been stolen is that it is against the law - that will no longer be the case.

Don't get me wrong, if these Bills pass, merge and become law - attorneys will benefit greatly. It will be essential that one who creates uses highly skilled legal counsel to register his or her works and develop a program to insure his or her works are not orphans. It will also require artists to go into their archives and begin registering or re-registering prior works to insure that all their "stuff" is covered.

The BEST way to prevent this legislation from coming into law is by educating yourselves, and speaking intelligently on the issue. It appears as if many of you have and continue to ask questions. And for our international friends - your voice is important as this does affect your protection here in the US. If your works comes on US soil - your work will be covered under these provisions.

Keep fighting the good fight!
Tammy Browning-Smith



***Please note, the following post is for educational purposes only and DOES NOT constitute the practice of law or an attorney/client relationship.***

robertoortiz
05-20-2008, 10:45 AM
NY TIMES: Little Orphan Artworks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Little Orphan Artworks

By LAWRENCE LESSIG
Published: May 20, 2008

CONGRESS is considering a major reform of copyright law intended to solve the problem of “orphan works” — those works whose owner cannot be found. This “reform” would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?

From Wikipedia:

Lawrence Lessig is an Americanacademic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig founded Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center.