Post by Shadou on Jun 24, 2008 11:34:14 GMT -5
Has anyone else here heard about this? I figured I'd share with you anyway regardless, but still - it's always interesting to see who else knows about this sort of stuff. Oh, and prepare for what might turn about to be a mini-rant of sorts.
The Orphan Works Bill
The idea, last I checked, was suggested about two months ago now, and has come to light in the past month and a half or so. This new bill that is now trying to be passed is a cause for concern for artists, 3-D designers, photographers and anybody else who deals with art and graphics all over the US. And if plans made by Europe's politicians go ahead, it will affect Europe too.
The bill takes the idea of "patenting" - something currently used in the inventions industry. Once somebody has created a new invention, they are required to patent it - pay an amount of money every year to register their invention. This means that people cannot use their invention without giving the original inventor money if they use said invention to make profit, etc.
It tries to apply this idea to artwork. And here is a problem.
Currently, as soon as anything is created - a render, a photo, a piece of artwork, it is the creator's. It belongs to them, was made by them and is theirs - copyright law protects them and their creation from theft. It's typical that the creator will add the copyright to the image, whatever it may be, to re-enforce and remind people of this fact. The orphan works bill will take this away from us.
The bill basically states that as soon as we create something, it does not become legally ours until we pay someone to have it registered. Only then we will be able to say it's our artwork (or whatever) and be able to take lawsuits against those who steal it. If they are truly following the patenting system, you will have to pay for the right to say your artwork is yours every year.
Artwork that isn't registered becomes an "orphan work" that anybody can legally take and claim their own. That's right. LEGALLY. Better still, they can then register your artwork as their own and sue YOU, the actual creator, for it because nobody would know better and, frankly, the people who make money from this scheme wouldn't give a damn who's it was anyway. You could become a criminal for simply not registering your work, and an art theif could actually legally steal your work, claim it was theirs AND take a lawsuit against you for it.
Doesn't this seem a little bit wrong to you? Doesn't it look like a cause for concern? I think it does. I think it's a very serious cause for concern, especially when a bill promotes illegal action whether people know it or not. In the first month, over 100,000 artists, photographers and everyone else affected by this have sent letters and messages to politicians, clearly expressing this well-founded concern.
Some responded agreeing with the concerns, others gave mixed responses. Unbelievably, one politician was quoted claiming that copyright laws were
"in place to protect the consumer"
I know ask who this consumer is. Last I checked copyright laws were to protect creators and what they created. There is no consumer. And if this is what politcians think then I think there is a reason to be concerned about them too, nevermind this utter rubbish they spout out.
So, that is the basis of the orphan works bill. Comments?
The idea, last I checked, was suggested about two months ago now, and has come to light in the past month and a half or so. This new bill that is now trying to be passed is a cause for concern for artists, 3-D designers, photographers and anybody else who deals with art and graphics all over the US. And if plans made by Europe's politicians go ahead, it will affect Europe too.
The bill takes the idea of "patenting" - something currently used in the inventions industry. Once somebody has created a new invention, they are required to patent it - pay an amount of money every year to register their invention. This means that people cannot use their invention without giving the original inventor money if they use said invention to make profit, etc.
It tries to apply this idea to artwork. And here is a problem.
Currently, as soon as anything is created - a render, a photo, a piece of artwork, it is the creator's. It belongs to them, was made by them and is theirs - copyright law protects them and their creation from theft. It's typical that the creator will add the copyright to the image, whatever it may be, to re-enforce and remind people of this fact. The orphan works bill will take this away from us.
The bill basically states that as soon as we create something, it does not become legally ours until we pay someone to have it registered. Only then we will be able to say it's our artwork (or whatever) and be able to take lawsuits against those who steal it. If they are truly following the patenting system, you will have to pay for the right to say your artwork is yours every year.
Artwork that isn't registered becomes an "orphan work" that anybody can legally take and claim their own. That's right. LEGALLY. Better still, they can then register your artwork as their own and sue YOU, the actual creator, for it because nobody would know better and, frankly, the people who make money from this scheme wouldn't give a damn who's it was anyway. You could become a criminal for simply not registering your work, and an art theif could actually legally steal your work, claim it was theirs AND take a lawsuit against you for it.
Doesn't this seem a little bit wrong to you? Doesn't it look like a cause for concern? I think it does. I think it's a very serious cause for concern, especially when a bill promotes illegal action whether people know it or not. In the first month, over 100,000 artists, photographers and everyone else affected by this have sent letters and messages to politicians, clearly expressing this well-founded concern.
Some responded agreeing with the concerns, others gave mixed responses. Unbelievably, one politician was quoted claiming that copyright laws were
"in place to protect the consumer"
I know ask who this consumer is. Last I checked copyright laws were to protect creators and what they created. There is no consumer. And if this is what politcians think then I think there is a reason to be concerned about them too, nevermind this utter rubbish they spout out.
So, that is the basis of the orphan works bill. Comments?
