turtles
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: Getting into your head.  (Read 1675 times)

Offline La-la

Getting into your head.
«: April 12, 2008, 01:19:34 AM»
Before the media does. Now, read this, carefully: http://news.deviantart.com/article/46358/#comments

Okay. Now sit down. Take a breath.

The government isn't going to steal your art, isn't going to make it not yours, isn't going to make you copyright every single piece. Let's look back into the basics of our country, and oh, wait. Isn't that..? Yes, it is. That's against the first amendment. As early as 1960 the supreme court has been accepting that non-speech means are applied to the freedom of expression and freedom of speech. If they accept flag burning as a freedom of expression, they're not going to turn down your art, whatever it may be, as expression.

As corrupt as our government might be (that's an opinion, by the way, so no need to argue), they really can't just turn around and rewrite the foundation of our country. They might try, but they can't. Taken from the California University website: "Speech includes much more than verbal oration and need not include any words. The expression of artists, including the use of symbolism, is protected under the First Amendment. The wearing of armbands with a peace symbol was protected during the Vietnam War as symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment. (Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 [1969])"

The wearing of armbands was protected under the first amendment. And people are sitting here saying, that MILLIONS of artists, not poets, not writers, just artists, are going to suddenly have to pay to put their art up? Aren't going to have rights to their art?

Sigh.

It's named "The Orphan Act" for a reason. What it's proposing basically makes it easier for artwork to be used for commercial uses if the artist fails to put their contact and signature on the work, therefore, "orphaning" the art. This means a signature and form of contact should be placed either on the art, or the website your art is being displayed on. It's not that big of a deal. If anything, this is GOOD for artists. Artists should be more aware of theft like this, and always should sign things, and have a form of contact visible in their online gallery. Right now, even for commercial things, the basic rule is, someone else made it, we can't use it. Period. There's a lot of art out there though, that just floats around without an owner, without care of who it belongs to. It still can't be used though. This bill would change that.

The bill would people to use artwork which they think has been abandoned by an artist. The person, however, still has to be able to prove that they searched to find the art's owner before using that piece of artwork. And if they can't prove it and the artist calls them out, then copyright laws are still in place.

You post your art on DA? FA? SA? FAZ? Other abbreviated sites I don't know? You have a timestamp on your art. You have an account name. You have copyright ownership of YOUR art. The only thing this really applies to is people with private sites. And artists, again, should always sign their work no matter what site they're on.

Still unsure and worried? http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

The Illustrator's Partnership has been following this act like a hawk since 2005. Read the links. Get informed. Not good enough? Here's the link to the actual proposal. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html First sentence: "The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by “orphan works,” i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate."

Case closed, I believe.

Anyways, the point of this post is to inform you that this act is NOT legalizing art theft, it's NOT taking away punishment for art thieves, and it's NOT forcing you to copyright all of your work. So many people are freaking out now about nothing. Remember, knowledge is power, and ignorance is not always bliss.


Peace, love, & bubblegum,
La-la

 
        

Offline La-la

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #1: April 12, 2008, 01:57:56 AM»
P.S. IF YOU ARE ON DEVIANTART, please, http://news.deviantart.com/article/46375/ link to my news article in your own journal and try to stop the wildfire. I don't know why I try to stop ignorance. It's this never ending cycle of failure I've picked up as a hobby. 

Offline Narnia

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #2: April 12, 2008, 09:50:23 AM»
That bills was raised over 2 years ago and to date has not passed in the US Congress.

Additionally, if you read the text of the copyright page you posted it is clear that the US will not be the first country to institute an orphaned word clause..

Quote
An example of a system that enables the use, in certain circumstances, of orphan works can be found in Canada's copyright law. The copyright law has a specific provision permitting anyone who seeks permission to make a copyright use of a work and cannot locate the copyright owner to petition the Canadian Copyright Board for a license.\7\ The Copyright Board makes a determination as to whether sufficient effort has been made to locate the owner. If so, the Copyright Board may grant a license for the proposed use. It will set terms and fees for the proposed use of the work in its discretion and will hold collected fees in a fund from which the copyright owner, if he or she ever surfaces and makes a claim, may be paid. It should be noted that since the enactment of these provisions in 1990, the Copyright Board has issued only 125 such licenses. More information about the Canadian approach can be found on the Copyright Board Web site at: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/index-e.html.

The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\

Additionally, the Orphan Act does not trump the Copyright act and your work still becomes copyright without registration. The Orphan Act only applies in those cases where a true owner to a piece of work can't be found. People, like in that first journal you posted, should understand what they are talking about before they talk about it.

Want more info? The copyright office has issued a report http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 09:54:49 AM by Narnia »
"The views expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Furcadia Art Zone, Dragon's Eye Production, or Furcadia."

Offline La-la

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #3: April 12, 2008, 12:00:40 PM»
That bills was raised over 2 years ago and to date has not passed in the US Congress.

Additionally, if you read the text of the copyright page you posted it is clear that the US will not be the first country to institute an orphaned word clause..

Quote
An example of a system that enables the use, in certain circumstances, of orphan works can be found in Canada's copyright law. The copyright law has a specific provision permitting anyone who seeks permission to make a copyright use of a work and cannot locate the copyright owner to petition the Canadian Copyright Board for a license.\7\ The Copyright Board makes a determination as to whether sufficient effort has been made to locate the owner. If so, the Copyright Board may grant a license for the proposed use. It will set terms and fees for the proposed use of the work in its discretion and will hold collected fees in a fund from which the copyright owner, if he or she ever surfaces and makes a claim, may be paid. It should be noted that since the enactment of these provisions in 1990, the Copyright Board has issued only 125 such licenses. More information about the Canadian approach can be found on the Copyright Board Web site at: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/index-e.html.

The United Kingdom has a provision that affects a small subset of orphan works, namely those for which it is reasonable to assume the copyright has already expired. The law provides that there is no infringement where the copyright owner cannot be found by a reasonable inquiry and where the date the copyright expired is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired.\8\

Additionally, the Orphan Act does not trump the Copyright act and your work still becomes copyright without registration. The Orphan Act only applies in those cases where a true owner to a piece of work can't be found. People, like in that first journal you posted, should understand what they are talking about before they talk about it.

Want more info? The copyright office has issued a report http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf

You're a lot smarter than me. The law is right now, that in 28 years the copyright on your art runs out. What, I'm understanding, the government wants to do, is make you renew that copyright after 28 years, by paying for it?

Offline Narnia

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #4: April 12, 2008, 01:08:50 PM»
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

Quote
How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

Do I have to renew my copyright?
No. Works created on or after January 1, 1978, are not subject to renewal registration. As to works published or registered prior to January 1, 1978, renewal registration is optional after 28 years but does provide certain legal advantages. For information on how to file a renewal application as well as the legal benefit for doing so, see Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright, and Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright.

Why don't people posts blogs here? =(
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 01:12:19 PM by Narnia »
"The views expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Furcadia Art Zone, Dragon's Eye Production, or Furcadia."

Offline La-la

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #5: April 12, 2008, 01:15:40 PM»
Because I have a livejournal, a mysoace, a facebook and a xanga already D:

Offline Narnia

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #6: April 12, 2008, 01:24:04 PM»
FAZ is better. =(
"The views expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Furcadia Art Zone, Dragon's Eye Production, or Furcadia."

Offline Hugo

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #7: April 12, 2008, 07:18:43 PM»
I found this in one of the replies on DA and thought it was a valid point:

If you don't understand why this is horrible, here's why:
- As noraneko puts it, it must be proved that an artwork is actually "orphaned", which is theoretically okay, almost. But in practice, what's going to happen can be described with one word: cropping. Let's say I like an image and ask for consent, the artist says "sure it's cool" so I use his photo and crop-out the signature. A third dude can pass by and use that image as if it's author is basically absent.


That's actually very true. And like the 'fair use' thing, a lot of kids aren't going to read the fine print. They will see something like this bill and think to themselves, "No sig? No problem, I can use it".

It is improbable that the bill will pass, but I find that person's point against it very valid. The bill might work on paper, but so does communism. In practice, it would fall to shit due to human flaws.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 07:20:43 PM by Hugo »

Offline La-la

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #8: April 12, 2008, 08:54:41 PM»
I found this in one of the replies on DA and thought it was a valid point:

If you don't understand why this is horrible, here's why:
- As noraneko puts it, it must be proved that an artwork is actually "orphaned", which is theoretically okay, almost. But in practice, what's going to happen can be described with one word: cropping. Let's say I like an image and ask for consent, the artist says "sure it's cool" so I use his photo and crop-out the signature. A third dude can pass by and use that image as if it's author is basically absent.


That's actually very true. And like the 'fair use' thing, a lot of kids aren't going to read the fine print. They will see something like this bill and think to themselves, "No sig? No problem, I can use it".

It is improbable that the bill will pass, but I find that person's point against it very valid. The bill might work on paper, but so does communism. In practice, it would fall to shit due to human flaws.

Reality squared explains it a lot better than I ever could.

http://realitysquared.deviantart.com/journal/17811892/#journal

Offline Sync

Re: Getting into your head.
«Reply #9: April 12, 2008, 10:30:51 PM»
i agree with hugo. i'm not extremely against the bill, but i don't think it's that great of an idea.

i really just want to nail in people's minds that it's not legalizing art theft at this point.