FA+
Shop
Orphaned Works Shitstorm
17 years ago
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO STEAL YOUR ARTWORK OR PREVENT YOU FROM CREATING ARTWORK. IT IS NOT GOING TO LEGALIZE ART THEFT ("legal theft" is an oxymoron, btw). IT IS NOT GOING TO STEAL YOUR PROFITS. IT IS NOT GOING TO FORCE YOU TO PAY FOR COPYRIGHTS.
"Orphan works are those copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to find."
Someone who wanted to use a so-called "orphaned work" would have to prove that they tried to contact the artist first. This is where having a watermark with a date, your web address and e-mail comes in handy (deviantART and FA provide these things automatically whenever you post something to the site: artist contact info on profile pages, timestamps from date of submission, etc.).
If an artist were to find out that someone is using a picture of theirs, for example, jumping up and saying "Umm, that's not Orphaned, that's mine" and showing submission pages/watermarks with contact information would be enough.
Canada has had a similar law in place since 1990, as does the UK, and "art theft" and copyright violations are not legal in either place.
"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. 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. (Copyright Act, R.S.C., ch. C-42, Sec. 77 (1985) (Can.).)
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. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available at http://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm .)"
You never were nor will be required to pay a fee to copyright something. A work is copyrighted from the moment you create it; you do have to pay a fee to the U.S./[such-and-such country] Copyright Office to have it "officially" registered, however this is not manditory. An art thief still violates copyright laws, even if a piece of art isn't "officially" registered with the copyright office of [such-and-such country].
If someone were to take a piece of art, or a work of literature, or a song, and claim it as their own and/or use for certain purposes (ex. to generate profit with a stolen design on a t-shirt) without the artist's knowledge or consent, it would still be constituted theft and copyright violation UNLESS the person who took the art/writing/song tried to contact the artist for permission, and can prove with documented evidence that the artist was uncontactable.
The law/provision was already voted on twice, I believe, and shot down twice. It's unlikely that it will pass. And if it does pass, you have little to worry about. If you don't want your works to be considered "orphaned", WATERMARK THE SHIT OUT OF THAT BIZNATCH. Don't be like me (lol) and think that a tiny signature and date somewhere on the side will be enough; you all know that anyone with a half-decent image editing program can erase it. Hell, you can crop it off with freakin' MSPaint. You should be doing this anyway, really. I need to come up with one eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphaned_works
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/wois.....rphanworks.cfm
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html
http://news.deviantart.com/article/46375/
http://realitysquared.deviantart.co.....rnal/17811892/
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/index-e.html
Google is your friend, guys.
"Orphan works are those copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to find."
Someone who wanted to use a so-called "orphaned work" would have to prove that they tried to contact the artist first. This is where having a watermark with a date, your web address and e-mail comes in handy (deviantART and FA provide these things automatically whenever you post something to the site: artist contact info on profile pages, timestamps from date of submission, etc.).
If an artist were to find out that someone is using a picture of theirs, for example, jumping up and saying "Umm, that's not Orphaned, that's mine" and showing submission pages/watermarks with contact information would be enough.
Canada has had a similar law in place since 1990, as does the UK, and "art theft" and copyright violations are not legal in either place.
"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. 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. (Copyright Act, R.S.C., ch. C-42, Sec. 77 (1985) (Can.).)
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. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, Sec. 57 (Eng.); see also Copyright and Related Rights Act, No. 28, 2000 Sec. 88 (Ir.); Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 528: Copyright Ordinance, June 27, 1997 Sec. 66, available at http://www.justice.gov.hk/Home.htm .)"
You never were nor will be required to pay a fee to copyright something. A work is copyrighted from the moment you create it; you do have to pay a fee to the U.S./[such-and-such country] Copyright Office to have it "officially" registered, however this is not manditory. An art thief still violates copyright laws, even if a piece of art isn't "officially" registered with the copyright office of [such-and-such country].
If someone were to take a piece of art, or a work of literature, or a song, and claim it as their own and/or use for certain purposes (ex. to generate profit with a stolen design on a t-shirt) without the artist's knowledge or consent, it would still be constituted theft and copyright violation UNLESS the person who took the art/writing/song tried to contact the artist for permission, and can prove with documented evidence that the artist was uncontactable.
The law/provision was already voted on twice, I believe, and shot down twice. It's unlikely that it will pass. And if it does pass, you have little to worry about. If you don't want your works to be considered "orphaned", WATERMARK THE SHIT OUT OF THAT BIZNATCH. Don't be like me (lol) and think that a tiny signature and date somewhere on the side will be enough; you all know that anyone with a half-decent image editing program can erase it. Hell, you can crop it off with freakin' MSPaint. You should be doing this anyway, really. I need to come up with one eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphaned_works
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/wois.....rphanworks.cfm
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html
http://news.deviantart.com/article/46375/
http://realitysquared.deviantart.co.....rnal/17811892/
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable/index-e.html
Google is your friend, guys.
Not true. The only entity able to issue legal, official copyrights in the states is the U.S. Copyright Office. The Orphan Works bill would not take power away from the C.O.; it only deals with works that appear to be "abandoned" by their creators. It doesn't change or affect current copyright laws in any way.
Having multiple private businesses would make a huge mess in an already complex legal system anyway. Having one official entity responsible for issuing copyrights is much cheaper for the legal system :D
Also I heard that it would make anyone holding copyrights currently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office have the need to RE-REGISTER with these newly-created organizations if/when they do appear.
"Prior to the 1976 Act, the term of protection was limited to 28 years if the copyright was not renewed. Under this system, if the copyright owner was no longer interested in exploiting the work, or a corporate owner no longer existed, or, in the case of individual copyright owners, there were no interested heirs to claim the copyright, then the work entered the public domain." http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html
This limit was removed by Congress in the 90s, and the renewal system was discarded because of concerns about the "inadvertent and unjust loss of copyright" it might cause. Some of my sources are a little unclear about this point, so it would probably be in your best interest to contact the Copyright Office to get information directly from the source. They are definately not going to be replaced by privately-run business, I'm 100% sure on that.