Frankly I think it is fucking abominable; I would love to see Disney's reaction and fight against this nonsense. That is one empire they do NOT want to go against.

You know that Disney were one of the big pushers of the original Copyright extensions causing everything made in our lifetimes to be copyrighted for over a century to come.
And without copyright free work, they'd have had nothing to base some of their most successful projects on.

Search YouTube for "CGP Grey, Copyright"

They were? Shit, I had no idea; I assumed they would have been a huge opponent of such a thing, then again every big company USUALLY has some dark, and duplicitous activity going on. So makes sense, thank you for informing me!

It honestly feels really out of the blue - yeah it's pretty gross that they'd be able to just take people's creations and pretty much claim them as their own. I really have my doubts something like this would pass.

Why even discuss about this? Like what good will it supposedly do?

One of the big things is, if a library has a work that they cannot reach the rights-holder for, they're basically completely hamstrung with it and cannot display or make use of ANY content within for any purpose, other than lending out whatever physical copy/copies they own. If they do, they risk a $150,000 fine for *each* use, which is enough to put many libraries out of business.

Plus, the big thing to remember at this point is: there is no law yet. There is no bill. There is no draft. From what little I've been able to find, I'm not sure either house of Congress has discussed the issue in the open yet--I can't even tell if the appropriate committee (whatever committee that is) has begun drafting the initial bill proposal. In other words, we are currently reacting to a mere internal report. I'm not saying people shouldn't act, if they feel they need to act, but it is NOT actually a law, or even a potential law, at this point.

I know, but what happens if this is suggested, and passed because people aren't thinking of the negative effects of this possible law.

Agreed, it is so out of the blue. I do not know why they would even bother with such a thing, but I suspect it would be something for someone to generate revenue; I cannot think of any other motivation. :T

As with pretty much everything, there are mixed motives. Absolutely definitely there are people in it for the money--but there are people on every side of every political issue EVER who are in it for money, power, or influence.

There are, however, also other considerations. Copyright law as it currently stands is MASSIVELY MASSIVELY MASSIVELY in favor of rights-holders. Not creators! Rights-holders. Because those two things ARE NOT the same, no matter what anyone else tells you. There's a reason the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" was popularly known as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"--it was pushed, powerfully, by enormous business interests, like Disney, who never ever want to let go of the potential cash-cows of their copyrights. On the flipside, there surely are companies that would love to make money off using "orphaned" work from various artists.

Neither side of this issue can be fairly claimed to be solely motivated by noble ideals, but that doesn't mean there are never noble ideals involved. People who supported the Sonny Bono Act saw it as protecting creators (though there are well-documented examples of it harming creators, whose work was legally "stolen" from them by official/contractual rights-holders). People who support "orphaned work" proposals presumably see it as enriching the public domain and encouraging creators to be "active" about their work, rather than "sitting on it" because they have no incentive to license nor to help others acquire licenses.

Incidentally? Canada, the UK, and the EU all have "orphaned work" laws, and there doesn't seem to have been an enormous outpouring of anguished creators.

I love that last point. I've already seen a post like, "If you want to keep your copyright, mail it to Canada!"

A large part of the reason why laws are so arcane and unknown is because nobody outside the profession bothers to learn them, unfortunately. It's also a large part of why people get SUPER upset (or fail to be upset when they should) about things like Supreme Court rulings. They never even read the SCOTUS-written summary, and they never actually investigate whether it is proper jurisprudence. I've basically taken to ignoring 99% of any statements about laws--for or against!--because the vast majority of people have opinions that are incredibly uninformed.

The real kicker is when such people go on rants about how creationists or climate-change denialists are uninformed idiots who never actually investigate the claims they swallow...

It won't pass but it's the concept that some jackass actually PROPOSED something so messed up. However it's not 'out of the blue' It's been trying to be passed since 2006. It's only coming to everyone's attention NOW.

Disney can afford this. Disney can protect their rights, they have the financial power to back up threats and already to sue anyone who uses their work.

Their help works are already protected by other gates in the copyright law monster. In some ways Disney as a corporation has been on the side of passing Orphan Works copyright laws.

Artists in this community do not have these resources. You doodle something for a friend, post it online, someone takes it and puts it on a shirt without ever seeking you out or asking permission, you would have no legal recourse under this proposed change.
Copyrighting is expensive and many independent artists can not afford it for every single sketch they make.
It would also under the royalty market, which many of independent artists use to make ends meet. (Think Society6 types sites)

Aye, I gathered this from a previous poster's comment to me. A lot of people would be completely boned if this were to pass, as you said, we would not have the resources to do anything about it being used, which is a serious problem. But it just does not make sense why something like this would be put into circulation, it makes sense for them to do it quietly to hide it from the public eye-- but I cannot imagine why. It is going to harm more people than it helps, and they know this.

To make people froth up and get distracted. It doesnt mean people shouldn't write letters to the Copyright Office with this displeasure, but this is a moment to look at who is going oddly quiet. If we can even tell.

The more silent they are, the more guilty the legislation and proponents likely are. I hope that there will be more individuals to dig up information on this topic, though time will tell. As powerful as letters can be, I think it may take a bit more than just that to oppose this thing, it would be a good idea I believe for some venerated minds to come together and discuss terms of opposition.

I don't think Disney would care since they do trademark all their work.

Yeah I've gotten a few replies of that nature now. XD

I don't think it'll go through, but I mean if it does...wow? what more can you really say than -wow- and shame on america I guess

I can see them meeting friction, it wouldn't last long if it went through - really feels like something that they've been very quiet about and not a lot of people know of.

tbh it looks mostly like a money generator "i.e tax" but i doubt it goes anywhere. but thats the only reason i can think of to even create that garbage..to make money off the register fee

yeah, definitely.
usually all it takes is one or two people to catch wind of something and then it spreads like wildfire.
With as many artists are now becoming aware of this it probably wont happen, and like you said if it does it'd probably almost immediately be reverted

Yeah they tried to put this same damn thing through a few years ago and there was a huge outcry about it. I can see why they'd be quiet about it after that. Annoyed that they're trying to force it through AGAIN. Ugh.

What a bunch of fucking bollokcs. And, mind you, bollocks is not a word I say very often!

It's stupid and shouldn't be implemented. You'd have to register every single piece you did or people could steal it and use it without any consequences. Not only is it irritating to have to register everything, they will probably charge you to do it eventually.

I'm loving the ""probably" :p

No, they will DEFFINATELY charge you for it xD You kiddin' me?

yeah pretty much =\ which is just another way they can be greedy.

and here I was thinking the government existed to help people, not fuck them over. Oh how naive I was back then~

wow um... can I call BULL F***ING S***!!!

this is going to be an outrage!!!

If this passes im going into hiding. f*** congress.

I highly doubt this goes through. theres several reasons for it but one being there are tons of battles trying to protect shit so it really feels like another weird bill that wont get far. i mean who benefits from this anyway?

Companies who don't want to pay artists - from what I understand they can turn around and take "orphaned art" and claim it for themselves with minor alterations if not the actual piece and whatever organizations you need to pay to properly register work!

That is insane.
There are SO many artists and the law didn't even pass yet and the people who know are furious.

If this passes, I will no longer be posting my work.
Fuck that.
If I imagine it, If I draw it, that image belongs to me. No one can take that from me.

This is worrisome.. hopefully it doesn't pass

No longer protected unless registered? Really? Fuck congress.

even if they signature the bottom?

Sorry, that's not registered with a central, government run, authority and paid for. That'll be a $25 processing fee, $100 for the registration, and $12.50 in return postage so we can mail you the certificate of authentication.

Fffffffffff the government is SO money hungry.

This :P i think its purely an attempt to tax people in a way most wont even understand/pay attention to

it has less to do with the gov and more to do with the companies backing this. little guys like us can't afford to register every piece we do, so companies that scowl the internet for work can just go ahead and do so without fear of the artist showing up and seeking compensation. The gov won't make as much on this as the companies who thought this up and want to push it through.

This is completely stupid. I would no longer be doing convention photography and only do private shoots to save cost on registering my work.

If it DOES pass, you can say goodbye to any art ever being out in public....PERIOD.

+1

+2* extra point for the icon

+1 to that also, if this goes through I doubt I'll be keeping any of my art anywhere. xD

Sadly. Yes. :/ that icon though. XD

I disagree. As hard as it is to fathom not every artist places value on copyright to the point where they will be compelled to hide their works. Prior to 1989 the actual copyright notice on the work was required in order to have any shred of Copyright protection. However, beyond a cease and desist order, unregistered copyrighted works have no further power.

For example: someone sees art, uses it commercially, rakes in cash. The artist notices this, takes them to court but the work was not registered. The only thing a court is going to grant you is a court order to cease and desist and possibly attorney fees. You will NOT receive damages (i.e. the profit made by someone else using your work) unless your work has been registered. This has been the norm since Copyright law has even been a thing. Want full protection? Register the work.

But yeah, no people will continue to share out their stuff but some of course will be more inclined not to. Also bear in mind this is merely a report based on orphaned works with a mention of a possible solution to the problem of orphaned works. Nothing to really get worked up over. ^_-

It's a fairly longstanding issue. Basically the trouble is that copyright lasts so long that the proper owner of a copyright is often impossible to trace. Like, if you have some film made in the 20s, and company A owned the rights back then, but then got bought by company B which split off into companies C, D and E, and all of them have long since gone out of business, you end up with a work that becomes impossible to license. (Or similarly, person A creates a work, and little or no record is kept on who inherits their rights when they pass) In fact, it's often the case that once an ownership lineage is tracked down, the rightful owner (if any can be determined to exist at all) has no idea they even owned the copyrights in the first place.

So the idea with orphan works legislation in general is to try to put a system in place where better, more centralized records are kept so that owners can be tracked down more readily for licensing inquiries, and to put in place a compulsory license system (similar to how music performance rights work today) for works not covered so that they can be preserved, performed, displayed, derived and so on, rather than being locked up and forever lost to time.

I don't know how well the current legislation on the table addresses the problem while also not creating an undue burden for new content creators, but that's the background at least.

Hopefully this doesn't pass. This is just utterly disgusting... I mean, not even considering the whole aspect of private people using art, this is literally just playing into the hands of corporations wanting to steal from content creators without having to give any monetary compensation or even credit.

Remember that one time Warner Brothers got sued over using Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat and lost? Yeah, that kinda thing won't happen again if this passes.

I'd like to see an official source on this rather than J-Random-Tumblr blog or some random website they're linking to. I am quite sure that reddit and other places would be in a terrible uproar about now if this were really a thing.

Agreed. Googling the topic only really comes up with some year-plus old white papers, and the "request for comment" that they link to doesn't say anything about any bill or action that's about to occur. It has the hallmarks of uninformed tumblr panic to me.

I know Will Terry personally. THIS SHIT IS REAL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDoztLDF73I

Here's a place you can write a letter. It ends July 23rd. THIS Thursday.
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/.....id=DEeIBiwWgJ4

The guys talking are HUGE PRO's and should not be taken likely.

OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!

I read about this in a recent journal

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6898354/

It's a bad idea all around

I'm not sure what to think as I can't seem to find anything on this anywhere else. Is there a name for this bill or whatever?

I can't seem to confirm if this actually exists.

Us copyright office website http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Well this has been going around for ages apparently so it just seems like one of those silly attempts at changing things that will probably not ever happened. That being said(Devil's advocate) it doesn't seem that bad. They are still required to at least attempt to search out the creator of the work before use. Assuming they don't find the person and use the art and then the creator comes forward they are obligated to pay the artist for the work they used. You just can't sue them for infringement since it was an orphaned piece.
So it's not like they can just take a piece of your work and use it willy-nilly with no repercussions.

Actually, yes they can. If the bill passes you are REQUIRED to copyright it under a copyright firm, EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE. both before and after the bill has been past. It costs well over $1k to copyright ONE IMAGE. If it's not copyrighted, it's a 'ORPHANED WORK!" and therefore free for "anyone" (which basically means large corporations) to use for whatever reason. The reason for this bill is because "it's hard to find the original artists of [insert whatever art here] and ask for permission." Also, their argument is that "your work is too important to belong to you."
So yeah, it's a big deal.
It may not pass, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it won't but it's the concept that people in congress are trying to legalize the theft of ALL FORMS OF ART.

I've never been so pissed off in my life as I am right now.

It's called the Orphan Works Bill.

Ah, this is actually an ongoing thing. They were talking about these changes back when I was in college and that was 6 years ago. I'm pretty sure they try to pass this every year and get it shot down.

Going to just see if this actually happens or is actually a thing for now.

you know they should make a bill that says " no passing of bills to corporate benefactors unless its to help people and not give them money. "also i believe that they may or may not pass, but i wouldn't give them any leverage what so ever. also since my friend told me about some partnership congress was trying to slip pass when same sex marriages were pushed, im curious as to what are they trying to slip by this time?

So that "current version" you linked is just the copyright office saying that someone should draft legislation that addresses these issues. None of these potential horrors looks decided, imminent, or at all certain.

This is...wow. Wonder how this would affect adoptable-driven artists. They're the first that pop into my head. But the idea that someone could take my art and use and claim it without consequence is...disturbing

People have been panicking about this since 2005, it's never passed and really it would violate the berne convention so it actually can't.

Well, I guess the USA could opt out of the Berne Convention. In theory. However, if they do, US art of any kind will have no copyright protection outside the USA.

As you pointed out, it can't go into effect (not without the consequences I mentioned). So, why isn't someone sueing the people pushing for this for wasting tax money?

For the same reason congress doesn't get sued for messing around trying to repeal the affordable care act rather than actually doing something useful.

I know, I know.

I'm all for the relaxation of copyright laws, but this is absolutely abominable!

The only part I agree with is the copyright time line. It's last for the length of the life of the copyright holder +75 years. And since "Disney" holds Star Wars it'll never run out

I'm not surprised.
Things are only going to get worse.
This really isn't that big a deal compared.

Congress tweaks copyright laws a lot, but a bunch of the tweaks end up running afoul of SCOTUS over time. They have a tendency to try and nudge it outside of the basic constitutional definition and get dragged back here and there.

For those of you that think this shit is not REAL! I personally know Will Terry and quite a few other high profile illustrators, this SHIT IS NO JOKE!
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDoztLDF73I
Write a letter: http://conta.cc/1StMZat

You have until THIS Thursday (July 23) to send in your letter. I implore you all to do so! Whether you think it's real or not.

Why isn't this a bigger deal? Because internet moguls like Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Do not want you to know. Why? They're the ones that want FREE ART! These jerks do not want to pay for art. Their argument? "Your work is too important to belong to you."

Granted, it won't pass but it's the concept that something like this exists. They're banking on people like YOU GUYS (and myself) to not know what's going on.

I'm perfectly fine with registration being required for access to copyright protections especially now with so many more content creators out there than there was when Copyright law was first written. I go on the view if your work is that important to you, register it before sharing it out.

You should also be aware that beyond a cease and desist order unregistered copyrighted works have no further protections. Someone today can profit from unregistered work and survive a lawsuit coming out of it with a cease and desist order and maybe, depending on the court and circumstance, reasonable attorney fees. But you won't get damages at all unless the works are registered.

All and all, nothing's changed and the worse that will change if something like this were to pass is you would be denied a cease and desist order. Which is fine in my opinion. The free ride on copyrights should come to an end in my opinion.

1. I hope someone reminds them that the USA signed an international copyright law which supersedes national copyright law. The USA can of course opt out of it, but then US art in any shape or form has no copyright protection outside the USA.

2. *chuckle* *biting my knuckjles* *hysterical laughter*
Artist: You stole my art.
Corporation: It's not in the catalogue.
Artist: Here is the documentation that I registered it.
Corporation: Then why is it not in the catalogue?
Artist: Hey Goverment? Why is my registered art not in the catalogue?
Gouverment: Well... ummmh... you see... we are a bit behind in processing everything.
Artist: How far behind?
Goverment: Well... half a year and growing?
Artist: See corporation? You violated my copyright. I'm gonna sue.
Corporation: Hey goverment? You are the reason we are being sued, we are going to sue you for damages.

Just wait how long it will take to process the Marvel Comics and DC Comics archives alone. You don't think they will? Guess again. Marvel/Disney just made millions in Rocket Raccoon merchandise alone. Rocket is from 1976. Does anyone really think they will risk loosing the copyright of any character in their archive?
Now add the movie archives of Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner and Disney. Followed by the TV movies and Series.
And as licensing does not give you the copyright, foreign corporations weill register some of their stuff as well.

Have they really thought this through?

1. I hope you're aware that the EU, UK, and Canada *all* have "orphan work" laws. If "failing to keep parity with the international community" is a problem, then this point would seem to *support* the idea.

2. Doesn't seem to have been that big a deal for the Canadian and European governments. And, as people have said several times now...there is no bill yet, there may not even be a discussion of it in the appropriate Congressional Committees (apparently, the Judiciary Committees of both houses). It could work the way Canada does it, where people wishing to use a work, but unable to contact the rights-holder, must petition the government for a special license specifically for that "infringer's" use.

Copyright refers to specific images. Rocket is trademarked and at no risk of being taken by anyone else.

Ah, but when was Rocket trademarked?
And how many characters from up to 50 (Marvel) to 80 (for DC) years ago are not? Until recently Rocket was a minor character in Marvels archive.
I am speaking about a few thusand characters Marvel (Disney) has yet to milk. And maybe even more from DC's sliughtly older archives. Let's not forget, DC belongs to Warner. It may take them some time to realize what Disney is doing with Marvel and then the rime for adaptions like 'Catwoman' are over and done.

I really doubt they have trademarked every character yet. Want to know why? Do a youtube check for 'Worst villains'-

Characters can be copyrighted as part of a work as well. There is a lot of misinformation about characters only being trademarked. The catch to it is the character must not just be some generic "man on train" type. It must be a defined character. Rocket for example would not only have protections under trademark law but as well as copyright law. Part of this is why Disney pushed so hard for such extreme extensions on copyrights because trademarks themselves are extremely expensive, must be registered in each market segment the work is to be used in and is not a one time deal. You constantly must renew them as well. So protections under Copyright law are pretty cheap in comparison.

Copyright would work for a written description of a character, but when you're talking about a visual look, you need a trademark. I even looked it up; copyright refers to a specific piece or description, trademark refers to a look or design.

"1. I hope someone reminds them that the USA signed an international copyright law which supersedes national copyright law. The USA can of course opt out of it, but then US art in any shape or form has no copyright protection outside the USA."

Google "TPP," and panic.

Not yet, my firend, not yet.
The talks aobout that started with a (internatioally) well-liked president. The way the talks go it is already not very popular. Let's wait how another president handles the continued talks. I'm guessing the next president will be more agressive. On one side that's good, because he will probably really deal with the IS. On the other side he will probably push for even more intolerable conditions considering the TPP. And as that president will come from same political party as Bush Jr., we will see if we get to be 'old Europe' again.
In short, I count on him derailing the TPP at least partially.

The thing is that the TPP has now been placed on some sort of "fast track" to ratification. This is what has happened under Obama – an ethical and intelligent man who is being treated as a puppet by some bad men. Can you imagine what would happen if Trump were elected? Besides which, as a Canadian under the Harper regime, let me assure you that popularity has little influence when a senior politician wants to ram something down your nation's throat.

Yes, O know. Out chancellor has learned from her mentor, but sadly not well. He was able to do nothing while making it look like he was doing something. She simply sits most problems out. Except the prolems with Greece. I have stopped counting how often she had a solution.

Chancellor? Which Chancellor is that?

The german one.

Ah, thank you.

Yyyyyeah, while we're freaking out over this, maybe now some folks would like to also take note of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is now on the fast track to ratification? I guarantee that the contents of this new copyright law are lifted straight from the TPP. International compliance, for a more effective global information monopoly.

Don't even get me started on that shit pool of trade policy :T

Maybe you already know this, but there are ways to fight back. Openmedia.org has already won some tough battles, like the fight against the Internet slow lane plan. They get things done, and more help means more power.

Orphan Works is defined as any original work of authorship for which a good faith prospective user cannot readily identify and/or locate the copyright owner(s) in a situation where permission from the copyright owner(s) is necessary as a matter of law.

First, a work isn't automatically Orphan Works if it isn't copyrighted. I am not seeing anything of that nature in the linked document.

Second, the person attempting to use the Orphan Work must do a good faith search (this would include something like google images). You got your signature or some name on it, it should be identifiable.

Third, even if they are too retarded to figure out who made the work, the person attempting to use the Orphan would must still file with the Register of
Copyrights a Notice of Use.


I am sure there is reason for concern but the sky isn't falling.

(disclaimer) It isn't my area of law and I only skimmed it.

This was my interpretation of the reading as well (However, I only read the Orphaned Works section, and not the Digitization one). Additionally, I'm under the impression that even if someone performed a "diligent search" and can't find the copyright owner, and they go ahead and use the work anyway...The copyright owner can still come forward and try to receive payment for the infringement. They just can't sue for a million billion dollars anymore - Just for what they WOULD have earned had the rights been properly negotiated in the first place.

All in all, it's really not that horrifying.

All these furry artists worry about losing out on the millions they could sue for from those infringers!

Oh god hahahahah if this shit really passes IMVU can get away with stealing work from artist X D

watermarks and low res filesss... watermarks and low res fillesss.. *whispers into the wind*

with the orphaned work i dunno how they define it but in the EU we have been based on the orphaned work thing for a while but here is how its defined:

"""
Orphan works are works like books, newspaper and magazine articles and films that are still protected by copyright but whose authors or other rightholders are not known or cannot be located or contacted to obtain copyright permissions.
"""
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market.....s/index_en.htm

its mostly designed for libraries but those given there are examples.

Basically it means use watermarks and have at least a mail adress to contact you :/

i know its only one aspect but damn every time there is ANY law it feels like the internet explodes with fear

http://community.sumofus.org/petiti.....?source=header

Create a petition this site has help with net neutrality and many more. It's worth a shot.

I imagine Disney is pushing for it because of their love of stealing other people's work. :p 99% of the stuff they put out is something someone else created, not one of their employees or anything like that. :p

The problem is if a work is unregistered you cannot collect damages anyway. The best you'll get is a court ordered cease and desist notice and possibly some attorney fees. But you only get damages when you register the work. The copyright office even lists that as a benefit of registering your works. A change like this would merely mean you would be denied a cease and desist order but there are a lot of people apparently thinking they will get some sort of payday out of it too which is inaccurate.

If they do that then so can the public it will just be a great big mess I don't know much about how the american system works but this would potentially put creativity to a halt real fast art sites like this one would dry up since it one must remember art is not just images its what you make so this can affect tradesmen and artists alike such as aspiring cake decorators that take a photo of their work and put it on an online portfolio people starting with the rights activists would be on the streets no time flat if the bill passed it might not last long since companies can just as slyly rip off each other as well as any other individual.

I really hope this doesn't go through, because this would be horrible to block people from being creative and just sharing their works. I have no doubt Disney is pushing for it because they are the most corrupt and greedy company in the freaking universe.
Next to the US government of course.

no more likely it's the stock photo industry and copyright farms.

Oh I don't doubt it's them too, I just know how Disney is from personal experience.

How is Disney?

http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20.....fore-congress/

Just, uh... Just thought I'd leave this here...

*Arches an eyebrow*

Given what's been presented, I think this is probably on point... Now not to be speciesist, but do we really not know what the end result of 'crying wolf' is yet?

I swear aliens are really going to invade, the sky will fall, the dead will come back to life and God will point at us like the angry monkey from Family Guy as Cthulu rises from the depths and no one's going to listen. Damn, mass media.

^Note: That doesn't mean copyright law doesn't need serious discussion. It does. Yesterday preferably.

I'm going to amend my posts here, that video is hyperbolic. Here's the counter to that http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20.....fore-congress/
It is not law but a report, A REPORT.
Here is the report, known as the Orphan Works Report "Orphan Works and Mass Digitization" http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports.....-works2015.pdf

The heart of it... seem to be them asking for artists to voice their opinion for consideration to the Copyright Office's study on copyright. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Otherwise it's just all Google and Mircosoft saying their piece.

People seem to be misreading that this is a law or a bill, or what have you. I don't think that negates the importance of artists voicing their opinion while they still can.

The mention of Access Copyright in the video was interesting, though, at least to me.

If it passes watch the copyright office implode under the mass of registrations.

Im concerned, but im also hearing a lot of rumors that its fake as well. It hard to tell with all the dust kicked up from it spreading.

Real or not, I dont think it would pass as law because after reading, it just creates a laundry list of conflicting issues with rights ownership. Regardless, I think the general concept is disgusting and serves nothing but to dehumanize and silence artists. Something that already happens too much due to public ignorance.

Well basically this is just a report. But it doesn't matter too much in the end anyway because registration is still required to be given damages in a lawsuit. Without registration the best thing you've got is a cease and desist order which by the time you've discovered the infringement, they've already made their money in which the best you'll get from a judge is a court ordered cease and desist and possibly some lawyer fees (which go right into the pocket of your lawyer, not you).

I think there is this notion going around where freelance artists and what not believe that if someone steals their unregistered works and makes money that they can get a pay day out of it by suing for damages. At least in the USA, that's not how it works. Want damages? You will have to register the work anyway.

If the work is important then pay the registration fee and be done with it. All this talk about free rides people sure are wanting that free ride on copyrights without paying into them.

I think there was a scam associated with this, also the tumblr link doesn't lead to anything anymore.

That's not all, You should also check out the TPP situation, you can find out more on 8chan's /v/