?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Orphen Works' amendment

Someone posted this in a yahoo group I'm in and I figured some of y ou would be interested in this.


Currently, copyright works that the moment something is declaired 'fixed' or
finished it is automatically copyrighted. You have five years therein after
to registar it with the U.S. Copyright Office. The cost? Usually $30 a piece
or (the best way to do it) is to copyright multiple pieces under a single
'portfolio' name. Also, there was an assumption that because something came
into existence it had a creator and due to this nothing could be used
without gaining permission from this owner.

The amendment wants to change it to:

If somethig is not marked CLEARLY with a NAME then it will be assumed to
have been ABANDONED and thusly ANYONE has the right to use it, sell it or
otherwise 'put it to good use'. There is also a part in there talking about
if a thrid party takes something, erases your name and hands it off to
someone that someone can claim ignorance. Due to this the copyright office
is looking to be absolutly swamped with registation and what happens when
the demand for something is high but there are limited resouces to process
the infomration? The process either slows down dramatically or prices
usually go up or both.

(The rest of what she posted is under the cut to spare your friend's pages)



Please speak out against this! We CAN NOT LET THIS PASS! This would screw
every artist out there. How so? Who has sold a Con badge before? Yay! AND
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SIGNED IT? Of those who did sign it HOW MANY OF YOU
HAVE SIGNED IT I A WAY YOU'RE POSTIVE CAN'T BE PHOTOSHOPED OUT? Further more
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE $30 A PIECE SITTING AROUND TO COVER THE SON TO BE MORE
IMOORTANT THEN EVER COPYRIGHT REGISTATION?

Prepare to write your congressmen. Discussion is nice but this needs action!
People who are really loud and know how to spread word of things REALLY fast
this is your time to shine.

I thought I would bring this up to the gorup for a few reasons:

a) Seriously, everyone should know about this! TALK PEOPLE!
b) Yeah, so the furry fandom is pretty much BUILT on artwork, so if you're
fur this affects YOU.
c) If you've ever drawn anything rasie your paw.......exactly...

So, do what you need to do. Go here for further, more then likely way more
imformative information:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/00_home/newsFeedArchive/newsItem.php?newsID=060224110555

more info

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf

Artist's beware has moved!
Do NOT repost your old bewares. They are being archived.
https://artistsbeware.info/

Comments

( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
eski
Mar. 3rd, 2006 04:37 am (UTC)
I read about this from a friend, and was planning on making a post as well. Thank you for going ahead and posting the appropriate links. This is a VERY important issue, I think there will be an informative protest here in Colorado that I am planning on attending.
aaaamory
Mar. 3rd, 2006 04:42 am (UTC)
Thousands of dumb amendments try to go through the process and never make it and this looks like one of them.

Copyright law isn't a US thing, though, it's international. The US signed a copyright treaty along with many other nations, and it seems this amendment would conflict with the treaty and if it passes, it won't be citizens contesting it, but other nations as well.
evol
Mar. 3rd, 2006 08:27 pm (UTC)
It's another example of the United States thinking that they're the world, basically.
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:39 am (UTC)
I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
" Who has sold a Con badge before? Yay! AND HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SIGNED IT? Of those who did sign it HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SIGNED IT I A WAY YOU'RE POSTIVE CAN'T BE PHOTOSHOPED OUT? Further more HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE $30 A PIECE SITTING AROUND TO COVER THE SON TO BE MORE IMOORTANT THEN EVER COPYRIGHT REGISTATION?"

I think you're drastically over-reacting here...

Seriously, ask a few artists that physically know me; I have commisioned their 'unsigned' work up the yin-yang... you don't see me pirating my 'con-badges'

Yes.. i'm sure EVERYONE wants a 'Mix' con-badge. That name is so common, especially the werehyenataur character. Artists are dumbasses if they think that people will pirate their con-badge... cuz no one will want to buy it, let alone a print of a badge.

Let's see... Fenrir gave me over 100 unsigned sketches of his work (which really just collects dust on my coffee table, but it's great for convo pieces and for framing), Growly has done 5 amazing peices so far, WaterGazer agreed to it, etc etc...

Seriously, everyone has a style that cannot be duplicated.

Receiving art, especially unsigned, you agree, mutually, to not pirate their stuff for profit. If you do, however, it only looks bad on that person, and I beleive that the artist shouldn't stereotype every person that asks for art because of one bad experience.

I've kept my promises to not plagerize my art I ot from others... i intend to keep it that way.

~Mix, the werehyaenidaethylacinenazignollwilddogtaur that hates signatures.

"Viva de 'signature de non' révolution!"
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:42 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
Don't take it the wrong way; I'm just commenting on the dumbness of signing con-badges in fear of people reselling it. It will rarely happen cuz NO ONE WANTS SOMEONE ELSE'S BADGE!!! (And you can only resell it once)

But i get your point, and I fully respect your concern.
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:43 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
...conern towards the copyright ordeal.
(Deleted comment)
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:57 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
True.
westly_roanoke
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:55 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
Acutally, I like it when folks sign my con badges...

Helps me remember who the hell they were...O.o
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:59 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
*giggles*

i like it when it's unsigned, cuz when someone's flippingthrough my book, they tend to ask "Who drew this?"... which starts up a conversation about a good memory when it was commishioned and who drew it.

Unsigned work makes great conversational peices, in my thought.

westly_roanoke
Mar. 3rd, 2006 06:20 am (UTC)
Yeah, the person who drew this icon, actually...O.o
I've been frustrated, because I like to put the contact information to the artists when I scan it in and put it up on my website...and sometimes, (like in my case) you can't read my signature...and my memory isn't the best, especailly if it was someone random you saw at a con two years ago who isn't really fandom based...and no one else has seen her work...O.o
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 06:41 am (UTC)
Re: Yeah, the person who drew this icon, actually...O.o
Well, I take that as well into consideration.

I have them sign the back of the book. (Kinda like a school year-book)

Mainly because, if they sign the back of the paper, it shows up on the other side.
kayla_la
Mar. 3rd, 2006 10:47 am (UTC)
Re: Yeah, the person who drew this icon, actually...O.o
That is one handsomely drawn icon!
tenna
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:48 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
No, there is a danger of it being resold.

A lot of people buy prints or originals of other people's characters because they like the image regardless of who the character actually belongs to.

Someone could possibly photoshop out the name if that's a big deal or whatnot.

Seriously, even if you don't see the danger it is still plausible and not unlikely that people would be willing to edit and re-sell something like a conbadge.
mix_hyenataur
Mar. 3rd, 2006 05:56 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
I totally agree on your point, but I still think reselling con-badges are highly unlikely and shouldn't be stressed by the poster and other artists.

'Masterpieces' are another matter.
thaily
Mar. 3rd, 2006 09:40 am (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
Considering you don't want anyone to sign anything your opinion in this matter is pretty void as far as I'm concerned :)
crssafox
Mar. 3rd, 2006 02:04 pm (UTC)
Re: I think you're drastically over-reacting here...
My husband just brought up a good point on why this could be a bad thing, not JUST for furry artists....

Imagine a company makes a logo for themselves. Imagine one of the workers snatches it up before it's been copyrighted, and they take it to the copyright office themselves and copyright it. This logo the company just had designed (probably paid a graphic designer to make it for them) no longer belongs to them because it had been "abandoned," by the government's definition.

As for the whole thing about photoshopping signatures off, well, the problem there is that if people end up doing that, the internet will be overrun with stolen art. I know you say that you won't do such a thing - I'm leaving you out of this discussion. But suppose all those kids on Deviant Art decide to take images from their favorite artists, slap their own signatures over it, and post it up? Enough artists are already upset that DA allows kids to trace work and post it as their own. Now for it to actually be legal to post someone else's work as your own and not receive any consequences they'll start taking artwork and claiming ignorance. And sites like DA - that don't seem to want to do anything in the first place, they brush off art theft like a little bug that was bothering them - will do absolutely nothing.

This isn't an argument about signed vs. unsigned art. This is about someone else taking someone's hard work, claiming it as their own, and actually being able to get away with it. That's just downright dirty.

You say you have 100 unsigned sketches from Fenrir. I assume, then, that he's an artist that you enjoy. Suppose someone took all of his works, duplicated his web page (because hey! one could claim that the web page is art) and then put their own name on everything, taking all the credit. If no one else yet knew who Fenrir was, and this other person that stole his work ends up publicizing their copy web site and gaining more attention than the original artist... is that really fair? The other person is getting credit, praise, and attention for someone else's work. That is not a good thing.

I hope you can see why this amendment would be of concern to a good many people. My husband and I will be writing letters about it.
fierycatthing
Mar. 3rd, 2006 07:16 am (UTC)
I'm just a little worried what this means for artists who use symbols as their signature. I mean, I haven't signed my full legal name on my artwork in years. Nor have I registered my symbol as a legal mark for my name, because it changes every image. :/

Ugh. Just when I finally figure out all this legal mumbo-jumbo regarding copyrights to my work, things go and change. I hope this falls through, I don't want to have to pay more to keep my artwork protected, because I'm already running broke from it.
fierycatthing
Mar. 3rd, 2006 07:45 am (UTC)
I just would like to add, my mate found a wonderful article that explains in more depth exactly what danger artists and photographers are in. I suggest reading this.

http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a6wn022006-orphan.htm
kareizel
Mar. 3rd, 2006 08:58 am (UTC)
I think different countries have different... policies. Or ways, whichever which you reckon suits more. For example, where I live at - Singapore. Copyright is automatically placed on your work (like a book, script, illustration, art piece. as long as it's DONE by you from head to toe.) once it's done, so registration is unneeded.

As for the US, I'm not so sure but surely there'd be a limit to what people can take from your work, because if there isn't no one'd want to produce any works anymore. >_>;
thaily
Mar. 3rd, 2006 09:49 am (UTC)
"Copyright is automatically placed on your work (like a book, script, illustration, art piece. as long as it's DONE by you from head to toe.) once it's done, so registration is unneeded."

I think that's the current international rule, it's the same here in the Netherlands. But if you ever want to legally persue copyright enfringement the copyright has to be registered, but I think that can be done at any moment.
What I'm curious about is how this new amendment, should it pass in it's current state, is going to interact with the copyright laws of the rest of the world. If you don't have to sign it in the rest of the world, and those images are seen as "orphans" in the US could an EU copyright holder sue a US copyright enfringer if they meet current criteria to file a lawsuit in the US?

I don't think they really considered this when writing up this amendment, same as when Bush thought the internets belonged to the US.

Here there be dragons! ;)

I hope the amendment won't pass or at least will be changed before then, and that they won't slip it in a stack of other amendments and pass it as a whole, the same way some anti-abortion laws were passed.
kareizel
Mar. 3rd, 2006 09:53 am (UTC)
Hmm, we dont have to register for copyright in order to pursue copyright infringement here though.

I don't think so, I believe it's more of a "which country you're at, you follow their regulations" thing. I mean, we cant possibly be paying for every piece of work we do, even if it's a sketch, can we? >_<||

I do hope it'll be changed though. If not, it's just like dumping your precious things out for people to take them, even though you dont want to.
thaily
Mar. 3rd, 2006 10:16 am (UTC)
"I mean, we cant possibly be paying for every piece of work we do, even if it's a sketch, can we? >_<||"

So that means people will share less art lest it be stolen because they can't protect it adequately ;/
dreamerdragoon
Mar. 3rd, 2006 10:30 am (UTC)
The worrying thing is that if this goes through, it's likely to affect artists no matter WHAT country you're from or what that country's policies are.

I'm not in the US, else I'd be actively protesting against this, too >_< Bad enough that many current copyright/trademark/patent laws are already commercially rather than artist inclined.
neongryphon
Mar. 3rd, 2006 01:29 pm (UTC)
I don’t think this is dramatic cause for concern at the moment. It’s an amendment with potential conflicts with international copyright law, and it’s still under discussion. I have always liked to place a copyright notice of ownership on my art, and strongly encourage other artists to do the same. Adding metadata, signing work and just taking extra precautions to protect work is what artists will ultimately have to do.

Even now, you can never be 100% sure someone isn’t raping your art behind your back. It angers me that this would give art thieves a stronger defence, and commercial groups could make a killing with minimal financial repayment to the original creator. But lets not all panic just yet. This amendment certainly requires much more discussion before it should be allowed to pass.
kendubrowski
Mar. 10th, 2006 09:00 pm (UTC)
Orphan Works
How about if you are an illustrator with a web presence and someone downloads one of your illustrations to their blog without crediting you the artist.Then other peopler started linking to it or downloading it to their site.
What if things get worse in illustration and you decide to stop doing a sourcebook or shut down your website. The work is still yours but now all those images are in the dfigital world and no longer linked or credited to you. They can be used and credited to the blogger or to no one.
If there was no way to find out who the illustration belongs to , in essence this would be considered an orphan work.
I am not sure about all of you but I’m a small businessperson. I don’t have the resources to police infringement of my work, which under this proposal, could occur at anytime, anywhere in the world.
And go to Washington DC to a federal Small Claims court on my expense for a flat fee?
Come on...

Please take the time to visit the IPA to read about this.
The Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists is now up on the IPA site.

It directly links readers to all the resources they need to contact Congress, grasp the relevant issues, and read the 3 submissions IPA filed with the U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works Study last year.

Please help by forwarding this link to anyone who is looking for information.

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

Thanks Ken Dubrowski
Director of Operations IPA
info@illustratorspartnership.org
( 25 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

A_B icon
artists_beware
Commissioner & Artist, Warning & Kudos Community
Artists Beware

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com