Home Browse Forums WebChat Groups Portal
Welcome, guest, log in below:
Name Password


Register Forgot Password?
8 Online
Orphan law
May 8, 2008, 11:36:54
The new Orphan law legislation is being pushed through in America. There are concerns about how it will negatively affect artists.

Several groups have come to the forefront to fight for artist's rights against this piece of legislation.

The following message is copied from Conceptart.org, one of the bigger sites, this is not a panic or drama situation. It is a very real concern for all artists whether you're in the US or not, please read all of the information about it. I am posting this because I believe as artists we all deserve the chance to weigh up this bill, discuss it and to decide whether we are for or against it.



IMPORTANT MATTER FOR ARTISTS - we must take action today! Do not lose ownership of your art!

Hi everyone,

The text below will be self-explanatory. There is an important issue facing us as artists, related to the copyrights of our works, which corporations wish to control and take at our expense, We must put a stop to this immediately unless you wish to see others owning and plagiarizing your art.


This is too important to ignore please participate and forward to your others.

[link]

[link]
[link]
[link]

Congress is rushing these bills through to a floor vote. The House will start marking up their version of the bill at 2:00 today; the Senate will do so tomorrow. To try to stop this bill, we first need to slow down the race to get it passed.

FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP

Take Action: Don't Let Congress Orphan Our Work

We've set up an online site for visual artists to e-mail their Senators and Representatives with one click.

This site is open to professional artists, photographers and any member of the image-making public.

We've provided sample letters from individuals representing different sectors of the visual arts.

If you're opposed to the Orphan Works act, this site is yours to use.

For international artists and our colleagues overseas, we've provided a special link, with a sample letter and instructions as to whom to write.


2 minutes is all it takes to write Congress and protect your copyright:
[link]


Please forward this message to every artist you know.

Conceptart.Org




The truth is, there is a lot of unnecessary panic out there, there's also a lot of complacency about this bill, the truth as always lies somewhere in the middle. I suggest everyone reads the actual bill and considers what impact it will have on them. I for one do not find it acceptable at all, the language of the bill is too broad and ill defined to be a decent piece of legislation and it goes much further than simply the preservation of history for the enrichment of society that it is claimed to be all about. Either way, this bill will affect us all if it gets passed, so it's only right that we get a say in whether or not it does.

Edited to update with [link] which seems to present one of the most even handed looks at this legislation so far listing concerns, concerned groups, differences between the legislations that have been presented and other information.
Report
egads O_O;
Report
The language in the bill is very typical legalese...and needs to be tightened up. I'm neither for nor against this bill personally, since my art is literary, and this focuses on visual arts. However my husband feels about it will determine his response, and of course, I'm completely supportive of that, ...and of all fellow artists on whom this has an impact. And I agree that people need to read the information for themselves (the lack of that is what's caused the panic). Like I said, though, for me personally, this doesn't have any impact on me.
Report

Actually it's aimed at any creative work, visual or written.
Report
The aim may be there, certainly, but the language (at least what I've read) isn't indicative of that. Some protective measures in terms of copyrights of written work are already pretty firmly established, from what I've read, and can't be undone by the Orphan act.
Report

I wouldn't put any bets on them not being undone, technically the orphan works bill violates other laws and a recent law in Oklahoma violates constitutionally guaranteed rights. Sometimes the law makers just ride roughshod over existing laws.
Report
What recent Oklahoma law would that be?
Report

The one that mandates that all women seeking an abortion have to have a non-necessary ultrasound either abdominal or vaginal, whichever gives the clearest picture. Since most abortions are first trimester, that would be vaginal in a large percentage of cases. Vaginal ultrasounds are humiliating, painful and quite frankly forcing them on women is medical rape. There is also no exception for women seeking it because of rape or incest.

The law was pushed through by pro-life groups and has the following aims, one it will drive the price of abortions up because the unnecessary and humilating procedure will have to be paid by someone, two they're hoping it will guilt women into keeping pregnancies they perhaps cannot handle, so it's basically designed to be a roadblock and to try guilt tactics on women who are already under stress. Plus a "lovely" side effect of vaginal ultrasounds is that if the woman changes her mind? The ultrasound carries a risk of harming the fetus so not only may a woman be giving birth to a baby she cannot support and did not want due to guilt tactics but the kid could be born with medical issues thanks to the ultrasound.
Report
Actually, vaginal ultrasounds are not painful, nor humiliating. It is simply the tip of an instrument that looks something quite like a dildo, inserted naught but an inch inside the woman. I have no idea what kind of vaginal ultrasounds you've been told of, but I know of no kind that is painful. For the vaginal ultrasound to hurt the baby it would have to enter the cervix, and go beyond, which it does not.
Report

The doctor's claim smears are not painful as well, but they are painful to some women and women who have had vaginal ultrasounds done personally have told me that they were actually painful. Furthermore I've had an ultrasound myself, if you're going to tell me that them jamming an instrument into your flesh and jerking it around to get a clear picture isn't painful then you're barking up the wrong tree, I expected to have bruises and I was only having a routine chest ultrasound.

There are two schools of thought when it comes to ultrasound, there are those who say because twenty years of using them hasn't shown any really awful side effects, they're safe, then are those doctors who realise that x-ray were once considered safe and several high placed medical organisations actually reccommend it to only be used in a few situations, suggesting that doctors suspect that it might not be as safe as we've been led to believe.
Report
Barking up the wrong tree? Excuse me, but I myself had a vaginal ultrasound just earlier this week and there was no pain or "jerking around" or "jamming into flesh".

Chest ultrasound? I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing ultrasounds of a different variety. I don't know of any ultrasounds, outside of the other end would consists of jamming anything anywhere. Perhaps you could educate me? (Not being sarcastic at all here, to let you know, I honestly am curious).

I've had many a bodily scan, none of which were painful or uncomfortable, save for the CAT scan of my ovaries, where, well, let's not get into that. That is a different subject entirely.

As far the ultrasound being unsafe, I couldn't say. I don't manufacture ultrasounds, nor am I a doctor of any kind. But, I think it's fairly safe to say that if there was any doubt to them being unsafe, something would change, and quickly.
Report

That's you, perhaps you were easier to scan or perhaps your nurse has a defter touch.

Firstly some people have a lower than normal pelvic bone which would mean no picture unless the probe was placed against the cervix, 2 out of five women have a reverse sloped vagina, so it's not as easy as it looks on the medical diagram. Even in something like a smear where they can directly see what they're doing, they have to go looking for the cervix in some women, now imagine someone moving a probe around in there because they can't find the implanted fetus... ouch is all I can say.

If they can't get a clear picture they do press down harder when giving ultrasounds, when I had my chest one done they had trouble getting a clear image and had to re-arrange me and press down hard with the wand to get a clear picture.

I've had quite a few as well including MRIs, ultrasounds and various other scans.

I think you'll find many things remain on market despite risks. In cases like [link] it took six years for them to react despite babies being born with horrible deformities. In quite a few cases we really don't know the long term implications of what we put into our bodies all too often.
Report
Perhaps so.

I myself have an inverted cervix, though I think that is different from what you are speaking of...

And yes, now that I see what you mean, I can understand how a chest ultrasound would hurt, as when they do it on the tummy, there's more skin and stuff there. On the chest it's just bone. So yeah, owch.

As for the Thalidomide, I have heard of that, and 6 years, in retrospect seems a short time, compared to some other things in the distant past that have been on the market. Long term implications -- makes me think of Agent Orange, where Vietnam vet's kid's are affected (there was a time the doctors thought that my disease was caused by Agent Orange that was possibly in my father's system. Luckily, he tested negative) still today.
Click here to read more comments.
Report
So how will this affect current international agreements to which the USA is currently a party?

Under Australian law copyright is automatic on creation of a work (as appears to be the case in the USA). Would a USA-based potential user of orphaned work need to make any checks that the work originated from the USA? If not then it would be a free-for-all with all non-USA artwork for anyone based in the USA. International artists would have to register their work with private USA companies to avoid this happening! You couldn't make this stuff up - nobody would believe you.
Report

They don't seem to have considered that important enough to actually address.

I presume not since they've left the definition of a "reasonable" search up to the courts. Basically yes, that's what is going to happen because they haven't addressed international copyright.
Report
Of course not - I keep forgetting that the world ends at the great lakes and the Mexican border

It would be easy to wallow in self pity about all of our art getting "legally" stolen by Americans but the real victims here are US-based artists. After all, which clients will hire a local artist when they can legally steal from the rest of the world? For most of the rest of us it makes little practical difference because we sell little, if any, art to the US market. The few who do would probably find it financially viable to register their work in the USA.

What's really terrifying is that the US government would probably impose this onto other countries via trade agreements just like they did to Australia with the abomination that is the DMCA (without the "fair use" provisions enjoyed by US citizens).

Q. Where does a 500lb gorilla sit?
A. Wherever it wants.
Report

Hence why we need to fight it, I never understood why the US government keeps trying to legislate everyone elses choices.

Fair use isn't called fair use anywhere but the US, it's fair trading or fair dealing in other jurisdictions. Australia call it fair dealing, so you guys do have it, it's just under another name.
Report
Good luck fighting it - those of us who cannot vote for your government cannot hope to directly influence it.

Australia had some fair use provisions but most of these were removed when we signed up to "harmonise" our copyright laws with the DMCA. These provisions are still less than those available in the US. For example, there is no legal right in Australia to make any backup copy of any copyrighted work that you buy (ie. CDs or DVDs).
Report

I'm from the UK not US, actually we can lobby against it, international pressure as well as pressure from within would help.

I'd suggest lobbying your government then for those rights.
Report
I guess it's time to start watermarking my pictures then ...
This bill, if passed, is outrageous and seems to serve only one purpose: a fee machine for a couple of venture capitalist tapping into these unchartered waters of art. Probably some nephew of the bill sponsor has trouble getting his business off the ground ... *sigh*
Another reason why I detest capitalism
Report

Not just that, but it also allows big business to basically steal art and will ensure artists get paid even less. Basically it's going to kill the freelance art market, maim the in house art job prospects and may signal the end of art as a viable small commercial enterprise.
Report
I can see what the intention of this bill is and it is almost worthy, but with phrasing it the way they do the bill maker actually opened the floodgates instead of closing them.
I sent an email to my representatives (even though, technically, I am not a constituent )!
Report

I don't think the intentions are as they state, because everything they talk about is covered under existing fair use guidelines. I suspect there's more of an agenda behind this than they're letting on.
Report
I believe the bill maker had the right intentions, but in the process he got swayed, like I said either by his nephew pr maybe even a lobbyist sprinkling dollar bills.
Any which way, this bill is ridicilous, for Americans and even more so for non-US citizens, because they get "invaded/occupied" by a foreign force.
Report

I agree but between the people doing their best to make all objectors look totally nuts and the people trying to push it through, I'm worried we're going to get stuck with it.
Report
Hopefully we get enough critical mass to stop them from turning this bill into law.
Report

I just hope we all don't get dismissed as nutjobs because of all the tin foil hattery going on.
Report
So what, we know better
Report

If congress considers any opposition to be nutjobs, wouldn't it pass a lot easier?
Report
Perhaps, but they're not all nutjobs ... hmmm, I hope
Report
Thank you for taking the time to research and provide an actual bill instead of an alarmist scare.  Now that I see there is in fact real legislation up for debate, I am confident this is the time to act.  Thank you VERY much!
Report

It's not all my research, I'd definitely rather see people making informed decisions than being stampeded by rabble rousers.
Report
Exactly.

I also made a comment I thought would get the Congress-critters' attention, in my letter: since written works could fall under this...what about the blogosphere?  Especially when people have to express their political speech anonymously for whatever reason--think about the chilling effect.

Hopefully bringing the First Amendment into it will get people's attention...
Report
Well if you really wanted to protect your work instead of complaining about the bill, just deal with it. Easy way to get rid of the problem is to submit your art to the copyright offices and sign it, therefore you can be founed and you will be compensated for the use of your work. No, I am not saying that I agree with this nonsense but it is managable to deal with the system. I'd rather not but if it saves me the trouble of someone stealing my work it's well worth the $45.00 to get a patent on it.
Report

That doesn't help those of us who get ripped off because nobody ever thought of including international searching definitions in it and nobody addressed international copyright issues. They haven't limited it to only American art, so they're basically forcing any artist from another country who gets ripped off by an american company or thief to accept lower compensation because the cases have to be prosecuted under American law, so they're foisting it on unwilling international artists as well.

Not every artist can afford to pay the government to copyright every scrap of work they do and which some artists having a catalogue that goes back years, that's a lot of suddenly orphaned work.

Furthermore we don't have to -deal- with it, the government is supposed to have the best interests of the people are heart, not trample all over them for the sake of big business interests.
Report
1. Where did you get the figure of $45 from? There is no restriction on how much a private copyright registry will be allowed to charge.
2. As I understand it, works already registered with the Copyright Office itself are not protected under the proposed law.
3. Is it reasonable for me, an Australian citizen and resident, to have to register my work with an American entity? What if other foreign countries start demanding that, as is the case with patent law?
4. Patents and copyrights are distinct and different legal concepts. Please learn the difference; we are concerned here with copyrights, not patents.
5. Taking your figure of $45, this is an unreasonable burden. I personally hold the rights to more than a thousand copyright works with at least potential commercial value; $50,000 is not a reasonable requirement. In particular, it is not a reasonable demand for the USA to make of an Australian citizen.

We are trying to do something about the bill. We are trying to make sure that it does not become law.
Report
You need to learn to take things haberdasher says VERY lightly.  He talks before thinking quite often and without doing his research as well.
Report
I went to the government copyright arts page. Don't make excuses I stand by what I said Tero stay out of my opinions and don't discredit me, I hate it when you do that.
Report
I discredit you because what you say doesn't apply to everyone.  Read the other points before making a big deal out of it because it only makes you look more foolish when you adamantly stand by statements that aren't fully correct.
Report
Read my return statement.
Report
Look before you post; you keep cluttering the page.  I already saw and replied to your other post.
Report
I went to the goverment copyright page which states that a piece of art submitted with 45 dollars will cover your work. some may be able to afford it,others may not. I don't agree with the laws that are possible to come. As for deal with it my temper was a bit rash and two faced while I push against the bill, I say deal with it which on my part was not right to say. I admit I am wrong in saying deal with it, but at the moment it seemed possible to cope with, I underestimated the effects on foreign countries for that my appologies. I was rash and rude, which isn't good but as far as my word and vote go I am against it, if that helps any, again sorry.
Report
Much better
Report
Could you link me to "the government copyright page"? I'm not entirely sure which one you're talking about.

I'm not bothered by silliness or temper, though intelligent responses tend to be more helpful. You've ignored nearly all of my points, for instance.
Report
sure here it is [link]
that is it.
Report
The link you give is neatly cherrypicked, and is misleading if viewed out of context. To clarify, I offer this quote from  a different page on the same site.

"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection" - [link] (emphasis is mine)
Report
already been through this on devart and I've heard about this, good and bad, and at the moment it doesn't even appear to be an actually bill in congress yet. so i'm not worrying about this till it actually starts looking real.
Report

Behind with the times aren't you?

It's in congress already. It is real, I wouldn't have authorised or written a news post if it wasn't already before congress.
Report
i see.
message sent.
Report
[link]

I think something is fishy about this.03O
Report
This issue reared its head a month or so ago, and we rejected it because there was no bill before Congress (and therefore nothing concrete to get excited about).

This is no longer the case. Here are links to bills currently in Congress: House and Senate
Report
I just got that news today and yes I knew about this way before I joined here
Report
Both links give me a "Temporary file open error. Display failed."

Fixed link to bills currently in congress: House and Senate.
Report
Alas, the Library of Congress' system refuses to give me reliable links. Silly LoC!

Also, doesn't rickrolling ever get old for you?
Report
In the event that this thing gets passed, I'm going to have to remove all of my writing from the internet :(  I really like having it here for critiquing, but I also can't have my stuff being stolen, which this bill would easily allow.  Hopefully it doesn't get passed, and I get the strong feeling that it will not unless seriously revised for our concerns' sakes.  But government also sucks ass, so it's a possibility
Report
Actually, I disagree with your interpretation. Written work is extremely easy to find online, so having yours online (with your name and contact details) is an effective (and free) way to defend it against abuse under this proposed amendment. If your work shows up correctly attributed in a simple Google search, then no one can claim that they made a diligent search and failed to find it.

It's visual art which could cause problems here, since it is far more difficult to search at present.

By the way, I have actually read the bill itself (and debated the wording). There may well be valid concerns, but not all of the outcry is actually based on anything I could find in the bill.
Report
I bet this is another one of the government's attempt to wring out as much money as possible from people. -_- pretty sad.
But this bill sounds impossible to be passed because millions of people all over the world post pictures on the net and using that bill would have great effect on the world which sounds too nazi like for my taste.
Report

Actually it's more a case of it's sponsored by certain people who either have certain beliefs about copyright or who have an interest in seeing such legislation pass.

It's not impossible, it's unlikely since many bills die in committee, however if someone's really trying to get this through, they may force it through anyway.
Report
"The truth is, there is a lot of unnecessary panic out there"

Well said. I had a few people address this situation to me, though with limited understanding.
I looked it up, read for myself, and I am not overly concerned, and hardly in a state of 'panic'.

Knowledge is power.
Report

I am concerned personally, I don't want this bill to pass because I know how much damage it'll do to the art industry but I really don't get how people wigging out madly is supposed to actually help the situation.
Report
*sigh* Yes, it is sloppy legislation that needs to be tightened, no it does not mean that the government is out to legalize art theft.
The original purpose of the bill is to acknowledge the copyright office's age-old problem with what to do with works that are considered orphans. Like I said, it can possibly be exploited, but I seriously doubt if the bill is passed that companies will wage a blitzkreig across the internet stealing everyone's art.

And all this business of people removing their work should the bill pass, WTF? It's not a new problem, nothing's changing. You just have to be smart about how you distribute things on the internet is all.

People, research it, get to know about it. Don't just take one person's word for it.

It's nothing worth losing sleep over.
Report

Actually the bill is supposed to be about enabling museums to legally copy disintegrating archive material by unknown or unfindable author and use it for educational purposes, and about allowing people to preserve things like photos from the past. They went and tacked on a lot of things though just for commercial interest groups.

Being smart won't help you unfortunately if someone removes all identifying marks from your image and puts it out there or claims that they got it like that and can't find the artist.

I agree it's not worth losing sleep over, I also think that if it does pass, it will cause issues.
Report
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. The purpose of it is to find a solution for what to do with work like that. and like I said, I'm well aware that it can be exploited.
It's also worth mentioning that the bill has been killed before because of loose wording.
Being smart also means knowing where to put a watermark to where it doesn't take away from the image, but trying to remove it will destroy the image. Though that might not always be possible, there's other things you can do. It also includes compressing your jpegs while posting them on the internet to where they're still viewable, but crap quality in print and not uploading your art at a size that's big enough that anyone would want to print it to begin with. Also keeping tabs on where you upload your work, putting links back to your site. The easier you make yourself to find, the more it curbs the "I couldn't find the artist" excuse.

This is stuff people should be keeping in mind anyway. Whether this bill passes or not, there's still dishonest people out there who will take artist's work and try to make money off of it. I had it happen to me a while back by someone in China who tried to sell my work on merchandise through ebay without my permission. Since then I've been more careful with my images.

There's honest establishments of business as well as dishonest. This bill isn't going to change that either way. Even if they're in the wrong, it's still the artist's responsibility to police their own work and keeping themselves educated if they want to minimize it from happening to begin with. And the only absolute way to make sure your work is completely protected from theft is to not let anyone see it, which in the end screws yourself over.

It just takes a level headed approach to things is all. And that's more of a response to people threatening to pull their work from the internet should the bill pass. To me, that's just panic setting in when it doesn't need to.

The bill is something worth keeping aware of, don't get me wrong.

Also, copyright laws, whether it be in the United States or international, still apply. So your artwork's still yours even if you don't register it. Although registering it, if you can afford it, is still a good way to go. And it's not even worth your while to bother with every single thing if you do register your stuff with the copyright office. Even professionals don't do that. :P
Report
:B This is why I don't like it here anymore.
Report
I don't understand why it is always said that 'Whether you're in America or not'. I keep seeing that on many art sites on the same matter. I'm not an America residence and I don't really see how it affects foreigners when it is an American law being passed.
Report

The problem is in civil law cases you inevitably have to sue under the laws of where the problem happens, ie some American company appropriates your work? You have to sue under American laws not the laws of your country. It's hard enough to sue internationally as is, the severe cap on the damages possible will put justice out of reach for anyone who is ripped off by an American scammer using the orphan law.
Report
oh no, not this bill again, cant they just forget about it?

it's never gonna make it into law, and if it does, they'll have every artist in the free world up in arms, suing their collective pants off.
Report

Apparently they can't just forget about it. It's a shame because I can see the good side of what they're trying to do, it's just the legislation they keep trying to pass is a very bad way to do it.
Report
Someone I know posted this on some forums I go to regularly. She's a law student, (about to take the Bar exam) and I believe she's lined up to be a federal judge. (Can't remember what her boss told me.) Anyway, here you go:






Disclaimer: The content of this post is for informational purposes only. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of anything I have written. This post is not intended and should not be used as legal advice. All legal issues depend on the specific factual circumstances surrounding them. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney who is familiar with the legal issue at hand.

I don't think that Furcadia should be in the business of politics, but I'd rather address the erroneous statements about this proposed legislation. You will seldom find a more ardent advocate of intellectual property rights than I, but I think that this is a reasonable proposal.

The proposed bill is not the legalization of copyright infringement that you make it out to be. Petitions like these rely on the fact that most people will not do their own research. I found the full text of H.R.5889 on the Library of Congress web site. (In the search box, choose "Bill Number," and enter "H.R.5889.")

Limitation of Remedies

QUOTE(Clockwork @ May 7 2008, 11:33 AM) *
basicly this is an act that says any works where the original artist cannot be found (via a short, quick search) are free game.

First, the bill does not say that such works are "fair game." What it does is limit the remedies of the owners of orphan works to "reasonable compensation" for the use of the infringed work. The infringer may be required to account for proceeds earned that are "directly attributable to the infringement." The court may also grant injunctive relief (an order for the infringer to cease infringement). The primary difference between the current copyright law and the proposed bill is that under the current copyright law, the owner of an orphan work could get statutory damages and attorney's fees.

To be sure, the proposed bill is not as favorable to the owners of orphan works, but this limitation of remedies is a far cry from declaring open season on all orphan works.

Infringer's Eligibility for Limited Remedies

Second, in order to even be eligible for this protection, the infringer must do several things. He must "perform and document a qualifying search, in good faith, for the owner of the infringed copyright" before he uses the work. The infringer must file a notice with the Register of Copyrights. He must also provide an attribution to any apparent owner. His new work must include a notice of the infringing use.

What is a qualifying search? The infringer must "undertake a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright." Despite your source's contention, the infringer can't simply shrug his shoulders and say that he didn't find the owner. The infringer must satisfy these three conditions:

    * the actions taken in performing that search are reasonable and appropriate under the facts relevant to that search, including whether the infringer took actions based on facts uncovered by the search itself;
    * the infringer employed the applicable best practices maintained by the Register of Copyrights; and
    * the infringer performed the search before using the work and at a time that was reasonably proximate to the commencement of the infringement.

The fact that a particular copy of the work "lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner of the infringed copyright is not sufficient to meet [these] conditions."

In short, the conditions for eligibility are so onerous that most infringers will not be eligible for protection. The vast majority of people who infringe others' copyrights make little or no effort to locate the owner before infringing the work. Those who do look are unlikely to document their efforts as they search. Even fewer people will bother to file a notice with the Register of Copyrights and provide the proper notice and attribution on their own work.

Effect on Artists Who Publish Online
QUOTE(Clockwork @ May 7 2008, 11:33 AM) *
that means if you're a furre who uploads your art to deviantart and deviantart doesn't release your real name to the person searching for you, they can just take the image and reuse it however they like.

Based on the standard that the proposed bill sets forth, this would not be a qualifying search. This is especially true when you consider that galleries like deviantART offer ways to contact the artist through comments and PMs. Many deviantART users also include their e-mail addresses on their profiles.

Perhaps what this petition overlooks most is that prevention of orphan status is entirely within the control of the artist. Artists can eliminate the risk of having orphan works by including identifying information with any copies they post. Even an e-mail address may be sufficient if it's one that you check. Because "best practices" include acting on facts uncovered while searching, an infringer should be required to write to the e-mail address posted with the work.
Report

I'm afraid the law student has somewhat misinterpretated the new law herself. Unfortunately it does seem entirely reasonable to people who don't have to deal with people who will -grasp- any loophole they can. Fact is due to loose wording of the bill the law will come down to being tested in court and how it's actually applied will depend on who has the bigger better lawyers and who can afford justice.

She's also not consider internation copyright impact since this bill will essential override any foreign copyright holders right in event of the infringer being American.

There's extremes on both sides, those who so want to see the good in the bill that they ignore the bad, and those who have exaggerated the badness of the bill out of fear, either way it's still not an acceptable piece of legislation.
Report
I actually did read the law myself, and I didn't find the wording to be "loose" or "ambiguous" at all.

But that's my opinion.
Report
man i read alot of the comments on other sites and i read the bill my self. if you read it all you can see most people focus on discrediting it. Basically i believe that this will create huge loop hole. It does day that is the artist can't be found that it will be orphaned. but does anyone know how they go about looking for them??

the gov. won't take care of that end (the registries where your supposed to pay to get your work registered) they can't bc if they set up these registries because it breaks international laws.
so your supposed to pay  how ever many places that pop up by independent people.(which could be successful  or could go under) now right now if the bill passes there are none of these places(that i know of) or how to run these places. given they would allow time till some open.

but these are just some of the problems. i know everyone out side the us thinks it not a problem but there this a loop hole in that. what if i take a piece of art work from France let say. change it give to a company they can say since they don't find you they can use it. yes you can fight it in courts and tie it up. but in the end are loosing more money they you be getting?

i am not say that copyright laws a the best right now but i don't like the loop holes this bill is going to make.
You have to be logged in to post comments.
Former Newsposts
MayFly Exchange Results!:
Jun 20, 2008, 00:02:08

New notes system
Jun 18, 2008, 19:28:05

Information for Artists
Jun 14, 2008, 23:00:30

Emotive Expression Community Project Extended
Jun 13, 2008, 21:48:00

Calling all traditional artists
Jun 9, 2008, 03:17:51

Community news:
May 29, 2008, 09:09:55

WebChat change! (The awesome kind)
May 10, 2008, 13:21:34

Orphan law
May 8, 2008, 11:36:54

Emotive Expression: A Community Project
May 5, 2008, 22:27:31

Rejoice, for beruthiel is now our traditional gallery moderator
Apr 23, 2008, 10:39:41

Help us Boycott 'Colourful Illustrations'
Apr 19, 2008, 23:28:59

Poll: Get rid of BBCode?
Apr 8, 2008, 18:10:24

Literature and pornography.
Mar 27, 2008, 15:18:00

Doing the admin shuffle - lit folks, valys is now officially looking after you
Mar 25, 2008, 03:32:38

The Second Secret Mayfly Exchange
Mar 24, 2008, 04:34:23

Email addresses