Write Or Lose Your Copyright

Use the search function. It's really not that hard to do.

I'm glade Padre that you posted it in here as well and one of many links that are currently being posted up through different artist communities.

Before getting too worked up over the propaganda, read the actual report for yourself.

http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

Thank you, Chuck. :)

Thanks for posting the actual report Chuck . . . Still looks like artists lose. Can you imagine how expensive and time consuming it would be to have to file for each individual copyright? They are automatic and FREE right now!

The current non registered copyrights do not offer statutory damages, so not many lawyers would want such a case.

To put teeth in your copyright today you need to register your work. Even then you probably will never need your copyrights.

Side note Padre you postings, the art, is all PD, right? No copyright?

Dave

you don't you send in one large disk with all of them on it. however in any case, you have to go to court to fight it. and even if its registered there is no promise you'll win anything. and it may drag on in court for years. and they might pay, but the time lost may and probably is not worth it.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

also keep in mind, you can only copyright your own personal work, or changes you made on PD work. if you use PD work, you can't worry over that anyway.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Is that right, Mike? so if you're working with PD art you just copyright the layers that you created (the changes you made) and not the resulting finished image? that's interesting. It makes sense because the law of PD says a person can't assign copyright to PD or any part of it.

i'm not sure how its done, but i can only copyright the color parts or the things i changed on it. i think you present the original image though, but i can't be sure. i don't register the stuff because i can never see myself in court fighting such a thing. but that's what i read, you can't register something that its in the public domain because its the public domain. the creative parts you can though. unless you change it a lot, i can't see anyone winning in court over a pd image. colorizing might be a different ball game, but i don't know how it totally works. like can i claim copyright for fixing the exposure and cleaning up the image? i don't know how far it goes out.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I believe the law is in regard to derivative work, Mike and Cynthia. If you receive permission to make a derivative work from a copyrighted work, then Your copyright only pertains to your artistic elements in the new piece.

Public Domain is public domain. There are no such laws attached to PD.

Cynthia,

I just got another Registration with the LOC. At the bottom an exception was made for all of the PD work.

Only what I add or put into the artwork is registered.

I always get a picture in my mind of one of those masks at the opera that rides over the bridge of the nose and eyes, while
being held up on a stick. The underlying face being PD in this analogy. The mask being copyrighted.

Now if I change the tone, the brightness, the color etc or the shape of images on the pixel level, I can copyright any of that.

I do this for several reasons. My type of work, I want a claim on it. My estate....might not be worth squat while I am alive, but I want
to leave it clearly to my nephews and niece. And I am starting this process from day one, which means I can spread out the expense much
more easily....particularly because the copyright office is allowing 170 MB of images now on their uploads...and I am wondering if that has
been expanded yet to 500 MB which allows many many images to be done in one $55 shot on the eCo part of the site.

Dave

but you can only copyright the brightness, nothing else. i also didn't think you can register things with the library of congress, you do that if you want it PD for the world to share. the copyright office is the place you get copyrights.

if you blur the mona lisa, you can only copyright the blurred parts.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

From what I've read and watched, the proposal seems to favor the infringers and the people that don't create anything of their own but that want to profit from work made or owned by other people (artists and their estates) under the guise of orphan works, public interest, blah, blah, blah.

I'm not referring to derivatives of PD work here.

I'd be interested in supporting copyright legislation proposed by organizations interested in strengthening, protecting and preserving artists rights and I find this to be the exact opposite.

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

Copyright.gov is part of the Library of Congress. I think they made a separate website just to make it easier for people.

http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/derivative-work.html

....explains derivative works and what can be copyrighted

It's $55 for a collection of unpublished works, up to 500MB each upload. Single works are $35 each.

I have a lot of published works, so I have to figure out if I can copyright them as a collection (even though they were not published that way) or if I have to register them all separately. What I may choose to do is register the couple dozen published works individually and then register the rest as a collection. This is something I've been putting off too long.

According to copyright.gov, "Published works may only be registered as a collection if they were actually first published as a collection and if other requirements have been met. " I have presently 626 published images online. They were not published as a collection. They were published individually over a period of several years. If I had to register them individually at $35 each, it would cost me $21,910.00 - more than I would likely ever make from POD sales at my current income levels.

I have stopped uploading new images until after this matter is clarified. I am accumulating them in a folder where I may publish them as a collection at a later date once I have a large enough quantity to make it worthwhile - assuming it is still required. The type of mandated registration in this proposal would force me to remove all of my work online as it would not make any sense to spend that kind of money to register it. Additionally, the privatization of the copyright office registration process could drive prices higher.

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfollio.net

but what is the definition of published? that its online? in an official location? a local contest?

i'm still not caring about it. i just can't worry over these things. while i don't want my work stolen, there isn't much i can do unless i spend obscene amounts of money to get money back from them and only if they have money to pay me. and any other tactic is just another way for the gov to take my money.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

but what is the definition of published? that its online? in an official location? a local contest?


http://artlawjournal.com/can-register-multiple-works-copyright-office/


Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

" If I had to register them individually at $35 each, it would cost me $21,910.00 - more than I would likely ever make from POD sales at my current income levels."

David, that is the existing law now. Registration is optional. If you need to enforce your copyright and your work is not registered, it is virtually the same as not having a copyright.

In any case, unless there is a major POD break-in, infringement is limited to low-rez images gleaned from the web -- same as always.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan,

The new proposal wants to require registration for copyright. How would that work for existing published images? What would it cost to register individually?

Who would do it? The proposal wants to hand that over to a private (presumably for profit) entity.

900px size on FAA is big enough to steal and use. If not registered, no copyright for the artist (under the proposal).

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

I wonder if some of you understand what "Orphan Works" means. This whole discussion is about to handle orphan works, which are works where the original copyright owner is hard to establish. If your image is on the internet, on your website or any website where it's tied to your name it's not at all difficult for anybody to find out you own the copyright.

sometimes an image is copied so many times, you can't find the original owner. sort of like when an image becomes a meme, and its viral. trying to find the original owner is really hard.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Absolutely correct, David K. It is easier to establish copyright/ownership today and in the foreseeable future than at any other time in history.

"900px size on FAA is big enough to steal"

David G., you are not the only one guilty of saying "steal" when you mean "infringement," but when people do that it tends to discount everything they say on the subject. It's not possible to argue the finer points of copyright and intellectual property with people who don't grasp the difference between auto theft and copy/paste.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Can you imagine how expensive and time consuming it would be to have to file for each individual copyright? They are automatic and FREE right now!

"... automatic and FREE" ... ?? What does this even mean?

I have the right or freedom to walk down the street and not be assaulted, but if somebody assaults me, then I have to PROVE it, ... meaning pieces of official paper from the doctor that document my injuries, pieces of paper from my health care providers documenting the medical costs to treat injuries, hospital stays, etc., ... any people who witnessed the attack (documented on pieces of paper that are the police reports).

Yes, you HAVE the right, but you HAVE ALWAYS HAD TO PROVE that your right was violated. You have ALWAYS had to REGISTER your copyrights, in order to proceed (with any legitimacy) in a copyright lawsuit. Same as it has always been. You either do this registration at the front emd, WHEN you create your work, or you do it at the back end, when you try to scramble to register it within the statute of limitations to go to court with your case.

Do you want to wait until somebody infringes, before you register? If you go ahead and register, as has always been recommended, then the legal hassle is taken care of at the front end. It seems to me that the proposed new legislation is just making this more clear - the REALITY of what it takes to go to trial with a copyright lawsuit.

Twenty years ago, I registered all my original paintings that I had completed then as a group for one umbrella fee. ANY sort of legal registration has a fee. It ALWAYS HAS. Registering copyrights has always had a fee.

No significant difference, ... just stated in more upfront, in more direct language now.

The reaction that I seem to be seeing appears to be from people who NEVER understood the reality of going to court over copyrights to begin with. And now they are having this rude awakening to how it has always been, but just stated in a way that somehow concealed the hard truth of the law as it is practiced in real courtrooms.

Dan,

The new proposal wants to require registration for copyright. How would that work for existing published images? What would it cost to register individually?

Who would do it? The proposal wants to hand that over to a private (presumably for profit) entity.

900px size on FAA is big enough to infringe and use. If not registered, no copyright for the artist (under the proposal).

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

There are tons of free and low-cost images available today, and that trend will continue as cameras get better, smaller and cheaper and software becomes more accessible. A five-minute check of Creative Commons licenses on Flickr will confirm that thousands of photographers -- darn good ones, I might add -- are willing to give away their high-rez files for *any* use.

I understand completely photographers who don't want to get caught up in this image free-for-all. On the other hand, technology is a freight train that doesn't care who is standing on its tracks.

If you think your images are worth registering, then do it. There was never any protection outside the system. Never. If you feel you need the protection and benefits of the system, than you need to be in the system.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

The government continues to find ways to deliver more revenue to themselves from YOUR pocket.

and ...
just looking at the numbers of artists and photographers here on FAA - never mind the whole USofA - that many more government workers hired - or exactly when will (how long) before you know/knew when your work was actually registered and what IF it was 'borrowed' before it was actually registered. Lawyers will have a field day, the courts will be jammed - and YOU dear artist/photographer will be out of pocket more than it's worth.

If not registered, no copyright for the artist (under the proposal).

No that's not what it says. You still own the copyright. In theory today if you do not register the copyright, you can still get damages. It's just a lot harder, if not impossible, without the registration. Most copyright attorneys will not touch a case that involves non-registered images.

What the proposal says that if you did not register the copyright, that the user after a "reasonable" search for the image owner, the work is considered orphan and all bets are off. If the image is registered and the user claims they did all they could to find the owner and you show them it's registered, the ball is your court. I see registration as a protection not a hindrance. The proposal is a clarification of a gray area in current copyright law.

"I see registration as a protection not a hindrance. The proposal is a clarification of a gray area in current copyright law."

Well stated, Chuck.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

FTR, I am in the wait and see camp. This 'orphan' concern isn't really my impetus for getting formal copyrights. It was just the reason I decided to post about it.

A lot of great points about copyright . . . but the proposed law will privatize the copyright system. Artists will work for whatever registry they file with.

Mike,

If no one has said it yet, the copyright office is under the LOC.

Dave

I have a lot of published works

Cynthia,

I got into a big headache with the office over this last time, the third time.

The agent sent me a bunch of emails in a back and forth. It all hinges on what the definition of published legally is.

For instance putting them up on FAA is not publishing them. And selling copIes...MIGHT...not be publishing them either.

It has something to do with selling the original. Selling copies I am much less sure of. As a digital artists your work
MIGHT not be published yet.

You need to get into the details of legally what being published is.

I got my third registration for 7 works in the mail yesterday.

The 170 MB is now 500 MB. The agent mentioned that. Thanks for confirming it. I have far more work this time to register.

Addition your work by definition is probably unpublished. Do not put a publishing date in the field and they will accept it as such.

Dave

Cynthia,

They changed the rules late last year or beginning of this year. That does not mean they changed many of the rules, but things have changed a bit
particularly for the publishing thing.

what also matters is when you file. After I post to FAA I file within three months. But now what the definition of published is up for grabs. Legalese I am not
competent in.

All I know is there is a three month schedule as well.

Dave

but the proposed law will privatize the copyright system. Artists will work for whatever registry they file with.

Where did that come from? The copyright registration is only done through the US Copyright office. http://copyright.gov/eco/

If you're doing it through a private 3rd party service, you're getting ripped off. It's like I said above, you've got to stop reading the propaganda and find out for yourself how all this works.

If I do this, I'll do it all myself online. It's a simple (but not short) form with upload. You get copyrights from the link Chuck posted: http://copyright.gov/eco/

I don't think submitting things to the LOC (library of congress) is the same as obtaining formal copyright. The LOC maintains searchable records of things that have been copyrighted. Where is your "3 month" number coming from? You can copyright anything you created ever.

I work with 3 different licencors/publishers that sell some of my images as prints. I have formally licensed some of my images for resale. At this point I believe that means they've been published according to copyright definitions. I've also self-published a children's book that was on sale at Amazon and other locations. I think that counts too.

I am not a copyright lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. This is the definition as I have come to understand it from reading a lot of boring PDFs and talking to more experienced friends.

The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords
of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of owner
ship, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute
copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes
of further distribution, public performance, or public
display constitutes publication. A public performance or
display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.


From here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Now, I THINK that selling copies yourself to end buyers does not equate to publishing in the eyes of copyright law. Licensing, leasing, contracting with someone to produce and provide prints for you is publishing. It appears to be all about resale. If you yourself are selling to individuals, through the internet, even though a provider portal like FAA, or a gallery, or whatever venue, the work is not considered published. If you are licensing or leasing your work to be reproduced or used in a wholesale setting to resell to others (distribute to the public), it's considered published. Keep in mind the term is used specifically for copyright purposes and doesn't carry the same meaning as say getting a book published.

Again folks, do your own homework on this, this is my interpretation of the definition.

I submitted everything through the eCo.

The copyright office is under the LOC. You register with the LOC through the eCo for digital materials.

The copyright office is just that an office of the LOC.

Yes "sale or other transfer of ownership, lease or lending". I do not know your circumstances, but I am not published.

The marker on the eCo system is the publishing date field. Leave it empty. My mistake last time. I put in a date of filing it here
on FAA.

Dave

Artists will work for whatever registry they file with.

Is that a problem?

We work with whatever insurance company we file with in matters related to life threatening illnesses or medical concerns.

We work with whatever domain name registry that handles our domain names for establishing corporate identity on the internet.

Everything of critical importance in our lives is usually handled by a company in the private sector. This is basically how life works in every other area. Art is just now catching up to the rest of reality.

Artists will work for whatever registry they file with.

Is that a problem?


Robert,

It is not true. I registered my domain name with GoDaddy. I do not nor will I ever work for GoDaddy.

For not with In reality GoDaddy provides me with a service. They work for me.

Dave

"the proposed law will privatize the copyright system. Artists will work for whatever registry they file with."

Padre, you have allowed yourself to become a victim of half-truths and rumors. You are spreading misinformation.

Early in the thread you were provided a link to the actual report. For your benefit, here it is again:

http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

Please quote that instead of the alarmist propaganda you are attempting to foist upon us.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan, You must be very unsure of yourself to fear that someone could "foist" anything on you from a discussion thread! LOL

This is a conversation and I posted my opinion as others did. As to the validity of my opinion . . . Brad Holland is an award winning artist and expert on copyright. He shares that take on the proposed law. Brad has been called on to testify on the subject as an expert witness before Congress. Has Congress asked for your opinion on the matter, Dan? I think it id unlikely.
You should take a deep breath and relax . . . read the thing yourself . . . read it twice if that helps. Then come back to the conversation as an adult not a rude child.

"I posted my opinion"

Padre, you have posted a link to Brad's opinion. Yours appears to be "me too!"

Should you form an opinion of your own I would be interested in reading it :-)

Today (July 23, 2015) is the deadline for public comments. Anyone wishing to voice their opinion should go here and submit the required information:

http://copyright.gov/policy/visualworks/comment-form/

Be advised that the Copyright Office intends to post the written comments and documentary evidence on its website in the form in which they are received. Nice! We will no doubt revisit this issue with renewed vigor when those are published.

In the meantime, the current controversy centers around a U.S. Copyright Office report. It is not a bill, it is not a formal proposal.

Here it is, once again:
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

Also of note; the Intellectual Property Office in the UK is working to draft orphan works legislation. It closely parallels our own. They have published a two-page leaflet addressing photographers biggest fears.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603093549/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-orphanmyth.pdf

There is a wealth of official, legitimate information within easy reach. Look at several sources before allowing yourself to be taken in by one source of alarmist propaganda.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Alarmism is being foisted upon us, for sure. The word, "foist", by the way, means "to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant."

This word, then, does not imply lack of sureness in a person's demeanor at all. Rather, it puts forth the idea clearly and with a sense of sureness that what someone else introduces or inserts does NOT have sufficient validity to stand up to serious scrutiny.

The title of this thread, Write Or Lose Your Copyright IS such a surreptitious introduction, based, apparently, on ONE source of opinion that renders the facts unclearly, even to the point of being erroneous.

It is not true. I registered my domain name with GoDaddy. I do not nor will I ever work for GoDaddy.

Just to be precise, I did NOT write "work for". Rather, I mirrored the phrase of the topic starter, ... work WITH. There's a huge difference in meaning. You work WITH GoDaddy, and GoDaddy works WITH you. The two entities work together. Successful human interaction always involves a mutual power dynamic.

What is your problem, Dan? If i want to agree with Brad Holland's opinion or anyone else for that matter, it is my right. You label thoughtful consideration 'alarmist propaganda' and dismiss it rather than deal with the facts presented. The links you post are interesting and their relevance is covered in Mr. Holland's interview.
You seem unable to post a comment without trying to be insulting . . . is that another reflection of your insecurity and fear of being "foisted" upon?

Padre,

We will not be working for other entities because of the new concepts or possible new rules at the LOC.

It is a total misnomer. Can we call it what it is? Misinformation?

Dave

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-congress-stop-the-next-great-copyright-act-orphan-works-and-mass-digitization-bill?tk=rIP1L0CZQ9rQgCWFHxD-F-4QMxEnGkuaS_ObsQpdO1Y&utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt&utm_campaign=new_signature

Fear is a powerful motivator. Some find it hard to ignore blog posts and petitions with lots of exclamation points claiming that something bad is about to happen to them. Apparently it's more fun to get scared and enjoy the drama than to actually look into the matter.

Case in point: The young man who started the petition in David Gordon's link is from Vancouver, BC. That's right, Canada! The Canadian Copyright Act has had a provision in its Act since 1988 to deal with orphan works. It is successful. Canadian rights holders have no complaints. The sky has not fallen. The U.S. and other countries without such a provision are using Canadian law as a model for their pending legislation.

Padre, it is obvious you don't have time (or desire) to do your own research. Many people don't. But the hyperbole-ridden warnings should be a tip-off to you that their "facts" are suspect. Just a little Google time would assuage your fears and make you a lot less defensive.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

To add to what Dan T. wrote, ... simply agreeing with ONE distinguished person's opinion does NOT render comfort in that agreement as somehow sacred and unquestionable. Why go with just one person's opinion without doing additional research to substantiate it before agreeing with it? Find the basis for the strong opinion, and then see if the basis is supported by facts or fears. I see fear, NOT facts. There are NO facts presented. In fact, the facts are obscured in the fear that drives the language of alarmism.

I do not see that Holland's opinion has considered those facts properly. And by upstaging facts with fear, he has not done anyone a service. He merely conveys his fears to garner a following based on those fears, while obscuring the facts.

The loss of copyrights is NOT at stake. This fact seems clear to me.

If I am wrong, then I would like to know HOW we are in danger of loosing them. Tell me exactly how we would loose copyrights, if new legislation were to happen?

Substantiate the title of this topic thread with facts, NOT with someONE else's strong opinion.

The information was posted for the benefit of those individuals that share those concerns. If you do not agree, you are free to ignore it. Just learn to let it go and move on.

David, I do not agree with fear-mongering misinformation and I will object to it long and loud for those who might be taken in by such tactics.

Getting a functioning orphan works plan into U.S. Copyright is critical. Other countries have clear rules; we do not. It's time.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

David G,

An open discussion does not automatically back up the initial opinions of the OP.

We owe you respect, but not silence or the repeating of sort of poorer information.

I know you mean no harm. I have known you a bit on here for a while. We wont be working for anyone, but
ourselves. The new agencies that might come into being will work as a service for us. With computer power
increasing and networks becoming more robust the costs of copyrighting our works could drop substantially.

In fact last year the eCO upload limit was 170 MB, now it is 500 MB all for the same $55 for multiple files.

This situation economically for artists will continually improve.

Dave

The way I understand it is and what I have been told, once your images are uploaded online, they have been published (i.e. for public viewing)

On page 63 of the suggested changes it states,

"Where a user satisfies the eligibility requirements of the orphan works legislation, monetary relief is limited to 'reasonable compensation'. Neither actual and statutory damages or attorney's fees would be available. In most cases a 'reasonable compensation' will be close to or identical to a reasonable license fee."

The idea behind this is that you, the artist, must negotiate with the party that is using your image illegally.

Does that sound like protection of your copyright? The best you can do is reclaim your filing fees, if you negotiate successfully. If not, will you pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to litigate for the cost of a license ~ not even attorney's fees? Not likely.

Then if the party uses your image again you must file another 'Notice of Claim of Infringement' . . . to have the right to negotiate, again.

Sounds more like an invitation to infringe than protection of copyright.

Padre A.,

I understand what you quoted to mean that a person (user) who has done a diligent search, did not locate the copyright holder, and the copyright holder surfaced ONLY after the use began. The user, then, would be obligated to pay reasonable compensation for what he/she used in the absence of the locatable copyright holder. In other words, the user could not locate the owner, used the work, the owner showed up later claiming the work after it was used. The user would have to pay something now, whereas the copyright holder had NEVER, up to this time, monetized the art. The user succeeded in monetizing a piece of art for which he/she could not locate the copyright holder after a diligent search. Only now does the artist want to take it seriously enough to proceed to court, AFTER the fact. A legal registration of the work most likely would have prevented this. A findable association between the pictorial work and its creator would have prevented this. I would ask, "How is it that the copyright holder could not be located after a diligent search?" Why wasn't the copyright holder more connected to the alleged infringed work?"

Remember, we are talking about ORPHAN WORKS in that quote. Why are we so worried about orphan works, if we as artists establish our public identities and proximate connections to our works? If you paint, then sign your works. If you do digital art, then take steps to establish the chain of evidence that identifies you as the creator of it. Every time you upload an image, fill in al the ID information that might be allowed, ... put your REAL name in the "alt" portion of coding for websites. Do not just throw work out there under fake names or screen names or cutsie, cool-sounding handles.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is an excerpt from the full report in question, where bold type indicates exact quotes, and regular type in brackets indicates my response:

United States Copyright Office (June 2015), ORPHAN WORKS AND MASS DIGITIZATION, A Report Of The Register Of Copyrights, p 50 -52.

Notably, advocates for illustrators and textile manufacturers have been persistent since 2006 in pointing out that, because their works are rarely made available to the public with copyright information attached – either for business or aesthetic reasons or because the information is nefariously stripped out – a search, no matter how diligent, is unlikely to be successful.

[ So how does proposed legislation make this worse? This is ALREADY happening, and has always been happening. ]

Thus, they argue, orphan works legislation, if applied to commercial uses, will create a loophole for bad actors to exploit, without any benefit to visual arts creators and owners in terms of increased licensing.

[ What? - Simply including wording about a "dilegent search" in new laws is supposed to DISCOURAGE infringers even more from doing something that they already do NOT do? Seems to me like legal wording would REMIND potential infringers to do what they have already been FAILING to do routinely. ]

Furthermore, they maintain that in order to close this loophole, visual artists will be effectively forced to spend an enormous amount of time and money digitizing and registering their works with private registries, a burden that only the most wealthy will be able to bear.

[ A strong legal claim to copyrights in a court case has ALWAYS favored REGISTERED works. A registration record of visual works includes pictures of the works, dates or creation, creator's name and other identifying information that establishes a clear record of ownership and a clear legal basis for making the copyright claim stick in a lawsuit. The burden of proof of ownership has ALWAYS been on the creator of the work. The so called "loophole", then, seems like a figment of the imagination of those artists who have never known what it has always taken to EXERCISE a copyright in a REAL legal dispute. Only the most wealthy artists ALREADY are and have ALWAYS been the ones who are most likely to prevail in a copyright lawsuit, because they are the ones who can afford the REQUIRED court costs to FULLY see the lawsuit through to its conclusion. I, therefore, see absolutely no way that the proposed legislation makes this situation any worse than it has ALWAYS been.]

Thanks for your post, Robert.

The fact that infringement has always been a problem is true. By taking the teeth out of the law (slap on the wrist damages) then the problem is institutionalized . . . it is as you say, the new law would not discourage infringement but would make it easier (therefore, worse).

I haven't really followed this thread but I do believe that Holland is fear mongering. I also agree with Robert Kernodle's position on this. If you have established a connection between your work and your name you would have no need no worry about having orphaned work. Oh yeah maybe some long forgotten image that somehow got out of your control and was never associated with your name might surface. In that case a provision for relief is provided. I hardly see that such a provision would be encouraging infringement.

What this legislation will allow is large collections of print media that was meant to be put for license and monetized to be mass digitized (scanned). That would be a very good thing for the vast majority of the artists and their heirs. They would start receiving recognition and royalties for work that has been in a sort of limbo.

The odds of an image ending up in someone's possession that is totally unfindable is pretty remote. If you have it on the internet associated with your name it will be found with a diligent search. If you sent in some slides or art to a now defunct stock agency or magazine 30 years ago and did not put your name on them, they might be stored somewhere with lots of other unscanned work. They might surface in a mass digitization project. I would think that would be a good thing. That's the purpose f this legislation. To move the legacy of mankind into the digital age without creating a mass of lawsuits by the tiny amount of artists and their heirs who have work in these collections that cannot be associated with them.

The fact that infringement has always been a problem is true. By taking the teeth out of the law (slap on the wrist damages) then the problem is institutionalized . . . it is as you say, the new law would not discourage infringement but would make it easier (therefore, worse).


Padre,

The quote you took from page 63 is very out of context. The quote does not mention if the work would be registered or not registered. If it is not registered there is no teeth in the current
copyrights anyway. Currently if a work is registered you then can sue for statutory damages. Your partial quote neglects to tell us what is going on, again it is out of context.

Dave

A similar bill has been introduced before, in 2006 and 2008, and failed both times. Hopefully that is the case again. There is a petition on Change.org where you can sign your opposition to such legislature. I also suggest you write your state congresspeople and senators.

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-congress-stop-the-next-great-copyright-act-orphan-works-and-mass-digitization-bill?just_created=true

Folks to me personally the only reason to be against this bill is the privatization of the registration process
would strip the copyright off of some of its staff. That means fewer people getting a federal retirement package.

I am against this bill based on that. People deserve proper retirement benefits.

Dave

If your work is already digitized and on the internet I don't see the alarm here. This is largely for the purpose of moving the large paper libraries into the digital licensing arena where they belong now.
The vast majority of artists involved do not have orphaned work and they or their families would benefit from this. If they didn't want to monetize the work it would not be in the paper archives to begin with. The copyright office uses the word "20th century digital black hole" to describe the current state of these works. Most of us are well into the digital age here in the 21st century. This does not affect us. We are already digitized.

I don't understand at all why we on a digital site would want to hold up what should have been done years ago.

As Cynthia reminds us . . . this bill has been introduced before and defeated . . . for very good reasons that have not changed.

What bill Padre? The issue is mass digitization and orphan works. Mass digitization is absolutely a necessity for civilization to move into the digital age. The question is how to deal with orphan works so they won't be lost to humanity or hold up the digitization of works where there is a known copyright but also contains work where the artist is not known. There are several possibilities on how to proceed. Lots of copyrighted work is not being scanned until the rules are worked out. The physical owners need rules to proceed otherwise their troves of art stay lost to the digital age and digital libraries cannot be established,

There is no set proposal yet. You are supposed to write to give your opinion on what option you would like or maybe come up with something new. There is no bill. The existing laws are not working. If a particular option is something you don't want then write and say that. This bill certainly has not been defeated as it has not been written. Once again artists are so paranoid nothing gets done and we are stuck with stupid things like DMCA orders instead of something with teeth. In case you didn't notice Google images is already a digital library. But stuff that was never digitized can't be looked up and will eventually be lost forever. This issue has been around since at least the early 90's. Its time to get this done so the artists whose work is not orphaned is not held up by the potential of owners of orphaned work to suddenly come in with a mass of lawsuits once their work is digitized and searchable.

I know it is a lot to read but once again it's all in the June report on the study by the U.S. Copyright Office. http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

"The goal in doing so is not to interfere with jurisprudence, but rather to ensure that the
rules are clear and that all parties are on equal footing. "

What affects and concerns most of us is not the mass digitization of physical works such as already published books, magazine etc, but the rules that determine what defines an orphan work. Here is what the proposed legislation would have users do before using any work as an orphan work. They would have to do a diligent search. As of now there is no clear rules for a diligent search. So we need that. This is what is proposed

"Define a diligent search as, at a minimum, searching Copyright Office records; searching
sources of copyright authorship, ownership, and licensing; using technology tools; and
using databases, all as reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances"

There is nothing really new here. This codifies what most of us assume is already true. That anyone looking for us can find us because our work is already all over the internet associated with our name in places like FlickR or FAA or any web gallery that has our name on the same page as the work. The most popular "digital tool", Google Images, does a good job of finding us. And there is also Tineye and other image databases. And no doubt these will evolve and only get better. No need to do anything more.

If your work should somehow be orphaned there are rules that would ensure compensation without going to court. How is that worse than now where all you have is a DMCA order ?

DEBUNKED here:

http://copyrightalliance.org/2015/07/visual_artists_recent_orphan_works_rumors_are_not_true#.VcfVwPkRHlQ

If you are concerned about copyright, I suggest you join The CopyRight Alliance and become an advocate, then you will know what is going on and when.