Orphan Works
Hi all,
Just thought I'd stir the pot on this issue. There's no bill yet before congress, but it's become a bit of a hot button issue over the past few days due to a rampantly spreading article.
here's the article. There's also a counter piece, and I went off topic on my own blog and posted a perspective as well. This has less effect on games themselves, but I know a lot of graphic designers and digital artists work in gaming, so this could potentially be relevant to them.
I'd like to get opinions from the development community in particular for a few reasons:
a) to determine whether artists who work in game development and who put their portfolios online should be or are concerned about this kind of legislation, and to put the issue in perspective for all interested parties;
b) to determine how that concern should be addressed--there are definitely benefits to an Orphan Works Act substantial enough to lead to support for this kind of act, but there is also a potential threat to artist rights;
c) what alternatives to such legislation would the legal community put forth to address the needs of both those who would use orphan works and those who want to protect their works.
This isn't currently before congress, but according to the March report it still being considered by the Copyright Office and there is obviously a desire to create this legislation. As I was first pointed to this article by a photographer and again pointed to it by the ip_rights mailing list, I figured it had caught SOMEONE'S interest.
This is mostly directed toward visual artists in the games community-- concept artists, 3d artists, etc. Visual arts in particular are at risk. Removing attribution from game code is one thing, but it's fairly easy to crop an image you found in someone's portfolio, distribute it online, and have it turn up in commercial context without the original artist ever being aware, notified, or compensated.
I think this proposal is a good one in that it helps to resolve some of the problems that have been created over time by copyright. But it's disappointing that it should be necessary. Hopefully it will go hand in hand with reform of copyright in general so that the problems like these don't need fixing in the future.
First, I think the author of the Animator's World article probably does his cause more harm than good by obscuring the issues and overly inflammatory tone.
The orphan works report issued by Ms. Peters does a good job of pointing out some of the concerns behind the proposed legislation. Being an advocate of a strong copyright, I admittedly have a kneejerk bad reaction to these types of proposals, but I believe some of the concerns are well-founded.
Realistically, my advice to clients seeking to use creative works or to those that have created copyrightable material would not change that much.
As an artist, if you don't register your copyright and someone infringes it, the most you're entitled to is actual damages/profits--under the orphan works proposal, if the orphaned work owner resurfaces, they would be entitled to "reasonable compensation" ( I would assume this is close to actual damages/profits). Further, if the artist has registered the work, this issue wouldn't arise, b/c someone using a registered work and claiming it is an orphaned work would clearly not meet the due diligence requirement of orphan work use.
As someone seeking to use the work, you should be performing adequate due diligence in the first place (whether this proposal goes into effect or not), otherwise the project which incorporates the work may be subject to injunction/tro, etc. based on infringement. With very few exceptions, you must secure the copyright rights (in writing) to all creative work used in a project or potentially be subject to these damages. I believe the orphan work proposal (as Ms. Peters discusses it currently) merely provides good actors who seek to use an orphaned work and have already performed requisite due diligence a slight degree of comfort/risk assessment to use the work going forward, knowing their title won't be pulled off the shelves.
In terms of your last point though, "Removing attribution from game code is one thing, but it's fairly easy to crop an image you found in someone's portfolio, distribute it online, and have it turn up in commercial context without the original artist ever being aware, notified, or compensated. ", I don't think this is a huge concern under the proposal, b/c the artist's rights are probably similar in both situations (i.e. actual damages and profits vs. "reasonable compensation") once the artist is aware of the use.
I don't think the fair use inquiry really enters the fray here, but this post is already way too long.
The mini furor over this issue strikes me as your classic "tempest in a teapot."
First, this proposal in such a preliminary state of development that I have trouble understanding the sudden outpouring of concern. I'm all for proactive monitoring of upcoming issues but this is definitely a stretch.
Second, I think some people who don't know much about copyright law are working themselves into a lather for no reason. I really don't see how this proposal fundamentally alters copyright holders legal protections. In a monetary sense, as mentioned by jrspencer, the difference would be between actual damages/profits and "reasonable" compensation. I struggle to see how that would make a large difference. In either case, if you haven't registered your work and catch someone using it they have to pay you for it.
Basically this proposal strikes me as a safe harbor where people who make a reasonable and good faith (but ultimately unsuccessful) search to find the copyright owner are allowed some small amount of protection in using the works. If the owner suddenly reappears they can still recover the value of their used work, just under an alternately worded formula. Also, again as noted by jrspencer, if the user is trying to claim orphan status for work that turns out to be registered, then you can basically disclaim any idea that they did a good faith search in the first place and therefore aren't eligible for protection. This isn't carte blanche for people or companies to steal work with impunity.
I think what is really going on doesn't have a lot do with this specific proposal but more with the continuing evolution of intellectual property in a digital environment. In many cases IP assets are much easier to steal/borrow/alter/trade then they were in the past and I think a lot of people feel that control over their work is (or already has) slipped through their fingers. Combined with a history of some artists and small companies being unfairly deprived of their rights, paranoia can spread quickly. I can definitely understand how maddening it would be to find someone unfairly profiting from your work, but ultimately the available recourse wouldn't really change under the Orphan Act.
Originally posted by Spence
The mini furor over this issue strikes me as your classic "tempest in a teapot."
First, this proposal in such a preliminary state of development that I have trouble understanding the sudden outpouring of concern. I'm all for proactive monitoring of upcoming issues but this is definitely a stretch.
Quick point here-- it was actually already brought before Congress in 2006. The "proactive measures" are I believe in response to Marybeth Peter's recent testimony and apparent desire to see an Orphan Works act come into fruition.
I'm certainly not disagreeing that the paranoia and panic is a bad way of handling it, but I just wanted to point out that the proposal isn't exactly "preliminary."
Second, I think some people who don't know much about copyright law are working themselves into a lather for no reason. I really don't see how this proposal fundamentally alters copyright holders legal protections. In a monetary sense, as mentioned by jrspencer, the difference would be between actual damages/profits and "reasonable" compensation. I struggle to see how that would make a large difference. In either case, if you haven't registered your work and catch someone using it they have to pay you for it.
Mm, fundamentally there's no serious threat to artist's rights and it is always in an artist's best interest to register the work immediately if for no other reason than to obtain statutory damages. However, the reality is that lots of artists don't register immediately, and identifying an unattributed visual work is complicated. How do you run due diligence for a visual work? You'd have to rely on registries and databases designed to recognize images, which may be an additional expense to the artist. Something Marybeth Peter's testimony also suggests is that even registered works can be considered Orphaned Works:
"While it is possible that a registered work could be an orphan work within the proposed legislative framework, we think this is unlikely to be a common situation, not because the registration is guaranteed to be found, but because an owner who has taken steps to register his work has likely taken other steps to make himself available outside the registration system."
Ms. Peters' conclusion may not necessarily be the case in those instances where the work is orphaned as the result of theft, i.e., if the image is taken from someone's portfolio database, cropped or edited so that attribution is removed, and redistributed. With no means of identifying the original author unless the work is registered with an image recognition database, the possibility of this risk might be arguably slim, but out of the billions of images on the internet, "slim" is still a pretty big number.
Basically this proposal strikes me as a safe harbor where people who make a reasonable and good faith (but ultimately unsuccessful) search to find the copyright owner are allowed some small amount of protection in using the works. If the owner suddenly reappears they can still recover the value of their used work, just under an alternately worded formula...This isn't carte blanche for people or companies to steal work with impunity.
This begs the question: What's a reasonable due diligence search when we're talking about stolen images and other hard-to-identify subject matter? How do you locate the owner? What reasonable expense do we expect users to pursue?
I think what is really going on doesn't have a lot do with this specific proposal but more with the continuing evolution of intellectual property in a digital environment. In many cases IP assets are much easier to steal/borrow/alter/trade then they were in the past and I think a lot of people feel that control over their work is (or already has) slipped through their fingers. Combined with a history of some artists and small companies being unfairly deprived of their rights, paranoia can spread quickly. I can definitely understand how maddening it would be to find someone unfairly profiting from your work, but ultimately the available recourse wouldn't really change under the Orphan Act.
The reason I suggested a re-examination of fair use is precisely because of the changing culture of copyright. Ideally fair use could address these new developments-- however, the rule has been so badly twisted and mangled by the judiciary that no one feels that they can safely rely on a fair use defense. Allowing the preservation of historical and socially valuable works is, according to Marybeth Peters, one of the primary goals of an Orphan Works Act. It's not intended to protect people who want to engage in the widespread commercial exploitation of protected works. To me, Ms. Peters' intended purpose of implementing a Orphan Works act falls clearly within the parameters of fair use.
I can appreciate your point regarding whether or not this proposal is in a "preliminary" state although I still think that the amount of hand wringing is far overblown both in terms of the Act's practical impact as well as its progress along the way to possibly becoming law.
I think that more then anything this law points out one of the biggest problems with intellectual property in the current digital world/marketplace. As mentioned, digital artwork (in whatever media) is certainly much easier to steal/alter/copy then ever before and the global nature of the internet only amplifies the problem. Although the internet has greatly expanded the reach of artists and their ability to expose people to their work the tradeoff, at least in some cases, is reduced control. I definitely agree with you that not everyone does/will/should/can afford to register their work and even if they do its not foolproof. Furthermore, your question of what constitutes "reasonable" investigation is also very valid.
Revisiting fair use would seem to be a good suggestion although one that I think is unlikely considering how marginalized and devalued it has become in the recent past. Considering how hard it is (thanks in part to the DMCA) to even get to material in order to possibly incorporate it into a new work I don't know that I hold out much hope on that front.
Ultimately this might be a case where the marketplace is going to provide the solution. There could be opportunities for companies to provide image registration services at a low cost and also provide proactive monitoring for their unauthorized use. I know that some companies offer similar services for the illegal use of logos/trademarks etc although I don't know enough about the technology involved to say whether or not it would be feasible/cost effective.
If the original copyright owner is entitled to "reasonable compensation" upon resurfacing, does this bill actually give any protection to the party filing for rights to an orphaned work?
It seems as though this bill achieves nothing at all, for either party. Am I missing something?
Right now, if you released a game (or any other type of work) that included one of these orphaned works and the original author surfaced and still had a valid copyright, he could sue for copyright infringement and possibly get an injunction, preventing you from releasing the game, or yanking the copies that are already on store shelves.
The bill tries to prevent the above scenario by allowing you to keep the game on shelves, but to pay essentially a license fee at market rate to the orphaned work author.
The rationale being that if you want to use someone else's work, you should first seek that person out to try to negotiate a license for use. If you can't find the author after some due diligence, you can use the work without fear of it getting yanked, but would be wise to reserve some cash in the event the author surfaces.
It seems that the rage is beginning to filter down:
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=31930
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=31923
Should this SIG put together a briefing for concerned artists and game developers?
Hey guys, my name is Roberto Ortiz and I am against the orphan works bill.
But before we go on I would suggest to at least read the SUMMARY of the law..
FROM THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html (Click for more)
And then read why artists are scared:
Since yesterday, over 31, 000 letters have gone out from our Orphan Works advocacy site.
Q: What can we do next?
1. Write the House Judiciary Committee. We’ve set up a special alert to contact members of this important committee.
Go to our Take Action/Alert site: http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
Look for the sample letter labeled "Contact House Judiciary Committee NOW" and send it.
If your Representative is not a member of the House Judiciary Committee, this will send him a message asking him to contact his colleagues on that Committee on your behalf, urging them to oppose the bill.
2. Ask for support from family and friends:
Please ask your friends and family (5 to 10 others) who support your creative work to also go to the site. They can follow the instructions to easily send a message of opposition to this reckless bill.
Look for the sample letter labeled "For Supporters of Visual Artists - Wrong to Weaken Copyright Law" and send it.
3. Spread the word to the public: Photosharing on Web will now be at risk:
Please alert your friends who post photos to the web their personal property will be at risk.
Look for the sample letter labeled “For the Image-Making Public - Protect Personal Propertyâ€and send it.
For more information about the Orphan Works Act of 2008:
IPA Statement to House Subcommittee March 20, 2008:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00261
IPA Senate Mark-up Comments April 30, 2008: http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/ow_docs
Geneva/ May 7, 2008Orphan Works Bill Catches Global Attention/ Intellectual Property Watch/
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1028
MP3 Interview: http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
YouTube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
Hey guys, my name is Roberto Ortiz and I am against the orphan works bill.
Hi Roberto, I have read these links and many other posts on this subject and I still don't see what the problem is. Can you say, in your own words, what scares you about it?
I concur.
Summarise what you fear or stop spamming the ill thought emotive scare
Paul thanks for talking to me, I do appreciate your time.
In a nutshell
The reason sites like cgtalk.com, conceptart.org have posted FrontPage call to action threads on this bill is that we fear for the copyright protections that our users currently enjoy.
These bills l would put the burden of enforcing copyright law
on the artists instead of the users.
An artist would have to check DAILY, to see if their artwork is currently being used illegaly, OR worst if it has been registered by another party.
Right now it is the responsibility of a person who wishes to use a piece of art to track down artists if they wish to use artwork in ANY for profit enterprise, under this law, this protection would simply go away.
Also in order to have the automatic copyright protections that we enjoy now an artist would have to copyright EVERY PIECE OF ART including sketchbooks and diaries.
Right now the price for copyrighting artwork with US government is $45 dollars. The bill states that for profit Private registries would be formed to do this.
This law would essentially dismantle the copyright protections of the 1976 copyright law.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
And this law affects ANY piece of visual art including sculptures and photographs.
I am not a lawyer, but I recently asked a copyright lawyer to comment on the law,
Here is what she said:
Tammy Browning-Smith
Many of your wonderful members asked if I would join in order to answer some questions since I am a practicing attorney who works extensively in copyrights and trademarks. I would be happy to do so if it will clear up some confusion on this OW issue. I just ask if you do ask a question, you be patient with me. My letters to Congress have become quite popular and I am being pulled in all ends. I have skimmed the postings and I have a few comments for you:
1) The biggest problem with OW from my perspective is that it truly changes the system of registration. Formality has not been required (i.e. - registration, copyright notice, etc.). It also places a strong burden on an artist to protect his or her work and NOT on the person wanting to use a so called "Orphan." The procedure set forth in the proposed language of both the House and the Senate Bills are terribly inadequate and will cause so many problems than help.
2) There are other countries using excellent systems for true "orphans." Canada is a poster child for this. It places the burden on a potential user to truly prove it is an orphan and that the potential user has done everything to do something to find him or her or it. The heart tugging stories being used are truly fluff. There are "fair use" exceptions and the like that can apply. The amount of orphans that LEGITIMATELY should be used are very small for the drastic impact this legislation would have. There are truly motives for profit here for databases, "orphan royalties", and the like.
3) Graphic Artist Guild and the some others are stating that this Bill WILL pass and that we should not write letters. I could not disagree more. First and foremost, it is a persons responsibility to let his or her government know his or her opinion. Secondly, there is a significant amount of education that MUST take place. I continue to speak to legislative offices that have no idea what these bills are all about. It is a crime, many of them think this is just "administrative" and will not affect very many people.
4) Finally, these Bills punish persons who have followed the law since 1976. The law has not required registration and/or notice provisions. These persons would truly be hurt the most. This will have a strong impact on rural artisian communities and others who create amazing works that represent our country. To this point, the only way their work has not been stolen is that it is against the law - that will no longer be the case.
Don't get me wrong, if these Bills pass, merge and become law - attorneys will benefit greatly. It will be essential that one who creates uses highly skilled legal counsel to register his or her works and develop a program to insure his or her works are not orphans. It will also require artists to go into their archives and begin registering or re-registering prior works to insure that all their "stuff" is covered.
The BEST way to prevent this legislation from coming into law is by educating yourselves, and speaking intelligently on the issue. It appears as if many of you have and continue to ask questions. And for our international friends - your voice is important as this does affect your protection here in the US. If your works comes on US soil - your work will be covered under these provisions.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Tammy Browning-Smith
***Please note, the following post is for educational purposes only and DOES NOT constitute the practice of law or an attorney/client relationship.***
I'm curious as to why commercially using someone else's work without permission should be allowed at all; I can't see any real public benefit to it (outside the already existing fair usage for any work). So it could result in them being taken off the shelves - and? Copyright infringement is a bad thing; we shouldn't be encouraging it.
If you cannot contact the copyright holder, then surely the default presumption should be that permission is denied. It seems to me that anything else is like letting someone walk off with my car if I go away on holiday for a few weeks - just because I'm not there to tell you no, doesn't mean you can have my stuff.
At the same time as it is now illegal to circumvent DRM put in by big companies which prevents us from having fair usage, big companies are also going to be allowed to effectively steal with impunity the work of those not large enough to register all their works?
This makes no sense to me.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
The reason sites like cgtalk.com, conceptart.org have posted FrontPage call to action threads on this bill is that we fear for the copyright protections that our users currently enjoy.
These bills l would put the burden of enforcing copyright law
on the artists instead of the users.
An artist would have to check DAILY, to see if their artwork is currently being used illegaly, OR worst if it has been registered by another party.
How would this be different from copyright law as it stands? The burden on enforcing copyright has always been on the artists. If anything the Orphan Works proposal puts the burden on the user because it is they, not the artist, that must register their searches for the author of a work. It seems that these artist organisations are projecting their problems with copyright in general onto the Orphan Works bill in particular.
The fears are based on the misconception that Orphan Works will take away some protection we currently have. The reality is, we've never had that protection, nor ever really needed it.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
Right now it is the responsibility of a person who wishes to use a piece of art to track down artists if they wish to use artwork in ANY for profit enterprise, under this law, this protection would simply go away.
Under the new law they are still responsible for this. In addition they will have to register their search.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
Also in order to have the automatic copyright protections that we enjoy now an artist would have to copyright EVERY PIECE OF ART including sketchbooks and diaries.
Automatic copyright protection is (by definition) not registered. You don't need to register because you get the copyright the moment you create the work. This has been true since the US harmonised its copyright laws with the rest of the world and dropped the requirement to register. The Orphan Works bill does not change this.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
Right now the price for copyrighting artwork with US government is $45 dollars. The bill states that for profit Private registries would be formed to do this.
Copyright is automatic. This is the price for registering your copyright. That is not a requirement either currently or under Orphan Works.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
I am not a lawyer, but I recently asked a copyright lawyer to comment on the law,
Here is what she said:
Perhaps one of our own IP lawyers could respond to this. This doesn't appear to be a consensus view even among IP lawyers and appears to me to misrepresent some of the issues.
I will debate the issue later...
(I am right now at the trenches fighting this)
for agood article on thetopic go here:
Orphan works bill clears Senate committee, may soon find home
Twitter: it's not just for telling friends about that burrito you had for lunch. Public Knowledge's Alex Curtis spent yesterday's Senate committee hearing on the orphan works bill "live twittering" the hot markup action to the world as the bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee with only minor changes. Despite making quick progress in both the House and the Senate, the bill has also started attracting attention from copyright holders who worry it could dilute the value of their work.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
I will debate the issue later...
(I am right now at the trenches fighting this)
for a good article on the topic go here:
Thanks, although this is just reiterating what has already been posted. You obviously feel strongly enough about this issue to attempt to influence the law makers, and to implore others here to follow your lead. But it doesn't appear to me from what you've said that you understand the issues.
You characterise yourself as at the trenches. To me you appear to be tilting at windmills. What are you fighting for exactly?
Even as a fool Don Quixote fought for a cause.
In life I feel you should pick a side, and fight for it.
I am a forum leader at the cgsociety,as an artist I believe strongly in IP rights for freelancers. The way I see it, this law would screw a segment of the population that to be honest is not exactly wealthy, the artist class.
To demand that an artist now has to pay every sketchbook, every drawing and every piece of art reeks of extortion just to drive the stock of a company like Google a couple of points.
And considering that the current price of copyright protection is $45.00 dollars this sort o flaw would kill the livelihood of many artists. Not only that, the US would be subject to sanctions by the WTO for a clear violation of the Berne convention....since artists would have to register their art with government sanctioned agencies.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works)
The reason you don't see me doing more of the so called "posting debating" is that, first I am not a lawyer and these laws are moving way too fast for the usual internet forum games.
And yes I am indeed busy,
Besides my work as a frelancer, as the vice chair of the DC chapter of SIGGRAPH I am in the process of organizing a mini IP confence with George Mason University to discuss this topic.
(Look me up I am in their directory)
For a taste on how artists feel about this
you can read one of the call to action threads
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125355
and you can read some web blog posting from misc sites: (silly site I know, but the fear is real)
http://fairythreads.com/?p=947
and this posting is a great summary of how professional organizations feel about this:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/05/orphan02.html
Ok with those concern clearly spelled out, please read the summary of the bill again
FROM THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html (Click for more)
And Paul thanks again for your patience...
If you go to the SIGGRAPH confence in LA , ill buy you a beer
Got to go and fight some giants.
-R
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
To demand that an artist now has to pay every sketchbook, every drawing and every piece of art reeks of extortion just to drive the stock of a company like Google a couple of points.
And considering that the current price of copyright protection is $45.00 dollars this sort o flaw would kill the livelihood of many artists. Not only that, the US would be subject to sanctions by the WTO for a clear violation of the Berne convention....since artists would have to register their art with government sanctioned agencies.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works)
Indeed that would be a problem. So it's probably a good job that the Orphan Works Bill doesn't mention anything of the sort. You don't have to take my word for that, you can look for it in the text yourself. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. You won't find it because it's not there.
Or you could read that part of the summary you yourself posted, where it states:
What this bill does not do is create a “license to infringe.†In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so.
I don't see you could possibly have against that. It appears to be, word for word, what you are arguing for.
The current orphan works bill does not state in any way or form all the fears that the IPA/CGSoc or other digital art communities have been hankering/afraid of.
It is all SCAREMONGERING and building IPA for a reputation for it self. Please read the bill yourself and make up your own mind.
Fair enough Paul,
here is a good argument against Orphan Works:
NY TIMES: Little Orphan Artworks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Orphan Artworks
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
Published: May 20, 2008
CONGRESS is considering a major reform of copyright law intended to solve the problem of “orphan works†— those works whose owner cannot be found. This “reform†would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the public.
For those who dont know who Mr. Lessig is:
from wikipedia...
Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig founded Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
Little Orphan Artworks
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
Published: May 20, 2008
CONGRESS is considering a major reform of copyright law intended to solve the problem of “orphan works†— those works whose owner cannot be found. This “reform†would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the public.
This article is more a presentation of Lessig's own proposals on Copyright reform than it is a criticism of Orphan Works. Those proposals (while they have a lot of merit) have already been rejected by the lawmakers. So while I'm sure we can all agree that the current bill isn't the best that can be imagined, we shouldn't forget that the best can be the enemy of the good.
Lessig may support the EFF in general but they are strongly supporting the bill:
Ultimately, the Orphan Works legislation represents an extraordinary good faith effort on the part of the Copyright Office, technology policy groups, rights holders and our elected representatives. While some changes are in order, this legislation gives Congress a crucial opportunity to revise the copyright law enrich the community at large and providing avenues of revenue and inspiration to generations of artists to come. Here’s hoping our elected officials take advantage of it!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/release-orphan-works
There's also a link in the article to a Podcast that addresses many of the issues raised by artists' groups.
When you have support from such vehemently opposed organisations as the EFF and the RIAA you have to wonder what all the fuss is really about.
There's a good summary of the myths currently surrounding the Orphan Works proposals here:
Originally posted by Paul Sinnett
When you have support from such vehemently opposed organisations as the EFF and the RIAA you have to wonder what all the fuss is really about.
Especially when the fuss rises to the level of fearmongering - you have to wonder who's taking it to that level, and what their motives really are.
its all about promoting themselves really, especially the IPA.
Back to business as usual really unless there is anythign more to worry
Well THE IPA is NOT the only organization against this bill.
Why are son many professional organizations are worried about this if this is a NON ISSUE?
A non issue for whom? Artists? Or those who wish to use their work for free?
The following organizations oppose H.R. 5889, The Orphan Works Act of 2008 and S. 2913, The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 because each bill permits, and even encourages, wide-scale infringements while depriving creators of protections currently available under the Copyright Act.
American Society of Illustrators Partnership
• The Illustrators Partnership of America
• The Society of Illustrators New York
• The American Society of Architectural Illustrators
• The Association of Medical Illustrators
• The Guild of Natural Science Illustrators
• The American Society of Aviation Artists
• The Illustrators Club of Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia
• The Pittsburgh Society of Illustrators
• The National Cartoonists Society
• The San Francisco Society of Illustrators
• The Society of Illustrators of Los Angeles
• The Society of Illustrators of San Diego
The Advertising Photographers of America (APA National) and 10 Chapters:
• APA New York
• APA Los Angeles
• APA San Francisco
• APA San Diego
• APA Northwest (Seattle)
• APA Midwest (Chicago)
• APA Atlanta
• APA Charlotte,
• APA Kansas City
• APA Washington, DC
• The Artists Rights Society of New York (representing 40,000 fine artists worldwide) (ARS)
• Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts of Massachusetts
• The Artists Foundation (AF)
• The Professional Women Photographers, Inc. (PWP)
• The Editorial Photographers of America (EP)
• National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)
• The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists
• The Society of Photographers and Artists Representatives (SPAR)
• The Craft and Hobby Association (representing the $31 billion craft industry)
• SURTEX/George Little Management
• Art of Licensing Listserve
• Society of Decorative Painters
• Southeastern Pastel Society
• Society of Digital Artists
• National Association of Independent Artists
• Wellington Art Society
• Palm Beach County Art Society
• Pro-Imaging.org
• Philadelphia/Tri State Artists Equity Association, Inc.
• New Jersey Creatives Network
• Atlanta Artists Center
• Atlanta Photographic Society
• Women in Focus
• Atlanta Photography Group
• South Cobb Arts Alliance
• Creators’ Rights Alliance
• United States Digital Imaging Group (USDIG)
• National Association of Independent Artists
• National Association of Record Industry Professionals (NARIP)
• Los Angeles Music Network (LAMN)
• Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in • Communication (CAPIC)
• Rassemblement des Artistes en Arts Visuels
• Association de Illustrateurs et Illustratrices du Quebec
• Association Européenes des Illustrateurs Médicaux et Scientifiques (AEIMS)
• Association of Dutch Designers
• International Quilt Association
cite as many names as you wish.
We too would have a right to be concerned if it is a real issue as ourlivelihood is producing artwork for film and games. And yet again, the current orphanworks is misnomer and misrepresentated.
You must intepret your own understanding of the bill proposition (flawed bill but does not warrant the scaremongering)
Rather than what a society or other societies influenced by their own intepretations think.
If you have truly understood what is being passed as a (orphan) bill and what it represents, and its actual ramifications (and not theorised, not supposed. not speculated) . Then by all means back up the opposition to the orphan works.
Otherwise, I'd implore you to sue the branium first.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
Why are son many professional organizations are worried about this if this is a NON ISSUE?
..... because each bill permits, and even encourages, wide-scale infringements while depriving creators of protections currently available under the Copyright Act.
Originally posted by robertoortiz1
A non issue for whom? Artists? Or those who wish to use their work for free?
- User has to thoroughly research and document the initial search for the copyright owner.
- If the artist surfaces, that artist is entitled to compensation, similar to what the artist would have been paid if the work was licensed.
- If the case goes to court, the user may be required to pay for the artist's attorney fees, in addition to their own.
What result do you hope for from such stirring?
Are you opening a discussion on this specific proposal, or on the general subject of "Orphanware?"