Orphan Works Legislation

Foolsfolly

Well-Known Member

moonmaster

Without him, all of you would be lost souls roamin
What I really don't like is corporate interests controlling something like this and making people pay to register stuff.

It kind of smacks of class discrimination. "Oh, you don't have enough money to register every piece of art you've made? Too bad."
 

Foolsfolly

Well-Known Member
Somebody draw a picture of me not giving a damn so I can steal it and post it online for profit.

Only if you have the money to file it.

Seriously, this angers me....but the chances this thing'll pass have to be the same as a meteor hitting me in the head the second I post this.

I created the thread not to be all doom swearing, but largely to show just how far these corporations are going for money. Sense be damned.
 

ourchair

Well-Known Member
I keep putting off responding to this.

Did this get passed?

It's a stupid idea. It essentially turns a system of intellectual property that was previously automatic, "your idea is yours so long as you can prove authorship," to one that would require that every copyright holder have to maintain a legal presence in order to defend his property.

Remember that the premise of the law, is that copyright infringement can be excused so long as the infringer made "diligent effort" to find the copyright owner, one defined as "reasonable and appropriate" and determined by a set of "best practices." Which is about as vague as you can get.

It makes no distinction between old works or new works too, foreign or domestic. Which is totally unfair, because since the 70s, creators needed to do nothing to protect their right to a copyright. Part of the REAL problem of copyright legislation, is that copyright terms are nigh perpetual.

When works enter the public domain, they're free to use, remix or record, and more crucially UNREGULATED. The legal system just doesn't worry about it AT ALL.

The only reason Orphan Works exist at all is because so many term extensions have been made by Congress, that you can't use culture freely unless it existed before the Great Depression.
 

Grocer Man

Well-Known Member
I keep putting off responding to this.

Did this get passed?

It's a stupid idea. It essentially turns a system of intellectual property that was previously automatic, "your idea is yours so long as you can prove authorship," to one that would require that every copyright holder have to maintain a legal presence in order to defend his property.

Remember that the premise of the law, is that copyright infringement can be excused so long as the infringer made "diligent effort" to find the copyright owner, one defined as "reasonable and appropriate" and determined by a set of "best practices." Which is about as vague as you can get.

It makes no distinction between old works or new works too, foreign or domestic. Which is totally unfair, because since the 70s, creators needed to do nothing to protect their right to a copyright. Part of the REAL problem of copyright legislation, is that copyright terms are nigh perpetual.

When works enter the public domain, they're free to use, remix or record, and more crucially UNREGULATED. The legal system just doesn't worry about it AT ALL.

The only reason Orphan Works exist at all is because so many term extensions have been made by Congress, that you can't use culture freely unless it existed before the Great Depression.

As far as I'm aware, it's on hold. However, some artist associations got together submitted to Congress some admendments:

http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html
 
Top