US Congress Considers Orphan Works Act
Start sending in those letters
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 by Zoomba | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Departing from our normally cheery news of cool skins, neat programs and new releases, today I wanted to share with everyone some news that could have a very significant impact on copyright law in the United States, specifically in the area of reusing work by other artists. The US Orphan Works Act of 2008 has two very important aspects that every skinner or digital artist should take heed of:
- Artists will need to register their works with an entity designated by the US Copyright Office. This is a reversal of current passive copyright policy where you hold the copyright to a work automatically by virtue of creating it.
- Infringement is allowed if the infringer claims that they made a reasonable effort to contact the author of the work. The infringer determines what is a reasonable and diligent effort.
This bill places the entire burden of protecting work and declaring copyright on the artist, and grants wide rights to those who infringe and reuse others art. Even in a case where the original author has registered, and the infringer is shown to not have made a reasonable effort, there is very little allowed under the bill to seek compensation or damages. Your skins here, if not registered with a designated database, could be taken and reused without notice or consent, and as artists you would have virtually no recourse.
I know copyright is very important to many people here, and that's why I wanted to pass this information along to everyone.
For a good summary on the bill currently before the US House of Representatives, go here.
To write to your representative/senator on this issue, go here.
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
APB
Reply #22 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:18 AM
I guess it will clash with a profit oriented world and a cold, calculated mentality.
Reply #22 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:18 AM
artwork is a tangible object actually NO DIFFERENT to, say, a car
Artwork and artists: Is more like a father-child, mother-child situation. Most artists see their work as their baby. Many works of art are created with love. Artists should hold the copyright to a work automatically by virtue of creating it. No one should have the right to use other people's "children" freely.
An emotional reply. 
I guess it will clash with a profit oriented world and a cold, calculated mentality.
teddybearcholla
Reply #23 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 9:44 AM
I totally agree....
Usually being government and big businesses who are only concerned with what goes in their pockets.
Thank you Ray...
Bullcookies.....why would an inventor,artist,and anyone who creates something want to make a profit for only a limited time. If something is *selling well* that is a way to make the money to create, invent other things. Paints, brushes, pcs, electricity, and so on all cost money.
But I created it, even if there is not profit, it is still mine. I create for the pleasure the need of doing so....for myself....secondly for others, and as a side it would be nice to make a little change now and then( if that will ever come)....but I do not create so someone else can take it and add a circle and call it theirs.
Reply #23 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 9:44 AM
Artwork and artists: Is more like a father-child, mother-child situation. Most artists see their work as their baby. Many works of art are created with love. Artists should hold the copyright to a work automatically by virtue of creating it. No one should have the right to use other people's "children" freely.
I totally agree....
I guess it will clash with a profit oriented world and a cold, calculated mentality.
Usually being government and big businesses who are only concerned with what goes in their pockets.
I believe you were one of them Barb, I know you told me about it or visa versa, I don't recall
Thank you Ray...
The idea behind copyright is to let the copyright holder make a profit for a limited term.
Bullcookies.....why would an inventor,artist,and anyone who creates something want to make a profit for only a limited time. If something is *selling well* that is a way to make the money to create, invent other things. Paints, brushes, pcs, electricity, and so on all cost money.
If it's not going to generate enough profit to cover the fee, then there's no reason to extend the term.
But I created it, even if there is not profit, it is still mine. I create for the pleasure the need of doing so....for myself....secondly for others, and as a side it would be nice to make a little change now and then( if that will ever come)....but I do not create so someone else can take it and add a circle and call it theirs.
WebGizmos
Reply #24 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:43 PM
Reply #24 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:43 PM
Basically....if I create something for profit....not only would I want to continue to make that profit...but pass it on to my family after I'm gone rather than someone who had nothing to do with it. I'd rather see it destroyed than allow that to happen.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #25 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:56 PM
Eloquently put, but my sentiments exactly.
Reply #25 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:56 PM
NO FUCKING WAY.
Eloquently put, but my sentiments exactly.
APB
Reply #26 Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:07 AM
Reply #26 Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:07 AM
There is nothing wrong about making profit with a good heart, instead of making profit hurting the rights of others.
zukakog
Reply #27 Friday, July 11, 2008 11:58 AM
Reply #27 Friday, July 11, 2008 11:58 AM
I consent that the part about profit isn't explicitly listed in the constitution, although from the studies I have done, it seems an obvious reason to grant a temporary monopoly to the author/inventor. Those who appear to be offended by the mention of a limited term should refer to the U.S. Constitution.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
emphasis added
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #28 Friday, July 11, 2008 12:02 PM
Reply #28 Friday, July 11, 2008 12:02 PM
Sorry mate, don't give a f*** about the US Constitution, it doesn't apply to 99% of the world
kenwas
Reply #29 Friday, July 11, 2008 12:28 PM
Reply #29 Friday, July 11, 2008 12:28 PM
I did a post about this in May and was pretty much slammed for being a fear monger and unnecessarily scaring people (https://forums.wincustomize.com/?aid=311368)....ahh well such is life in the big city.
TheCatsMeowMix
Reply #30 Friday, July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
Reply #30 Friday, July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
I guess I'm going to have to put my little cat signature on any wallpapers I decide to submit... I agree with you that everyone might have to start branding their works. I really hope WinCustomize... DeviantArt...etc. won't end up eventually shutting down because of this sooner or later.
zukakog
Reply #31 Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:22 PM
Reply #31 Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:22 PM
the US Constitution, it doesn't apply to 99% of the world
Lol, true that. However, this thread is about U.S. Law, which does have the nasty tendency to affect the rest of the world. I can definitely see why people get excited (not necessarily in a good way) about it.
teddybearcholla
Reply #32 Saturday, July 12, 2008 6:29 PM
Reply #32 Saturday, July 12, 2008 6:29 PM
WWW Link
http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightPurpose.html <---copy and paste, seems the link above does not work..
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]
I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.
Yes.....me too..small city here...
http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightPurpose.html <---copy and paste, seems the link above does not work..
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]
I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.
I did a post about this in May and was pretty much slammed for being a fear monger and unnecessarily scaring people (https://forums.wincustomize.com/?aid=311368)....ahh well such is life in the big city.
Yes.....me too..small city here...
zukakog
Reply #33 Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:52 AM
Reply #33 Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:52 AM
Originally posed by teddybearcholla:
Excellent article. In fact, it confirms that while copyright holders do have certain rights, they are limited in nature.
From the link:
One of the ways they are limited is by time. It was originally 14 years. Currently, copyright for individuals lasts for the duration of the author's life, plus 70 years. Expect another extension a bit before 2019, when works are scheduled to start entering the public domain again.
The link also confirms that copyright is intended to provide the potential of profit as an incentive to create.
From the link:
Originally posed by teddybearcholla:
I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.emphasis added
I would agree with that. Along with the above mentioned ownership, inventors and authors are granted rights to control certain aspects of how their works are reproduced, for a limited time. After that limited time has elapsed, the works enter the public domain, where they may be freely reproduced, and used to create derived works.
-------------
Let us return to the original topic of this thread. The Orphan Works Act of 2008.
Please take time to read the complete act, to insure that when writing to representatives, we can make specific comments and suggestions.
In my opinion the bill requires certain clarifications, if it is to both aid copyright holders and those that might eventually create a derived work. Again, this is my opinion. In a community of artists, there should be sufficient creativity to come up with comments that are constructive.
1. It needs to clarify that authors works will be copyright automatically, for a set limited time. I believe that time should be 14 years, as was the original term.
2. It needs to clarify that after the initial term, copyright holders will be required to register their copyright if they wish to prevent their works from entering the public domain. I believe that only one extension, of equal length to the original term, should be allowed. This will let others build on existing works, as I'm sure many of the people reading this have done at some time, legally or otherwise.
3. If a registration fee is to be charged, it should not be a revenue generator; it should cover the costs of registration, and maintenance of the database.
4. Access to the information in the database should be provided cost free, so those who wish to check the status of a copyrighted work, or to find the author's contact information, may easily do so. Access via the Internet would be ideal.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the management of such a database could be (read as most likely will be) troublesome.
I believe that something needs to be done about copyright. As is, I don't think this bill is it. Are there any constructive ideas out there, or am I the only one that thinks the system could use some (major) tweaks?
Excellent article. In fact, it confirms that while copyright holders do have certain rights, they are limited in nature.
From the link:
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.
emphasis addedOne of the ways they are limited is by time. It was originally 14 years. Currently, copyright for individuals lasts for the duration of the author's life, plus 70 years. Expect another extension a bit before 2019, when works are scheduled to start entering the public domain again.
The link also confirms that copyright is intended to provide the potential of profit as an incentive to create.
From the link:
It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.
emphasis addedOriginally posed by teddybearcholla:
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]
I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.
I would agree with that. Along with the above mentioned ownership, inventors and authors are granted rights to control certain aspects of how their works are reproduced, for a limited time. After that limited time has elapsed, the works enter the public domain, where they may be freely reproduced, and used to create derived works.
-------------
Let us return to the original topic of this thread. The Orphan Works Act of 2008.
Please take time to read the complete act, to insure that when writing to representatives, we can make specific comments and suggestions.
In my opinion the bill requires certain clarifications, if it is to both aid copyright holders and those that might eventually create a derived work. Again, this is my opinion. In a community of artists, there should be sufficient creativity to come up with comments that are constructive.
1. It needs to clarify that authors works will be copyright automatically, for a set limited time. I believe that time should be 14 years, as was the original term.
2. It needs to clarify that after the initial term, copyright holders will be required to register their copyright if they wish to prevent their works from entering the public domain. I believe that only one extension, of equal length to the original term, should be allowed. This will let others build on existing works, as I'm sure many of the people reading this have done at some time, legally or otherwise.
3. If a registration fee is to be charged, it should not be a revenue generator; it should cover the costs of registration, and maintenance of the database.
4. Access to the information in the database should be provided cost free, so those who wish to check the status of a copyrighted work, or to find the author's contact information, may easily do so. Access via the Internet would be ideal.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the management of such a database could be (read as most likely will be) troublesome.
I believe that something needs to be done about copyright. As is, I don't think this bill is it. Are there any constructive ideas out there, or am I the only one that thinks the system could use some (major) tweaks?
WebGizmos
Reply #34 Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:03 AM
Reply #34 Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:03 AM
How about if we all just make Orphans of Congress!? I thinks its time they all just take a hike. Its about time Congress is updated to a younger crowd of people with a stake in the future!
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 3:24 AM