Comments for Rescuing Orphans: Can Congress Balance the Public Good and the Rights of Artists? at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.rcreader.com Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:45:47 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rcreader.com/news/rescuing-orphans-can-congress-balance/#comment-780 As you read the first part of the bill describing how wonderful it will be for public use, it leaves out the most important problem, this bill includes commerce. It is not a bill limited to institutions and non-for-profit organizations as described. It opens the door for making a profit using current artwork; not just the dusty archives described. It's this sort of language that appears as a wonderful contribution to society and no one gets hurt by it. Here's how it applies to the creative community. Once an artist discovers their images are being used for profit, this bill invites a backdoor, unethical approach to business. In simple terms the redemy is, "Oh I didn't know it was yours, guess I'll share some of the profit with you.' The artist is now a business partner with the infringer. The business may be allowed to continue, the artist is paid a royalty from the back door, not the front door where both decide to work together. Should the work, or a portion of the work, be used from a professional artist, other contracts may be jepordized. When writing about this bill, please don't wear out the reader discussing dusty archives and old photographs before admitting that this bill is harmful to young hands, hobby hands, student hands, and professional hands. - Kathy fincher Fri, 30 May 2008 17:06:11 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/news/rescuing-orphans-can-congress-balance/#comment-776 The problem is that the copywright law, as currently written, is much too long. It is still being designed in the US, primarily, to protect Disney Corp from Mickey Mouse going public domain. This has resulted in a current copywright existing for something now approaching a century. Good luck keeping track of most copywrighted works for a century. So...most material becomes orphaned. What needs to be done is that Disney be damned, the copywright needs to go to 50 years max. Much more reasonable would be 25. Then we would hardly need an "orphan" bill. - schqc Thu, 29 May 2008 14:28:08 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/news/rescuing-orphans-can-congress-balance/#comment-772 On its face, this description seems to be even-handed. However, there is at least one passage that skates across a nasty fact of this legislation without comment: "At its core, orphan-works legislation primarily affects those artists who register their copyrights by removing the threat of statutory damages in some situations. For people who don't register their work, Joyce said, the effect of orphan-works legislation would be negligible: "This law won't really hurt you. If it passes, you can seek reasonable compensation" from somebody who uses your work without permission, which is substantially similar to the current law's actual damages." What that means, and what the author isn't stating clearly, is that anyone who has made a habit of actually registering their copyrights so far, as opposed to simply letting the law work, will lose their right to sue for damages and court costs in addition to "reasonable compensation". It will be as if they never bothered to register at all, and, like the rest of us, they will only be able to recoup a typical work fee in court. That will happen after they have done the work of discovering the infringement, assembling evidence, hiring a lawyer, and taking the infringer to court to defend a right that they now have automatically. Both categories will now-or as soon as this law goes into effect-become not rightsholders, as we are now, but plaintiffs, forced to prove a case in court, for which we may receive a severely limited award. In other words, we will no longer have copyright protection. It's that simple. - Birck Cox Wed, 28 May 2008 15:07:04 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/news/rescuing-orphans-can-congress-balance/#comment-770 I a photographer. I have worked for over thirty years documenting, sometimes at serious risk, the social and political events throughout the world. My income in retirement is primarily through the licensing of my work. Even under the current law it is virtually impossible to deal with those who steal my work. To prosecute a copyright infringer would cost over $10,000; it is almost a losing effort from the start. But the passing of the current proposals on "Orphan Works" will make it even more difficult. This isn't about museums, it is about allowing me to protect my work. Leif Skoogfors - Leif Skoogfors Wed, 28 May 2008 12:28:43 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/news/rescuing-orphans-can-congress-balance/#comment-769 There are many significant problems with the legislation: 1. Neither act delineates what constitutes a diligent search for the copyright holder and leaves that decision with the trial judge. That means different standards for different courts. 2. The infringer does not have to supply you with documentation showing their "diligent search" and the only way you can see that proof is by suing them in Federal Court-on your own dime, with no ability to recover that expense. 3. You can only recover "reasonable compensation"-assuming the two parties can agree on that-or you must sue the infringer in Federal Court-on your own dime, with no ability to recover those expenses. Oh, by the way, non-profits and charities don't have to pay reasonable compensation to use your work they get it for free. 4. The ability to restrict the use of your work in derivatives is almost non-existent, and whoever uses your work in a derivative owns the copyright to it. I could go on but I won't... - Ethan Geehr Wed, 28 May 2008 11:21:05 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/news/rescuing-orphans-can-congress-balance/#comment-768 The arugement that artists will benefit is misleading. The concpet of copyright is to protect THE ORIGINAL artist, not the one who would use the work of another for their own benefit. Those at least willing to consider both sides of the discussion should also visit http://www.owoh.org Wheat M Carr - Wheat M Carr Wed, 28 May 2008 10:30:38 +0100