Comments on: Stop the U.S. Orphan Works Act http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=stop-the-us-orphan-works-act Useful Resources For Webmasters Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:18:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Orphan Works – British Style | New Jersey Photographer Rich Green http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-19715 Orphan Works – British Style | New Jersey Photographer Rich Green Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:11:56 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-19715 [...] I understand that some old photographic images truly are “orphaned” but it shouldn’t be so easy for the user to grab an image without any substantive background checks, and then if discovered, be slapped with minor use charges. Our ability to protective our “registered with the US Copyright office” work would be greatly diminished. Much more info here [...] [...] I understand that some old photographic images truly are “orphaned” but it shouldn’t be so easy for the user to grab an image without any substantive background checks, and then if discovered, be slapped with minor use charges. Our ability to protective our “registered with the US Copyright office” work would be greatly diminished. Much more info here [...]

]]> By: Jim Powell http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-11394 Jim Powell Thu, 06 May 2010 03:16:26 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-11394 Oh and regarding "Copyright law should allow you to use it for noncommercial uses." It already does allow that in some ways. There are "fair use" rights. Aside from that, if you use something you don't have the rights to, if you are not making any money from it, the owner could ask you to stop using it, but that's about it. As long as it doesn't hurt the copyright owner, and as long as the infringer is not making any money from it's use, there is very little that can be done. No lawyer will take that case as there is no money involved. Hell, I have a copyright infringement case where a guy is using my work that he was supposed to pay me $1,200 for. But even with that case, I can't get anyone to represent me because it's small potatoes for lawyers. Oh and regarding “Copyright law should allow you to use it for noncommercial uses.” It already does allow that in some ways. There are “fair use” rights. Aside from that, if you use something you don’t have the rights to, if you are not making any money from it, the owner could ask you to stop using it, but that’s about it. As long as it doesn’t hurt the copyright owner, and as long as the infringer is not making any money from it’s use, there is very little that can be done. No lawyer will take that case as there is no money involved. Hell, I have a copyright infringement case where a guy is using my work that he was supposed to pay me $1,200 for. But even with that case, I can’t get anyone to represent me because it’s small potatoes for lawyers.

]]> By: Jim Powell http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-11393 Jim Powell Thu, 06 May 2010 03:02:25 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-11393 I agree with the last poster "fed up with stupid" (well except for that last line). This bill isn't all doom and gloom. I'm all for copyright protection, and I don't like this bill one bit, however based on everything I've read on this act (from reliable sources) the main issue isn't so much about sticking it to the little guy. You'll still have nearly all of the protection you originally had. The main change here is that it allows people to use your work if a reasonable effort has been made to find the creator. Unfortunately, "reasonable effort" is a very broad term, and many believe (myself included) it will become a loophole allowing companies to CLAIM they made a reasonable effort, when in fact they have not. Of course the bill supporters say the courts will make them show ample evidence of this effort, but big companies and big lawyers find ways to make up for (or completely make up) a lack of documentation. I understand why some people want this bill passed... and for the honest few, I do agree they should have some way to use some things if they truly HAVE put a reasonable effort into finding the owner, and more importantly, if the work can not be re-created. i.e. historically significant items or something like that. But I don't believe it's written like that, and I DO think the law will be taken advantage of, so I truly hope this bill fails. Regarding "Angry Artists" statement "This law would force me from posting my artwork online for public view!" That's just silly. If you don't bother to register your work now, you already don't have much protection. It's not expensive to register your work (you can register an entire collection as a single body work, i.e. call it 2007-2010, and register everything for one fee) If you're not registering it anyhow (whether this passes or not) your level of protection won't change much. It'll be minimal either way. I'm an artist too, and I'm also low on funds, but if you can afford the computer you're using to complain about this bill, you can afford the $35 to register your work. I agree with the last poster “fed up with stupid” (well except for that last line). This bill isn’t all doom and gloom. I’m all for copyright protection, and I don’t like this bill one bit, however based on everything I’ve read on this act (from reliable sources) the main issue isn’t so much about sticking it to the little guy. You’ll still have nearly all of the protection you originally had. The main change here is that it allows people to use your work if a reasonable effort has been made to find the creator. Unfortunately, “reasonable effort” is a very broad term, and many believe (myself included) it will become a loophole allowing companies to CLAIM they made a reasonable effort, when in fact they have not. Of course the bill supporters say the courts will make them show ample evidence of this effort, but big companies and big lawyers find ways to make up for (or completely make up) a lack of documentation.

I understand why some people want this bill passed… and for the honest few, I do agree they should have some way to use some things if they truly HAVE put a reasonable effort into finding the owner, and more importantly, if the work can not be re-created. i.e. historically significant items or something like that. But I don’t believe it’s written like that, and I DO think the law will be taken advantage of, so I truly hope this bill fails.

Regarding “Angry Artists” statement “This law would force me from posting my artwork online for public view!”
That’s just silly. If you don’t bother to register your work now, you already don’t have much protection. It’s not expensive to register your work (you can register an entire collection as a single body work, i.e. call it 2007-2010, and register everything for one fee) If you’re not registering it anyhow (whether this passes or not) your level of protection won’t change much. It’ll be minimal either way.

I’m an artist too, and I’m also low on funds, but if you can afford the computer you’re using to complain about this bill, you can afford the $35 to register your work.

]]> By: Matt http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-10998 Matt Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:42:18 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-10998 I prefer the much more reasonable solution, which prevents orphan works from happening: reform copyright durations so they don't last a lifetime plus 100 years. I prefer the much more reasonable solution, which prevents orphan works from happening: reform copyright durations so they don’t last a lifetime plus 100 years.

]]> By: Fed up with stupid people http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-10989 Fed up with stupid people Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:29:14 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-10989 It seem most of miss the orphan part of the bill. Your copy rights are still protected if you are linked to it. If you are a blogger and are still posting you are protected. if you have are on a web site you still use you are protected. Orphan work is when there is no trace of the original poster. if you find that your work has been used with out your permission and they claim orphan act, as long as you can find that work on a site you use, you can still sue them. and as for the angry artist posting, everything has been done. there is nothing new in art or writing. It seem most of miss the orphan part of the bill. Your copy rights are still protected if you are linked to it. If you are a blogger and are still posting you are protected. if you have are on a web site you still use you are protected. Orphan work is when there is no trace of the original poster. if you find that your work has been used with out your permission and they claim orphan act, as long as you can find that work on a site you use, you can still sue them.
and as for the angry artist posting, everything has been done. there is nothing new in art or writing.

]]> By: Save • Friday Knights http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-8963 Save • Friday Knights Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:44:01 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-8963 [...] http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/ [...] [...] http://www.webmaster-source.co.....works-act/ [...]

]]> By: Angry Artist http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-8950 Angry Artist Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:23:30 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-8950 I don't care if someone can't find the right to an Orphaned work. MAKE SOME NEW STUFF, STOP LEACHING OFF THE PAST! PAY SOMEONE TO MAKE SOMETHING NEW! I am a new Illustrator. I don't have ANY money to spend on copyright. I need free protection! This law would force me from posting my artwork online for public view! This is going to destroy the release of new information that can be viewed but not sold by the public! I'm so angry... I'm writing the government officials. I don't care if someone can't find the right to an Orphaned work.

MAKE SOME NEW STUFF, STOP LEACHING OFF THE PAST!

PAY SOMEONE TO MAKE SOMETHING NEW!

I am a new Illustrator. I don't have ANY money to spend on copyright.
I need free protection! This law would force me from posting my artwork online for public view!

This is going to destroy the release of new information that can be viewed but not sold by the public!

I'm so angry… I'm writing the government officials.

]]> By: Copyright, Corporations and Culture : StevenClark.com.au http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-8842 Copyright, Corporations and Culture : StevenClark.com.au Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:33:53 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-8842 [...] we’re being confronted with the Orphan Works Act which means in the United States (and eventually anywhere that emulates them like Australia) [...] [...] we’re being confronted with the Orphan Works Act which means in the United States (and eventually anywhere that emulates them like Australia) [...]

]]> By: redwall_hp http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-8635 redwall_hp Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:35:43 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-8635 No thank you. I won't cripple myself by using a lesser tool, just to attempt to send a message to an otherwise good company that's only supporting a bill. Even a million people ceasing to use Google (which is quite a feat, when "Google" is synonymous with "search") would not be a dent enough for anyone to care. No thank you. I won't cripple myself by using a lesser tool, just to attempt to send a message to an otherwise good company that's only supporting a bill. Even a million people ceasing to use Google (which is quite a feat, when "Google" is synonymous with "search") would not be a dent enough for anyone to care.

]]> By: Tom http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/14/stop-the-us-orphan-works-act/#comment-8634 Tom Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:05:23 +0000 http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=1730#comment-8634 Perhaps we can do something to stop the Orphan works bill through the courts. Hopefully so but money and lobbying are very powerful and a lot of large companies have a strong vested interest in the version being proposed. There is a need for a version of the orphan works bill and Google among others are big supporters of the proposal. However everyone agrees they are going too far in their demands. They aren't listening to the creators objections and the extent of the bill being proposed plus Googles recent grabbing of things that are not theirs (tied down), makes me think that we might be partly to blame again. By using their search engine we are giving them power. So for the hell of it, if you are using Firefox as a browser, you can delete Google as a search engine (which will be noticed). It's like voting. Bing is owned by Microsoft who are also pushing the bill through. There are a list of search engines that you can install listed here: [<a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:4/cat:all?sort=name|leo://plh/https%3A*3*3addons%2Emozilla%2Eorg*3en-US*3firefox*3browse*3type%3A4*3cat%3Aall%3Fsort%3Dname/AW" target="_blank">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/t...</a> N5?_t=tracking_disc ] It's possible to delete both Google and Bing from your search engine selection which would definitely get google etc, to sit up and pay attention. Goodsearch is a nice alternative <a href="http://www.goodsearch.com/" target="_blank">http://www.goodsearch.com/</a> <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9674" target="_blank">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/96...</a> This is a passively dynamic way of sending a message. It doesn't cost anything, the search engines are easy to install and a change is as good as a rest. I've been using Good search for a week and it's fine. Cheers Tom Feel free to pass this on. Perhaps we can do something to stop the Orphan works bill through the courts. Hopefully so but money and lobbying are very powerful and a lot of large companies have a strong vested interest in the version being proposed.

There is a need for a version of the orphan works bill and Google among others are big supporters of the proposal. However everyone agrees they are going too far in their demands.

They aren't listening to the creators objections and the extent of the bill being proposed plus Googles recent grabbing of things that are not theirs (tied down), makes me think that we might be partly to blame again. By using their search engine we are giving them power.

So for the hell of it, if you are using Firefox as a browser, you can delete Google as a search engine (which will be noticed). It's like voting.

Bing is owned by Microsoft who are also pushing the bill through. There are a list of search engines that you can install listed here:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/t... N5?_t=tracking_disc ]

It's possible to delete both Google and Bing from your search engine selection which would definitely get google etc, to sit up and pay attention.

Goodsearch is a nice alternative
http://www.goodsearch.com/

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/96…

This is a passively dynamic way of sending a message. It doesn't cost anything, the search engines are easy to install and a change is as good as a rest. I've been using Good search for a week and it's fine.

Cheers
Tom

Feel free to pass this on.

]]>