attention artists, new proposed law can let let people steal your work

[superjaz]

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1

here is the artical on it but here is the skinny
Currently, you don't have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something. International law also supports this. Right now, registration allows you to sue for damages, in addition to fair value

what is proposed is called the An Orphaned Works legistration, unless you pay and register your work, any and all of it, it is considerd a orphaned work
orphanded work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission

If the Orphan Works legislation passes, you and I and all creatives will lose virtually all the rights to not only our future work but to everything we've created over the past 34 years, unless we register it with the new, untested and privately run (by the friends and cronies of the U.S. government) registries. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone wishing to steal your personal creations won't successfully call your work an orphan work, and then legally use it for free.

In short, if Congress passes this law, YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY FROM YOUR OWN CREATIONS!

kinda sucks, I sense a need to write letters to our congressmen reps

[Kotoumi]

I just read something about that on DA, but most of it went over my head.
This was shorter and easier to comprehend.  xD  (I'm half asleep)

.....That would really suck.  Especially for those who want to make a career of their art (Like me ; ; ) or already have one.
We already have enough trouble with art theft, why encourage it with something like this?

[superjaz]

cuz companys that peeps would have to register copy right their work will charge $$ for it, the artical said bill gates owns such a company

My younger brother sent me the info, as an aspiring artist it worried him quite a bit

[AzuKyo]

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1

In short, if Congress passes this law, YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY FROM YOUR OWN CREATIONS!

The final statement here is kind of hyperbolic and really defeats the serious nature of what you were quoting. This law won't strip you of your ability to make money off your own creations, it will force you to take responsibility for the protection of your creations.

With the current laws, there is nothing that officially copyrights your artistic creations when you make them. It is just assumed that you own the rights to your original work because you made it. There isn't any official documentation or actual legal copyright.

This new law might make it a hassle for artists to register their works, but it will give them a much stronger defense if their copyrighted material is every stolen.

This editorial you linked to comes off as rather shady and biased to me. The writer is obviously against this bill and his opinions on it are portrayed hyperbolically (words of the wise: capital letters do not make you look intelligently angry, just angry). I don't doubt that it is a possibility that this new law (one of which I could never find a source/link to on the article you linked to) is bad, but I can't say that from what I've read in this thread and what you've linked to that it won't be good in some respects.

Edit//

"We already have enough trouble with art theft, why encourage it with something like this?"

Essentially, a bill like this would not encourage theft but protection. We have assumed copyrights currently (at least, that is my understanding of unlicensed "copyrighted" material). If someone steals your material now, you have to prove that the stolen material was your by providing proof that you made it first. However, unless you've registered the material, you don't have a lot of credible proof that you made it.

With a bill that makes it so that you can't assume copyright, you would have a much stronger legal case to protect material. You can argue that it will be hassle and inconvenient to copyright your creations, but it won't be hassle for long if something like this is (you know, honestly, I can't say what "something like this is" because there's no link to the supposed proposed law) passed. I say that because the artistic community in the United States is so vast that they will undoubtedly create an easy way to copyright material.

Don't go calling something good or bad until we see it for what it really is. Unfortunately, we can't really do that at the moment. Source for the law would be greatly appreciated.

[Hazuza]

I just went through a ton of crap over this recently >.O

It's really hard to understand if you don't do sufficient research.

Either way, no matter what your view is, no one should jump to conclusions on anything yet. Not until this new bill is released for the public to read.

All statements and articles on it currently are based on the bill when it was proposed back in 2006, and shot down.

I doubt they've made it much good now, but still =/

[EveofAbyss]

What I got out of it is that, basically, there will be further bleeding of artists, as if some higher agency is holding everyone's artwork hostage and every artist has to buy their art back. I don't know the specifics and I'm not some legal/copyright genius, but that is just what I get the feel of as I look at it. It seems unnecessary to take it that far. Everyone knows you can copyright your stuff if you need to, but for most it is both a hassle and financially ridiculous (the average artist has over 15 pieces of work; who would want to pay a $50 fee for each one?). I base this off of the knowledge and experience I have had with poetry copyrighting; ridiculous charges and fees, I have way too many poems for it to be reasonable to pay for each.

Anyway, my point, basically, is that this seems like an attempt to bleed the already "starving" artistic community. But like I said, don't jump down my throat on details.

[Evaldas]

I heard something about this....it does not exist. Yes, there is probably something weird if there is no official links to this "supposed" bill. Please do not take everything at face value on the internet.

This quoted from another artist who got hit with this old news

Everything referenced is from the 2005-2006 legislative session. There is no current bill. Anything resembling such a bill died in committee years ago. This is not something you need to freak out about right now. Somebody on the internet, where NOTHING EVER DIES, found it and maybe didn't read the date and decided this was a current threat, and now I'm getting spam about it from earnest, well meaning people who are understandably concerned about their art.

Relax. It's not happening. You can check the public record and find that there are no such bills currently before Congress.
-Ursula
http://ursulav.livejournal.com/758643.html

So I would not worry about this. There some rumor that it is being reviewed in a hearing....just know a hearing is just that, a hearing. Nothing is being done. I would not be concerned about.

[Kahlan4]

^well that's a relief... eve-boyfriend told me about this yesterday and it sounded like the worst idea ever... so i'm glad it's not happening ^.^ granted i haven't heard both sides of the argument, i would tend to take the artist side, seeing as i'm an artist... o.O lol

[dshwshr55]

I heard something about this....it does not exist. Yes, there is probably something weird if there is no official links to this "supposed" bill. Please do not take everything at face value on the internet.

This is correct. The bill is not actually created or whatever. It's a bunch of misconceptions that are scaring people.
http://udoncrew.deviantart.com/ is a professional comic industry who looked up the issue and are trying to reassure that there is actually no threat.

[Higuma]

It is all about the money...........It is always about the money. Someone just wants to make more and found a place where they think they can.

[Evaldas]

Besides, I think this would a logistical waste of time and money. Not only would you have to set the rules and inform the public, but how much would it take to enforce (people to collect fees, create a database, someones to run the datebase...people to police violators....)you get the idea.

[JeffT]

It looks like this proposed legislation deals with the concept of "Orphan Works" (Wikipedia article), which refers to works where it is impossible to determine the author and/or the author cannot be located.

Furthermore, the registration and payment needed under the proposal is just ordinary copyright registration, which is handled by the US Copyright Office. Not some new registry. (I tried to look this up to confirm, but the scare article does not cite any bill numbers or other identifiable information. How surprising.)

The idea that this new proposed legislation means an artist's career is destroyed is sheer hyperbole and exaggeration. Failing to register a copyright already limits the damages you can collect in certain cases, though it does not mean you lose the copyright. But if you, as an artist, are selling work, it is already within your interest under current law to register copyright. Furthermore, it is unlikely that if you are selling work, your work would fall under the "Orphan Works" designation anyway, because you would be visible and your authorship of the work known. As noted by this article (which I highly recommend reading): ""Orphanedness" is a state which gets removed when the copyright holder speaks up."

[Evaldas]

Thanks on the clarification. I was kinda getting that, but I just didn't have the time to dive into properly.

[Washougal_Otaku]

But if you, as an artist, are selling work, it is already within your interest under current law to register copyright. Furthermore, it is unlikely that if you are selling work, your work would fall under the "Orphan Works" designation anyway, because you would be visible and your authorship of the work known. As noted by this article (which I highly recommend reading): ""Orphanedness" is a state which gets removed when the copyright holder speaks up."

Exactly.