15/04/2008, 10:14 AM
Pages: 1 2
15/04/2008, 10:54 AM
I'm sorry to say this. But you guys are retarded. Did you do your research on Orphaned Works?
No, Obviously not. If you still think it's retarded.
It's wrong, yes. But the reasons you guys are saying this is just... Beyond confusing.. After I had found this out I immediately began researching it.
Here's a conversation I had with someone, who I completely agreed with.
Spoiler code to save room.
If you read and look at the link. This is really no win no lose situation. It just claims un-claimed work.
But Obama's thing is pretty retarded in general.
If he knows what's best. He shouldn't do it.
No, Obviously not. If you still think it's retarded.
It's wrong, yes. But the reasons you guys are saying this is just... Beyond confusing.. After I had found this out I immediately began researching it.
Here's a conversation I had with someone, who I completely agreed with.
Spoiler code to save room.
Spoiler:
saltypandadogofdA Wrote:First off: SHUT UP.
as an artist, yes I care EXTREMELY about how my artwork is protected, I'm entitled to that, and when i heard about the orphan works bill i was concerned just like everyone else. but then i read the entire article, what seems to be something that NO ONE IS DOING. all they do is get the gist of it from someone, i.e. "OMG The GOVERNMENT IS MAKING MY ARTZ STEALABLE OH NOES," and never thinks about what truly is going on.
the orphan works only effects works WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTACT THE CREATOR. and everyone here on DA, guess what?! YOU HAVE A DA PAGE WHERE PEOPLE CAN CONTACT YOU. so if you just leave one day without posting your real name or an email you still use, your out of luck, but you could just post those things or y'now just take your art down once you go.
the only time this gets really bad is if your published. as in: you take a picture, a newspaper/website puts it into their article or you publish a book of your art etc, and the person who wants to use it can't get your information through whoever published you. but even this is INCREDIBLY avoidable. when being published, make sure the publisher has all your personal information and that your name/website/email is possibly even attached to their article (easy for a website or book to do, a newspaper would just have your name credited and any other info would have to be obtained through contacting the newspaper first).
but heres the thing: more than a guesstimated (on my part) 90% of all the people on here who are bawing over this just do fanart or myspace-esque pictures. and don't worry, no big-bad-businesses are going to want that. seriously.
that and here is one great big thing everyone seems to overlook: CREATIVE COMMONS. yes. the special little segment of the copyright business that is totally NOT effected by this bill.
there are 4 cc licenses:
-(nc): meaning anyone can display/copy/or make derivatives (their own art based off of yours, including different types of art, i.e. takes your painting and makes a movie off of it) for ONLY non-commercial purposes (can't make money off of it)
-(by): can display/copy/make derivatives of your work as long as they credit you.
-(nd): can display/copy only verbatim (can't make their own version of your work)
-(sa): others can only make derivatives of your work under the same license as your original.
all of these can be combined into eleven combinations (5 being invalid as a large number wanted attribution (as is it has to have the (by) license) to their works, or combos such as a (nd)/(sa) license, as they cancel each other out.)
all-in-all, as long as you maintain your DA page or make your contactable or your works are CC'd your totally fine. from now on, when you upload a pic, just choose which CC you want. and if you want to make money of your work, its still the same procedure of selling your monetary rights of your work.
and from being on DA long enough I can confidently say that near 99.99999999% of the poo poo on here will never see the light of a business meeting room at some conglomerate who wants to 'borrow' the picture of your cat in the Christmas tree or especially $lolly's piece of spoon excuse for art which is fruit in the shape of a phallus.
and the best art on here is usually protected by the artist who's passionately behind his/her work.
and don't worry majority of DA: your ms-paint's of roxas and ron stoppable making out aren't exactly what someone is really out to make money off of.
Spoiler:
artificialmusikofdA Wrote:You know what. I read this. It's completely true. in this [link=http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/] I saw it only claims what art is not claimed, or the real artist is unreachable. But what does this do for people who have really good artists that are relatives? They die and where does the money go?
It's really quite a confusing turn. But I have to agree with you. If your art is hosted here on dA then your completely safe because your page here is where they can easily ask you "Hey, Can wee take this from you?" But then again. This doesn't just go for paintings and such.
Think about the mass effect.
Music, Movies, ect.
All the money from the famous well known people. Just gone away to the government if this is passed.
It's a very confusing bill.
I do not support it at all.
It just isn't fair.
Spoiler:
saltypandadogofdA Wrote:even after the death of the original creator, all queries or profits must be directed to the estate (heirs to the original creator). a registered copyright will stay registered the entire life of the creator + 75 years to the estate if not re-registered.
but registration isn't required, if it isn't, or if the registration runs out, it's still technically copyrighted to the heirs of the original creator.
as far as contacting goes in the case of orphaned works, while your alive, it's up to you to stay in contact, but once the rights of the work are passed on, its up to the heir to stay in contact. much like families of artists today, picasso's family is easily obtainable from their website, along with frazetta, and many others. as far as works that are extremely old go, if it's not in a museum and you have no heirs, its an orphaned work. if it is in a museum, the museum holds the rights.
i agree it is confusing to some, but all everyone needs to do is read about it before they start a huge protest. i don't support this bill in anyway, but once you realize it, all it does is make work without an heir or rights holder public domain.
night of the living dead is now in the public domain. i think DA can live with their fanart yuri in the public domain once their dead.
But Obama's thing is pretty retarded in general.
If he knows what's best. He shouldn't do it.
15/04/2008, 11:10 AM
artificialmusik Wrote:I'm sorry to say this. But you guys are retarded. Did you do your research on Orphaned Works?
No, Obviously not. If you still think it's retarded.
It's wrong, yes. But the reasons you guys are saying this is just... Beyond confusing.. After I had found this out I immediately began researching it.
Here's a conversation I had with someone, who I completely agreed with.
(Removed spoiler code to save room.)
This is really no win no lose situation. It just claims un-claimed work.
But Obama's thing is pretty retarded in general.
If he knows what's best. He shouldn't do it.
Ah, but you see, how far does the "artist was unidentifiable" thing go? Someone could take your art after finding it on Google, maybe on a website where they gave you no credit, crop your signature out, and copyright that piece of art as theirs. From that point on, it would be illegal for YOU to display YOUR art.
Alexiuss from DeviantART says it better than I do:
Alexiuss Wrote:Basically, it's about ability to Google artworks, take them and sell them, if you "can't find an owner".
This bill does NOT legalize art theft. It merely MIGHT give art thieves a new type of defense in court.
Person A steals your artwork and makes 10,000 dollars off it. You sue them. They claim that they found the work on Google and it had no signature.
This is all because some random idiot B decided to crop your signature out and post your artwork on their blog.
Person A tries to contact Blogger B, but Blogger B forever abandoned his blog, changed his email and went to join myspace instead, died horribly from myspace-itis and therefore he can't be reached.
Person A says that he did years and years of research and couldn't find the original artist, therefore he can't be blamed.
You lose the case and get nothing except for massive legal fees that you have to pay your lawyer for fighting person A.
Another theory that jumps out of this bill is that companies will spring up all over USA that will scam poor gullible artists into "copyright protection", by registering their work. Many of these companies are "predicted" to fail, not actually protect your art, and take your money with them to the grave.
(Alexiuss is one of THE most copied artists on dA, with his art showing up everywhere sans his signature or any credit of any kind. There was even a website selling his artwork as PSP skins, but with no credit and not a cent to him.)
Of course, none of this will matter to me if it does pass anyway, because I'm getting all of my art that I have completed now copyrighted as a volume. Volume 1 of my artwork.
Pages: 1 2