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.

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.

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.