Orphaned Works = copywrights void?

[vanessa cardui]

Soooo, has anyone read into this whole Orphaned Works bill that is trying to get passed? From the little that I've seen, it would basically void artists copywright as we know it...

You would be required to register your works with a copywright agency, where as now we just create works and they are immediately protected. Apparently under this new bill, unless registered, your work is considered orphaned. AND even if you DO register, if a registry search comes up as 'no match' (which only claims a 99% success rate) your work would still be considered orphaned. Works considered as 'orphaned' would legally allow companies to use your images without your permission or compensation to you.

Here's the site I where I got this information: http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/

Please. Somebody tell me that they have heard of this before now and that it's not as bad as it seems. Looks like this battle has been brewing for about 2 years but has now reached a head to where it may actually get passed before the end of this administration...

[theCryptofishist]

http://bm.tribe.net/thread/bf46e32b-39a ... 00cd404f99

Key Paragraphs:

I did find that the proposed legislation introduced in 2006 went nowhere, and may be reintroduced with changes sometime this year. Recent discussions include suggestions that the US Copyright office should set up a digital image registry, but the info I found doesn't mention any private entity managing it. They have recognized the significant dificulty in managing a registry that could easily contain billions of digital images, along with the limited ability of current software to reliably match images.

Bottom line here is that my interpretation of the original post is that the statement "artists will lose all rights to any work created" is unsubstantiated.

BTW - I live with an artist, and she could never afford the time or cost to register her work

Plus links at the bottom.

[mdmf007]

Doesnt sound realistic.

The recording industry, and every publisher in the world would block any attempt at this sort of de-regulation.

http://www.copyright.gov/
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/copyrightmystery/#/files/
cute cartoon explaining it all.

who knows with the state of affairs nothing surprises me much anymore

[gyre]

Disney is writing most of the new law.
I haven't kept up with it, but it's alarming.

[vanessa cardui]

Okay, so I have been searching throught the links and now my head hurts. I hate reading little technical words on a computer screen!

The US Copywright Office (or at least Marybeth Rogers representing them) made a statement in SUPPORT of the bill. http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

Excerpted, here are the problems this bill is trying to address:
"...citizens who wished to have old photographs retouched or repaired but were denied service by the photo shops... [because] they know that the photographer, not the customer, probably holds the copyright in the photograph. ... Many other examples were presented to us as well, from museums that want to use images in their archival collections to documentary filmmakers who want to use old footage. ...When a copyright owner cannot be identified or is unlocatable, potential users abandon important, productive projects, many of which would be beneficial to our national heritage. ... The Copyright Office finds such loss difficult to justify when the primary rationale behind the prohibition is to protect a copyright owner who is missing. If there is no copyright owner, there is no beneficiary of the copyright term and it is an enormous waste."

Sounds like a legitimate issue, right? The solution? Still reading... stand by.

[gyre]

"...unable to get old photos repaired..."

I smell a classic political red herring.
There is more to that story.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

So any news on this issue Vanessa?


wondering that this bill died a quick death