Sinfest

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10741 Location: Unknown Kaddath

"Orphaned Works" bill would basically void all existing copyrights registered within the last 34 years, and require any creators of any copyrightable content to register their works through private companies which currently don't exist.
This sort of coercion is currently against US and international law for good reasons. One being the extreme expense in time and money that could ensue, especially for professionals but even for amateur shutterbugs, and the potential for abuse.

Here's the short of it, taken from part of an article in Animation World Magazine:

Puma · Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 1909 Location: I, er, oh.

I've been looking into this bill, and I don't see the bit that says every copyright of the past 34 years will be voided. But either way, this is a bad, bad thing for artists.

Yorick · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject:

Whose bright brilliant idea was this, to try to take away creators' rights?
_________________
88 NPH

Bart · Joined: 22 Jul 2006 Posts: 1512

Puma · Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 1909 Location: I, er, oh.

Usagi Miyamoto · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject:

It appears this tempest was stirred up in error.
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10741 Location: Unknown Kaddath

Puma · Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 1909 Location: I, er, oh.

Research is a good thing Embarassed

Black Kitty · Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 543 Location: Under your bed.

Whoo, big scary things! While the situation may not be as dire as we originally thought, I'm still glad I read this - I really need to learn more about copyrighting! ^^;

Thanks, guys.
_________________
Live to laugh.

Sam · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 8567

I'm always pleased when something as retarded as this unexpectedly turns out to actually not be true!

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10741 Location: Unknown Kaddath

Darqcyde · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject:

Kimberlea · Joined: 20 May 2007 Posts: 138 Location: back in VA

I work in the copy and print department a Staples and we run into this problem a lot too. Our policy (unofficialy) is if it looks like its more than 75 years old we'll give them the benifit of the doubt, but anything obviously more recent has to get a waiver from the photographer. the biggest ones I've seen are grad and school photos and event photos ie. cruse ships

Yorick · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject:

This small copy shop I work for doesn't care.

Well, more accurately, we assume people are being honest. Especially since the likelihood of someone tracing a "copyright violation" back to us is very very small. Most of the photos I have to deal with come from laywer offices anyway.

Large-format plans & schemes are often marked with copyright notices. It is generally accepted that copies will need to be made, so no one much cares, and often the person the copies are being made for is either the designer/engineer, the person who requested the plans, or a contractor working for one or the other. It's education law that comes into play here - changing the plans without authorization is a violation that can sink you later.
_________________
88 NPH

mouse · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 14855 Location: under the bed

isn't there some sort of personal use exemption to copyright? maybe it doesn't apply to photos and the like, but i know for scientific papers, you can make a copy for your own use without violating copyright. you just can't pass it out wholesale (and you certainly can't make money off of it). seems like if you want a copy of a picture you paid for, for your own use, that should be OK.
_________________
aka: neverscared!