Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dangerpants]

Have you heard about the Orphan Works Bill yet?

Basically, for artists in the US, the current law is that as soon as you create it, you own the copyright... And it's internationally protected.
A group of idiots wants to make it so that you have to pay to get a copyright (to a private company, not government run!), and as soon as the copyright runs out, the company owns your work. All your past work is not protected, you have to pay to protect them too.
How will this affect people overseas? I've heard a rumor that the UK is considering passing a bill like this too... So although the international law still protects you from the US companies for now, what about the future?
It's based on the idea that, since art is influenced by the community, it belongs to the community.
What a load of crock. It's just legalized art theft.

WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN.

[Cait.Beck!]

This time of year of this year your congressman wont do anything about nothin..
it's election year and primaries are still goin on in some places with the covention and novemeber elections ahead

but not to discourage the forces!!!

[Hayley Fiasco!]

WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN.

People have no idea how important something simple like that is because they do keep tabs of how many constituents say yes and how many say no.

[dangerpants]

I recently read another blog that completely turns this on it's head... I'm not really sure WHAT to believe, honestly, having not read the bill myself, and the fact that almost all of the websites I've read say what I posted here.
Here's the other blog. It does sound intelligent...

[J_Beck]

I can see something like that happening.  Theoretically, except for the part about a private company owning it.  That just brings up too many conflicts of interest

[Cait.Beck!]

This thread sparked my interest on this topic and i'm now doing a research paper on it.

HR 5439 (short title: Orphan Works Act of 2006) was  introduced on May 22, of 2006. It was passed on 2 days later by a voice vote and died in house when session for 2006 closed.

in the past there have been bills similar to this one introduced, but none of passed.

To my knowledge there is nothing currently happening with this bill, if there is, the suggested amendments are being changed/ fine tuned.

edit that
apparently some newer versions of this bill are being presented and discussed, but depending on the source the actually legislation is being misinterperated, I suggest you read the actual bill and not just blogs, and if your reading blogs also read some that are for it, it gives it a different spin

[bizzyinblack]

In Canada there is some bad news for the film and television world as well. Bill C-10, if passed, would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to film producers based on potential moral conflicts. (ie a film ABOUT porn or some other such "immoral" activities could see tax credits lost because of possible implications or expectations of what might be shown in the film...) These tax credits could be lost even if other federal agencies have put money into the film.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/film-tax-credits.html

a few days ago, at an event in Vancouver, Ang Lee spoke out against this bill as well. Too lazy to look for an internet link, I read it in the Globe and Mail however...so if you wanna read up on that feel free lol.

People are always wanting a piece of artists. People who "get" art, that are not "part" of the artist community are few and far between. And those outside, see successful artists as a threat (financially) because its an avenue that cannot be exploited unless the artists allow themselves to be exploited. (as in say, film and television, where you mostly have to let yourself be exploited to get your story out there. indie-stream being the exception) For the average Joe, someone who can make a living painting, or sculpting, or standing perfectly still painted up, or singing, is often deemed to be lazy. Of course that same person probably has no problem with professional sports athletes getting paid millions to play a game...let's see some heavy duty taxes on athletes. see how far that gets...

If we can't get more money out of art, lets retard the artists ability to make art. that seems to be the motto of most conservatively minded folks.

[Goodbye-Umbrella]

thats just hideous

[85283-071]

I wonder if the effect would be, if the most ominous of predictions were to become reality, to channel the focus of an artist on immediate marketability? Perhaps, as the rights to a work might be lost, the focus might be more short term.

Hear me out. I mean, I think it's bullshit on several fronts. I don't think it will happen, but I don't think there would be any justice if it did. Still, I wonder if there is a half-full part of the glass.

Picture the sand art of Asian cultures. It is made, then it is erased. Imagine art being given to the world... some profit, but no long term rights. Would that compel artists to produce more? Would it herd art into more practical meadows? Clearly, photographers are at the highest risk. The disparity between the relative values of paintings and reproductions is much more significant than that of photos and their reproductions.

I wonder how this will affect writing?