Artists of all kinds - you can kiss your copyright rights goodbye

This is horrible. So it's bad if we steal shit off the internet form the big guys but it's A-OK if the big guys what to take everything from the people? This line of thought seems flawed.

More erosion of our rights.

This kind of legislation is disgusting. no one has the right to own another's creativity.

This is important - it appears to require artists / creators to spend money for the protection, regardless of whether you make money or not.

It's a racket and our government is supposed to protect us from this sort of manipulation for big money scams.

Contact you elected representatives and tell them a big fat NO!

Yes, very scary. If people do not stand up for whats right or wrong, they can lose the shirt off their backs!! Now, as far as this orphan law is concerned..this has been a big problem for many creative people trying to locate the owners so they can pay them their fair share. If you want to read some responses to the study at the copyright office, this will open up eyes as to what needs to be done without taking the shirts off our backs! There are various opinions, but many wanting to protect the 'orphaned' work..here is the link:
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/reply/

also, here is the actual study as well as many other links to testimony and hearings:
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Thanks for informing us !!! please everyone spread the word !!! I just posted the article on myspace, only about 1700 ... We need thousands to see this !!!!!

This is a world wide problem; it can only be skipped or bypaased if the actor has a signed right to his creation.
What it means is: if any one puts any thing on any website or in any kind to public any body can use it - it is free.
And even if the actor has the official right he/she can only go to court to fight for his right: this costs money and time, and the most especially poor actors has neither nor.
Vierotchka, I like your presentations, but also I "use" it the way I watch it.
The best
oldgerman

eff.org It is our consumer responsibility to stay active and stop believing that the few who do should be the only ones who care. Stop this infringement and get on the boat of activism because it's now rebuilt and time is nearing for soul to soul gearing. Keep watch will you but for now go to eff.org and submit.

globalization at its best....once again our government is selling off america....thanks alot to all of the lobbyists and politicos and huge corps..its sad to think that something you sweat over can be taken away without even a fight

Thanks for sharing this. this law is bullshit and we have to stop it!

Thank you so much for posting this - I will tell every artist I know - and I know a lot of them!

We have to rally together and stand up for our rights. This is our creative property and we must be as aggressive as we are about this election. We all have to do our part.

This is an awfully tough issue to sort out and the kind of rampant alarmism being expressed here does nothing to help. Mulcahey, thankfully, has suggested that there *might* be more to it than the silly headline, the linked article or any of these other overly-credulous comments suggest.

Look, we are not in danger of losing our copyrights on EVERYTHING to corporations. Just calm down, take a breath, evaluate the issue a bit. Legislation that helps to sort out how artists can use orphaned works is a GOOD thing - but that doesn't mean that every individual law is going to be ideal. What specific law are we even discussing here?

Some random dude's heavy-breathing rant on some random website does not signal the end of civilization.

This legislation, by definition, the user of a creative piece must seek out the owner before using it. If said owner cannot be located, it’s OK to use the work, but if the owner surfaces, they are entitled to compensation.

Currently, no one many use a creative piece without express permission, period.

Let’s say a piece of art work is used in a XXX movie, like the Mona Lisa. (Could also be the name of the movie.) No one can say whether Leonardo would want his creative piece to be used in such a manner, never mind the compensation?

Scrap this lame excuses of thievery by putting your congressional representatives numbers in your Speed dial and call them when ever you feel like giving them a “piece of your creative” mind.

Pwdrskir, the Mona Lisa is in the public domain because it was painted in the early 16th century. So no one has to ask anyone's permission to use the Mona Lisa for any reason. I understand this was just an example, but these concepts are important.

According to current U.S. copyright law, copyright lasts for the creator's life plus 70 years for individuals' works and 120 years from creation for corporate works. After that, the work passes into the public domain and is available for anyone to use.

You don't need permission to use a work that is in the public domain.

great, so my portfolio that I send out to ad agencies will just rip off my idea & never hire me or all the other advertising students. great.

vigilance required for yet another circumvention of long-time accepted rights! they're flooding us!

Bill Gates you sob...we shouldn't have to PAY a g'dam PRIVATE company for OUR creative works!!!

"...just one of the many reasons why INTERNATIONAL LAW FORBIDS COERCED REGISTRATION as a condition of protecting your copyright. The United States is about to break international law by making us register our works. The people behind the bill say it's not forced registration, but you won't have any rights unless you register. THIS IS SEMANTICS! Of course, this is forced registration and we can't stand for it!

This is not something that is going to go away easily...

This legislation has been beaten or delayed for the past two years and they will keep trying until it passes. This is no time to be quiet and see what happens. What will happen depends on you. Send e-mails and call your congressmen. Ownership of your own creations depends on it."

Roger Dean sums this up well. "Where are the colleges and universities in all this? Has the whole world gone to sleep?"

This is really bad. Being a creative director myself I know how hard it is to hold and marketing creative content if you do not have a company covering your behind with Lawyers. Everyone that creates content, it creates this content from something. Many artists and Ad Marketing Companies do not acknowledge the source of their creation. Therefore someone is already getting screwed as we speak here. The big the advertising agency, movie or music production company, the easy it is for them to just take it and run. They do that so fast that by the time you realize what they did, it is already late news. They are on to the next gig already.

Then there is this issue, that spells in reality that implies that: "Everything you post on the internet; (kinda); becomes; (public domain); from the moment you upload it."

I guess we artists are the really givers and marketing people have this mischievous notion that they do not have to pay us back. That makes things hard on the artist because the only way to make a living it is to get a previous disclosure contract. Yeah, like everyone can afford Lawyers, Contracts, litigation and so forth. As an artist, I think everything is fine when there are no monies involved into it. However, by the time any party starts to make a dollar from it, the ethical way is to share that profit with the source of their creation. That is the way you show respect towards others.

Now, go tell the Ad Marketing TV Agencies that have been stealing from artists for Years to all of the sudden change their profitable mischievous behavior. Now way, first you have to prove they stole it from you. Thats litigation time. Hell! Just forget about it, maybe the SPIRIT OF GOD will catch up with them and their houses will burn to the ground. Ha! That would be something for them to think about.

You might want to see this...according to what I've found out is that this was pending in 2006, and has since not been introduced in Congress...

http://firefox.org/news/articles/1396/1/Editorial-Calli...

Some of you didn't read the article. You only stand to lose it, if you're not diligent about taking care of your work properly.

"An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission."

If Disney didn't do what they had to do to keep and extended the protection on some of their works, I'd be selling mickey mouse t-shirts all over the place right now.

Thanks for this important piece of info. In addition to contacting my senators, I'll pass it on to everyone I know on facebook & myspace. I'd encourage everyone to do the same. Our rights are at risk again.

Oldman the content of the link to the article you post looks more likely a disarming ruse to any future threat.

This is BS:

"The 2006 bill was designed so that works such as photographs and illustrations whose origins cannot be determined could de facto pass into the public domain. Museums, schools and religious institutions were specificaly named as beneficiaries of the legislation. More, there was wording to protect the copyright holder..."

Who in the hell pretends to make those changes on behalf of creators worldwide? It's a scam. Why are these corporations so intent to have things pass "de facto" into the public domain??? the big corporations don't propose things like this to "protect creators" nor to be so philanthropic. besides! they want you to PAY a private company to "protect" YOUR work! (sounds a lot like a Federal Reserve system, doesn't it?!! the phukn bass turdz!)

Beware! I'd be more likely to listen to the IPA and find their concerns more credible than anyone who calls your creative work "fanart."

It's been stated that they keep trying to reintroduce this legislation...I seriously doubt it's merely because they only want to be so "helpful."

error on the side of caution...phukem.

"echoz" I think you and the others ones here are right in "protecting the rights of the artist creator," I am all for that and I think we should act on it. However, think about this for a moment. The little artist out there doesn't stand a chance under USA Copyrights Laws or even European Copyright Laws--- as you need (upfront), Time, Money, Lawyers, etc, etc to keep up with this. Only big Corporations and Big fat guys with good Advertising accounts can afford to keep up with the demand. The little artist doesn't stand a chance. I have been studying Copyright Laws from back, (I better not tell you when), and I got to the conclusion that does not help that much. Many times Copyright issues even blocks "creativity" as there are many artists there that do it to promote other artists not to steal their original work. It is a big quest. We can talk more about of course but it will not change the current reality where Congress and the Big Fat guys gets the money. Sorry I did not meant to extend this over board.

well stopnoise, if your opinion is currently so fatalistic, how bad will it be if creatives just let them have their way. Turn around and give 'em hell, not your acquiescence...they don't deserve it.

hear, hear, echoz! They're expecting little artists to just roll over and die without a fight. Give them hell!

Back in 2002, some legislation(law) was slipped in under a broad Satellite Home Viewre Improvement Act (cable T.V., etc.) Bill/Law passage hearing that affected copyright ownership. The article about it, entitled "Four Little Words" can be found at
http://archive.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2000/08/28/w...

No one noticed it, so it was made into law. The then Editor-in-Chief of Billboard Magazine: Tim White, alerted songwriters(authors), musicians & [Music]Artists about this and urged them to band together and contact their Representatives. They did so, and President Clinton had to reverse the law.

The Editor-in-Chief of Billboard, died shortly after that. RIP Timothy White.

So, they're at it again. If at first they don't suceed;try, try again. Some might not take this seriously, but if they tried to "sneak" a law into the books before, whitout anyone noticing, it's to be perceived as a real threat. Check out the link I provided and read for yourself. This might not matter much or at all to those who aren't authors of any nature with works to be protected, but you still benefit from our works.

How many people actually read their EULA (end-user license agreements) when loading new software onto their computers, before clicking "I Accept"? Pay attention to the "details". I'd rather do the research & find out I was wrong than to not do so and find out later that I was "wronged".

I'll let all of my Friends on MySpace know about this. Thanks!!!

CEW ("Q")

This is very interesting.

"echoz" I said that I agree with you and others here. Like I said, I think you and others are right in "protecting the rights of the artist creator," I am all for that and I think we should act on it.

The point is that this is a big discussion and require more time and unify fair Legislation.

There are many issues happening right now and without being misinterpreted, I am more interesting on finding solutions to Environmental and Acoustic Wrongs happening in the City of San Francisco and USA at this moment.

Therefore, please visit me at the Topic Tag:

Network News Launch - Earth Day Week

Thank You!

freakn~xlnt~ history CEWQ! appreciate that very much!!! it's so hard to believe the RIAA and its major record labels actually had the audacity to try making every fixed sound recording a work for hire!!! that's so completely off-the-wall unethical!!!! those bass-turdz deserve to have their ballz cut off and stuffed down till they suphocate miserably!

"...record companies will do whatever they can to give artists the [huge!] financial shaft.

"It was very sinister at its root," says former Eagles leader Don Henley. "We never should have had to go through this. But the RIAA thought they had enough clout in Congress to make it stick. And they almost did."

"When asked for comment, record company representatives pass questions to the RIAA. [what chicken shite bass turd mferz!!!!]

"Artists manager Ron Stone, whose clients include Bonnie Raitt and Tracey Chapman, never bought the cyber-squatting argument in the first place: "Record companies have earned our scorn over many years of taking advantage of artists at every possible turn, so the level of suspicion is high," he notes....the secret amendment move was unconscionable, he [Stone] says, and the artists' seeming victory is merely the latest battle in an ongoing war: "So we're back to squaring off with the record companies and arguing over this issue. All we've done is gotten them to take their foot off our throats...

"The Artists Coalition -- which will soon be renamed the Recording Artists Coalition -- is growing in strength and numbers," reports Henley. "We will continue to monitor any and all legislation that could affect the intellectual property rights of recording artists. This is only the beginning. It's high time artists woke up and stood together."

I thought it already was legal to steal all their works on flickr and stuff?

great add! Spoke with Mark Simon and will be featuring the full article on AF MAGAZINE: MAY 2008
(See: www.theartistsforum.org for details starting May 6.)