Proposed new law is a nightmare for artists
- added July 20, 2008
- 5 responses
-

-
-
-
- mundosanto
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Not News (25421)
- Random (20789)
- Entertainment (20685)
- Art and Style (17977)
- Culture (15175)
- Music (12043)
- Art (8268)
- TV & Film (7610)
- Movies (1868)
- Books (522)
- Artists (144)
- Copyright (109)
- Writers (53)
- Copyright Laws (10)
US Congress is currently debating legislation which will remove the penalty for copyright infringement if the creator of a work, after a diligent search, cannot be located. Libraries and archives are among the groups lobbying for the change to allow copying of so-called “orphan works”. The legislation would allow a rights holder who subsequently emerges to be paid the normal fee, but removes the currently costly statutory damages which rights’ holders can charge.
The term “orphan work” is used to describe situations in which an infringer of copyright decides that he cannot locate the copyright holder—usually the artist in the case of paintings and drawings. In a radical departure from existing law, the US Copyright Office has proposed that Congress grant infringers freedom to ignore the rights of the copyright holder.
The proposal goes far beyond current concepts of fair use, and, as explicitly acknowledged by the Register of Copyrights in a recent congressional hearing, it is not designed to deal with the special situations of non-profit museums, libraries and archives. Rather, it would give carte blanche to infringers even if they wished to exploit an artistic work for commercial advantage.
Under the proposed legislation, if a copyright holder finds out about an infringement after the fact, his only remedy would be to bring a lawsuit in federal court where a judge could order the payment of what he determines would have been paid by “a reasonable willing buyer and reasonable willing seller” before the infringement took place.
This is in sharp contrast to existing law where a copyright holder may obtain a halt to the infringement, the destruction of infringing copies, and damages that may be up to $150,000 for each work of art infringed. This would remove the deterrent that keeps piracy rates at a manageable level.
The term “orphan work” is used to describe situations in which an infringer of copyright decides that he cannot locate the copyright holder—usually the artist in the case of paintings and drawings. In a radical departure from existing law, the US Copyright Office has proposed that Congress grant infringers freedom to ignore the rights of the copyright holder.
The proposal goes far beyond current concepts of fair use, and, as explicitly acknowledged by the Register of Copyrights in a recent congressional hearing, it is not designed to deal with the special situations of non-profit museums, libraries and archives. Rather, it would give carte blanche to infringers even if they wished to exploit an artistic work for commercial advantage.
Under the proposed legislation, if a copyright holder finds out about an infringement after the fact, his only remedy would be to bring a lawsuit in federal court where a judge could order the payment of what he determines would have been paid by “a reasonable willing buyer and reasonable willing seller” before the infringement took place.
This is in sharp contrast to existing law where a copyright holder may obtain a halt to the infringement, the destruction of infringing copies, and damages that may be up to $150,000 for each work of art infringed. This would remove the deterrent that keeps piracy rates at a manageable level.
-
-
-
-
- mundosanto
- 2 months ago
-
This is fantastic news! So much of our culture is rotting away because no one can find the owner. Volunteer groups who try to preserve and distribute lost works are hampered by a copyright law which has been repeatedly extended due to heavy lobbying by the media co's (a practice which is unconstitutional).
-
-
-
-
- kellysontheroad
- 2 months ago
-
-
Listen, I called but you weren't home so I went ahead and used your super hero conception in my comic book, hope that's OK.
I could see litigators changing "diligent search" to mean whatever they want it to.-
-
-
-
- flyingkick
- 2 months ago
-
-
"Diligent search" would need to be defined in order for this story to carry any merit. Anyone have any resources as to where this bill is written or researchable, and what it says exactly?
-
what the @#$%? I hope congress uses common sense and does not pass this goofball bill. I doubt it will pass, hundreds of silly bills go through every week.
-
-
-
-
- RudyRudell
- 2 months ago
-
-
This is oh so dangerous to the one thing that keeps so many of us going: art. How can we possibly respect our artists any less? I'm not against mashups and shit. Girl Talk is awesome. But to think that all a person needs to say to avoid copyright law is that they couldn't find the real owner, thus making it an 'orphan work,' to think that would be to think every piece of music you've ever heard in your life could be illegally pirated or sampled because of some dumbass who doesn't know anything, nor has an incentive to find anything out. This is so scary. Everyone should send their congressmen their favorite song of all time, if narrowing down that much is even possible. Tell them that you don't want anyone disrespecting that artist because some slimball just couldn't figure out who the artist was.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
