CCN Message Board 2009

[ThatMainChick]

What would you do if some one was using your art work illegally and there was nothing you could do about it except complain and go cry in a pillow.

Well look what i found on DA. I am copying and pasting this but, if you are an artist, I think you should read the thread and check into it yourself. The link to original thread is <a href="http://banzchan.deviantart.com/journal/8092673/"target="_blank" >HERE</a>

Also look <a href="http://www.masterzdm.com/NCD/showflat.php?Number=592017&"target="_blank" >HERE</a> if you want to read the letters sent out about it. It is called the Orphaned Works Express!


<img src="http://i2.tinypic.com/osvd38.jpg"><img src="http://i2.tinypic.com/osvdbs.jpg"><img src="http://i2.tinypic.com/osvdio.jpg ">




...work online and know how easily credits can be removed from art and spread through out the internet; you may want to take a very good look at what they are trying to pass in Congress. [link]

"Under the proposed legislation, a person or other entity who wants to use a copyrighted work is required to make only a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to locate the copyright owner. If, after making such a search, the user is unable to locate the copyright owner, he/she/it gets an almost free license to use the work. If the copyright owner never comes forward, the user gets to use the work for free. Even if the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, the MOST the copyright owner can get is "reasonable compensation," i.e. a reasonable license fee for the use actually made. There is NO possibility of statutory damages or attorneys' fees, even if the work was registered before the use was made without your permission."

Anyone else find this just as disturbing as I do?

-Robert DeJesus

Update

"Wednesday, March 8: The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing from 2-4 pm. David Trust, CEO of APA, is slated to testify. ASMP is in support of his testimony and our General Counsel, Victor Perlman, will be attending the hearing. The proceedings will be webcast live> [link]"
I'll be watching and crossing my fingers.

IF YOU READ THIS MAKE SURE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS IN THE BULLETON I FEEL LIKE IF YOU ARE AN ARTIST THEN OTHERS THAT ARE ARTISTS DESERVE TO HERE WHAT YOU THINK. OR MAKE A BLOG ABOUT IT!
_________________
http://mainasha.deviantart.com/

[gRAFFITI MANTIs]

I don't think I'll be posting anymore original art anytime soon. As it is I've only posted old work of mine that I don't think has any commercial value.
About a year ago I heard on a TV interview about a bill being put together to capture Orpaned Work, I wonder if this is the same bill? More and more I think the only purpose to government is so the rich without talent can steal from the poor with talent.
_________________
http://www.comicspace.com/graffitimantis
http://diesel-spleen.blogspot.com/
http://slang-gullion.blogspot.com/
http://graffiti-mantis.blogspot.com/

[Chris Garrett]

Counter argument:

http://eldred.cc/

Relevant documents:

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

[gRAFFITI MANTIs]

I don't buy the counter argument. Can't find the copyright owner? Then create original work. Maybe an artist or a writer will get an extra paycheck.
Capturing orphaned work just sounds lazy to me and I can see the books being sold to artists and writers. ALMOST COPYRIGHT FREE; if you're lucky you might not be stealing someone's work.
_________________
http://www.comicspace.com/graffitimantis
http://diesel-spleen.blogspot.com/
http://slang-gullion.blogspot.com/
http://graffiti-mantis.blogspot.com/

[Scott]

to be honest, i dont really see this as that big of a deal. if i find out someone is using my art, i sue, i get compensated. there are literally millions of images out there that there would be absolutely no hope of finding the original producer. as an artist, im thinking i might find the current state of affairs actually more of a hindrance to my work than an actual threat.

this is coming from one of the biggest government conspiracy guys youll ever meet.

that said, ive only perused it and it is definitely grounds for further research.
_________________



http://scottskansascity.blogspot.com/

[ThatMainChick]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html


I don't know i think when it comes down to it is all about money. My worry is what if someone desides to use my work and they actually make alot of money from it. I sued and I couldn't do anything about it but take what ever they gave me and come up with a new idea.

Another one of my questions is? If artists should be able to let there work be used by other people if the other person is to lazy to try and contact them then why is the music industry so pissy about when people download music from the net. Technically isn't both stealing. heck people make mix tapes and crap and sell them or whatevver and if they are caught they get sued so bad they end up homeless.
_________________
http://mainasha.deviantart.com/

[gRAFFITI MANTIs]

Hey what happened Scott? Are we in a parrallel universe? I'm the conspiracy
guy and you're on the government's side. That just made my day.
_________________
http://www.comicspace.com/graffitimantis
http://diesel-spleen.blogspot.com/
http://slang-gullion.blogspot.com/
http://graffiti-mantis.blogspot.com/

[Scott]

i dont think this is about using peoples ideas and charchters, but more about images.

i talked with my boss at work about this today and he made the paralell to hip hop groups using sampled music. in many ways, it helps the original artist.

now if this allows advertising companies to justr grab yer art and not pay for it thats one thing but i dont see that this is what its about.

one thing for sure though, if you post any work of your personal charachters or ideas be sure and draw the little c and date and name it.
_________________



http://scottskansascity.blogspot.com/

[gRAFFITI MANTIs]

You can't copyright an idea or a concept and I don't think that applies here.
Lets say you're right and very little if any work of artist is stolen and this enhances other peoples work. I'm still against it. I believe in original thought.
It's one thing to build on the works of others and it's another to build using the works of other. Of course you have to take all this with a grain of salt because I'm a hypocrite. I do photo collages.
_________________
http://www.comicspace.com/graffitimantis
http://diesel-spleen.blogspot.com/
http://slang-gullion.blogspot.com/
http://graffiti-mantis.blogspot.com/

[Scott]

semantics. im referring to developed ideas. ie batman, spiderman etc...

i believe those are copyrighted
_________________



http://scottskansascity.blogspot.com/

[Greg G.]

About sampling: Don't those artists have to get permission from the artists whose music they sampled? They almost certainly have to pay them for it; otherwise, they can get in big trouble. (To wit: Ron Parisi of Wild Cherry suing Vanilla Ice over "Play that Funky Music.")

I, too, find the counterargument to be a little weak. If one cannot find the original creator for permission, then why use the work in question? Why not create something new? I cannot see this as being an inconvenience to people who are truly creative.

I can see some grey areas, though. If one wanted to use a "fan letter," as mentioned, or other type of correspondence in publishing historical research, one should not have to seek permission from the original author. After all, fan letters are almost never written with the idea of turning a profit, so the idea of the writer losing money doesn't apply. If one cannot get permission to use the writer's name (as many writers of such letters may prefer to remain anonymous) then leave the name out.

I assume that, under the proposed changes, anyone who wanted to use "orphaned works" would still have to cite the orginal source, not pass it off as their own work. However, even if they did pass it off as their own, it sounds like the original artist would be in an uphill, losing fight to reclaim authorship.