A friend of mine, and comic artist (the guy who did the great pictures of a lot of Circus-13 characters) just pointed me to this article about possible new copyright laws here in the US called The Orphan Bill.
Essentially what it boils down to is copyrights would no longer be handled by the government but by corporations. Anyone see the problem with this yet? It gets better.
Under current copyright law, you do NOT have to register your work of art (writing, drawing, music, etc) to have it copyrighted. Under the new law, these will be called "orphans" (hence the name of the bill). Under the new law, anything that ISN'T registered with a company for copyright is considered and orphan and can be used by anyone (including businesses) and make a profit from it. So you do a drawing, post it on DeviantArt, someone does a search, finds it's not registered and can use it in an ad and they don't owe you a cent, and you can't do anything about it. In fact, that person can register your art for copyright and then sue YOU if you use your own artwork.
Nice, huh?
Need more proof that this is a bad idea? Here is an excerpt from the actual article by Mark Simon, on Animation World Magazine's website.
"Photos on the internet could be orphaned. With tens of millions of photos shared online with services like Flickr, Shutterfly and Snapfish, there is a huge opportunity for unauthorized use of your photos... legally.
You could see photos you take of your family and kids, or of a family vacation, used in a magazine or newspaper without your permission or payment to you. You would have to pay to register your photos, all of them, in every new registry in order to protect them.Say the average person takes 300 photos per year (I take a lot more than that). If a registry only charges $5 per image, that is a whopping$1,500 to protect your photos that are protected automatically under the current laws. If there are three registries, protecting your images could cost an amazing $4,500. Not to mention the time it would take to register every photo you take. Plus, you will also have to place your copyright sign on every photo.
That's not including all your art, sketches, paintings, 3D models, animations, etc. Do you really have all that extra time and money? Plus, even if you do register, the people stealing your work can still claim it was orphaned and, unless you fight them, they win. Even if you win, you may not make back your legal fees.
It gets even better. Anyone can submit images, including your images. They would then be excused from any liability for infringement(also known as THEFT) unless the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within a certain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.
That means you will also have to look through every image in every registry all the time to make sure someone is not stealing and registering your art. You could actually end up illegally using your own artwork if someone else registers it. DOES ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?
Do you think the U.S. Copyright Office is here to protect you from this legislation? Think again."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I discovered this while writing lesson plans on copyright and plagiarism. This is a serious blow to the average person or artist without professional representation. But think of the money-making potential for the government! That's what they were thinking of, I'm sure. I believe it's more like $30 per application, unless they've changed that part of the law, too.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
If you read the entire article (which was posted on Animation World Magazine's site), you'll see that it's not the GOVERNMENT that will get money out of this, but the private CORPORATIONS who will be doing the registering, and getting the money.
But one of the implications of this is that say you forget to register at one of the places you have to and someone snatches up your artwork. And then take it to the next step and you miss the deadline for dispute. Now they can go back and dispute YOUR claim to your own artwork EVERYWHERE ELSE you registered it since you didn't dispute that one claim.
Even if you win, how much money do you stand to lose in legal fees fighting it (especially if you're fighting a company that is using your art in an ad that is making them money)? And can you afford to fight it?
Stuff like this doesn't help me sleep at night.
But isn't the fee to obtain the copyright sent to a government agency? I understand that corporations stand to make money, but I think the government does too...in fact, everybody but the little guy.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You pay a fee to have your work "registered" with a company that holds registrations (from how I read this article). If you DON'T register your work, it becomes and "orphan" and is considered to be up for grabs for whoever wants to register it.
Then THEY hold the copyright to YOUR work. And you have to pay EVERY company that has registrations to register it with them.
As for the corporations paying the government, I don't think they have to (except for what they already have to get this bill passed). If this bill passes, the government won't have anything to do with copyright registration from what I understand.
As it stands now, you don't have to register your work to obtain a copyright. Once you create it, it's yours. YOU own it. If you register it, it will be easier for you to win in court if someone tried to use it without your permission. But if this bill passes, if you don't register with ALL the companies that "require" registration, it becomes "orphaned" and then fair game.
Given Democratic control of the House and the Senate, this bill does not have a chance of passing unless it is being pushed by Democrats.
Who is sponsoring this bill?
After doing some more research into this, there are two supporters of an amendments (which I'm trying to decipher) called HR24.
Howard 'Hollywood' Berman (CA) is sponsoring HR 24, with John Conyers (MI) and Zoe Lofgren (CA).
Here is a link to an article that provides more information, and an update on this.
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php
It seems that the original proponent of the bill was from the Copyright Office. What the bill was originally designed to do (as written in 2005 at one page, that has grown to 20 due to "legal-speak" and amendments) was that if the original copyright holder can not be found after "a reasonable search," the work could be considered orphaned and available. However, part of the amendment process has included that if it is not registered with the copyright office, it can initially be considered orphaned, meaning you MUST register with the copyright office. Searching ONLY the registered copyrights is ALL that is needed to conduct the "reasonable search" for the copyright holder.
According to the American Society of Media Photographers website (the link in this response), the bill is now geared more to creators than the previous ones and that an orphan bill of one kind or another is coming. The ASMP are fighting the legislation to work better for creators, and are trying to make this as beneficial as possible to creators.
I still really don't like the idea.
The sponsors of this bill (on Thursday, April 24 2008) were Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Here is what Sen. Leahy had to say:
Mr. President, today, I join once again with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our cultural heritage. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located--are collecting dust. Despite tremendous interest in using these orphan works in new collections and new creations, they often languish unseen, because those who would like to bring them to light, and to the attention of the world, fear the prospect of prohibitively expensive statutory damages. In other instances, the copyright in an orphan work may have expired, but potential users lack the information to be certain of the propriety of going forward with its use.
The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 will remedy this situation. It will help potential users of orphan works find the owners of those works, and it will help the owners to receive compensation. The works will no longer be orphans; their owners will reap the financial benefits of their use, while the public reaps the creative benefits. More creative works will be used, contributing to our cultural and artistic heritage, and more creators will receive compensation for use of their work.
Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work. But if copyright owners later make themselves known, and if users have performed a search that qualifies under this legislation, owners are entitled to reasonable compensation. The user will not be liable for full statutory damages in those circumstances, but if a user does not perform that good faith search, the user will face up to $150,000 in statutory damages.
In practical terms, then, what does this mean? It means that a woman in Vermont can restore a wedding photograph of her grandparents, even if she cannot locate the photographer to get permission to do so. It means that a library can display letters of American soldiers wrote during World War II, even if the library cannot contact the soldiers or their descendents. It means that museums can exhibit Depression-era photographs, even if they cannot determine the name of the photographer.
What this bill does not do is create a ``license to infringe.'' In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so. Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused.
I thank Senator HATCH for his help in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill becomes law. I am especially pleased to name this bill for Shawn Bentley. Several years ago, Shawn died, tragically young, but he left behind a legacy of affection and regard for all of us who knew him. He served Senator HATCH as a counsel for intellectual property, and it was he who first inspired this effort on orphan works. Naming this bill for him is a testament to his dedication to the issue, and his value to the Judiciary Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be included in the RECORD."
I found a lot of this information on a site that is affected, but not as much as other artists, by this bill.
http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?p=1241347&sid=04e958a7818ffbf18644e...
This is becoming a reality, and it's not a very good one.