From technology to politics to video games; these are the random thoughts of a geek with too much time on his hands
Start sending in those letters
Published on July 8, 2008 By Zoomba In WinCustomize News

United StatesDeparting from our normally cheery news of cool skins, neat programs and new releases, today I wanted to share with everyone some news that could have a very significant impact on copyright law in the United States, specifically in the area of reusing work by other artists.  The US Orphan Works Act of 2008 has two very important aspects that every skinner or digital artist should take heed of:

  • Artists will need to register their works with an entity designated by the US Copyright Office.  This is a reversal of current passive copyright policy where you hold the copyright to a work automatically by virtue of creating it.
  • Infringement is allowed if the infringer claims that they made a reasonable effort to contact the author of the work.  The infringer determines what is a reasonable and diligent effort.

This bill places the entire burden of protecting work and declaring copyright on the artist, and grants wide rights to those who infringe and reuse others art.  Even in a case where the original author has registered, and the infringer is shown to not have made a reasonable effort, there is very little allowed under the bill to seek compensation or damages.  Your skins here, if not registered with a designated database, could be taken and reused without notice or consent, and as artists you would have virtually no recourse. 

I know copyright is very important to many people here, and that's why I wanted to pass this information along to everyone.

For a good summary on the bill currently before the US House of Representatives, go here.

To write to your representative/senator on this issue, go here.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 12, 2008
the US Constitution, it doesn't apply to 99% of the world
Lol, true that. However, this thread is about U.S. Law, which does have the nasty tendency to affect the rest of the world. I can definitely see why people get excited (not necessarily in a good way) about it.
on Jul 12, 2008
WWW Link

http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightPurpose.html <---copy and paste, seems the link above does not work..


The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:

The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]

I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.


I did a post about this in May and was pretty much slammed for being a fear monger and unnecessarily scaring people (https://forums.wincustomize.com/?aid=311368)....ahh well such is life in the big city.


Yes.....me too..small city here...
on Jul 13, 2008
Originally posed by teddybearcholla:
http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightPurpose.html

Excellent article. In fact, it confirms that while copyright holders do have certain rights, they are limited in nature.

From the link:
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.
emphasis added

One of the ways they are limited is by time. It was originally 14 years. Currently, copyright for individuals lasts for the duration of the author's life, plus 70 years. Expect another extension a bit before 2019, when works are scheduled to start entering the public domain again.

The link also confirms that copyright is intended to provide the potential of profit as an incentive to create.

From the link:
It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.
emphasis added

Originally posed by teddybearcholla:
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:

The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]


I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.
emphasis added

I would agree with that. Along with the above mentioned ownership, inventors and authors are granted rights to control certain aspects of how their works are reproduced, for a limited time. After that limited time has elapsed, the works enter the public domain, where they may be freely reproduced, and used to create derived works.

-------------

Let us return to the original topic of this thread. The Orphan Works Act of 2008.

Please take time to read the complete act, to insure that when writing to representatives, we can make specific comments and suggestions.

In my opinion the bill requires certain clarifications, if it is to both aid copyright holders and those that might eventually create a derived work. Again, this is my opinion. In a community of artists, there should be sufficient creativity to come up with comments that are constructive.

1. It needs to clarify that authors works will be copyright automatically, for a set limited time. I believe that time should be 14 years, as was the original term.

2. It needs to clarify that after the initial term, copyright holders will be required to register their copyright if they wish to prevent their works from entering the public domain. I believe that only one extension, of equal length to the original term, should be allowed. This will let others build on existing works, as I'm sure many of the people reading this have done at some time, legally or otherwise.

3. If a registration fee is to be charged, it should not be a revenue generator; it should cover the costs of registration, and maintenance of the database.

4. Access to the information in the database should be provided cost free, so those who wish to check the status of a copyrighted work, or to find the author's contact information, may easily do so. Access via the Internet would be ideal.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the management of such a database could be (read as most likely will be) troublesome.

I believe that something needs to be done about copyright. As is, I don't think this bill is it. Are there any constructive ideas out there, or am I the only one that thinks the system could use some (major) tweaks?
on Jul 13, 2008
How about if we all just make Orphans of Congress!? I thinks its time they all just take a hike. Its about time Congress is updated to a younger crowd of people with a stake in the future!
3 Pages1 2 3