Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Changes to the copywright law

    I'm just going to make this easy and copy my friends post from another site, but I am kinda upset about this and I am wondering how this will affect the non-us artists.

    haven't seen any mention of this on here yet, so I thought I'd post it..since I also just learned about it today. Apparently there is possibly a new law in the making that will deprive artists of their copyright rights. This means that Disney or some other big company could come in, and take your character, or creature creation etc. use it, make money off of it, and you wouldn't make a dime. This is especially true of artists on Deviantart, and other such galleries.

    More information can be found here : http://www.illustratorspartnership.o...D=060224110555

    here: http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/2006/...gislation.html

    here: http://insaneartgurl.deviantart.com/journal/8067766/

    beware the spelling on this last one, but yeah : http://darklion.deviantart.com/journal/8032767/

    Now, I'm hearing mixed things about this. A friend told me that there was an article about it in his school newspaper or something that said that people's art could be stolen etc. Other people are saying this too, and yet other places I'm reading say that the act would be helping libraries make copies of various things for public domain. But it bothers me that this extends to artwork such as photographs, drawings, paintings, etc. And that supposidly a character or creature can be stolen by someone and used, if they claim "oh, we couldn't get ahold of the person, so we declared it an orphan work and took it."

    If I'm freaking out about a non-issue, let me know. If I'm freaking out becuase I should, then at least I've got a post started about it. Yeah...
    You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. - C.S Lewis

    My sketchbook, updated whenever I get around to it


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,066
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    as i see it. the community of lets say online artists are well known to each other. so if someone steals ones design every artist will know this and act upon it.

    and maybe they will get some difficultys after.

    honor and money isnt the closest of freinds i know. but i think the honor amongst artists counts more then some courtroom skribbling.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Yea but the honor between a company and artists? I don't know it just feels like tehy're taking away artists rights here... anyway I just though I'd post this here too as this is something that pepole here might be interested in.
    You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. - C.S Lewis

    My sketchbook, updated whenever I get around to it

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southeast coast, USA
    Posts
    2,787
    Thanks
    511
    Thanked 507 Times in 342 Posts
    Orphan Works Post 2

    Orphan Works Post 1

    Uhm, to say a large company would abuse this proposed amendment is probably stretching it. They could be charged with fraud if they knowingly stole artwork or concepts (which is a whole 'nother crime that is not protected by the Orphan Works legislature).

    Read the actual legislature. It's scary, but not like that.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I guess it's this:

    "To strip orphaned works of their protection would invite unjust exploitation. Commercial stockhouses, databases and print and web publishing industries could freely gather "orphaned" images for use by simply declaring authors hard to locate."

    that worries me.. that and the general idiocy that seems to be behind this idea.. I don't know I seem to suffer from semi paranoia at times or something and have a nasty habit of over reacting to things.. but at the very least this seems plain stupid.. (and I'm still not sure how this will affect non-use artists as this is a change to us-laws and not the international laws.. right?)

    *note to self: stop posting at 5am in the morning*
    You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. - C.S Lewis

    My sketchbook, updated whenever I get around to it

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Copyright law in the US is insane. It expires after too long a period of time. The purpose of intellectual property rights has been completely perverted in the last century. If laws like ours existed in Shakespeare's day, none of us would have ever heard of Hamlet because it never would've been performed or published by anyone who wasn't "authorized".

    You think you're protecting yourselves, but all you are really doing is limiting the scope of your own audience. Leave behind the Victorian pretensions about art ownership and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Art has always been co-opted by people other than the artist. From postage stamps of the Mona Lisa to horrific Baz Luhrman adaptations of Romeo & Juliet to Nazi propaganda that misquotes Nietzsche (poor Friedriche would have been mortified if he saw what his sister did with his work).

    Instead of trying to control your work (which can only be accomplished by never showing it to anyone... ever), you should be trying to figure out how to profit from sharing it and who to share it with to stay profitable. The world isn't going to step backwards in time just because you want it to.

    Just as every work you create is influenced by the work of others, so can someone else take your work and use it in their own ideas. The line between influence and plagiarism is largely arbitrary, and changes every decade as cultural influences fluctuate (ask the Dadaists, Lichtenstein or William Burroughs what "originality" is). Anyone who says otherwise has an over-developed ego.

    If you don't want someone to use your work without paying for it, don't show it to people without charging them. Them's the rules. That's the way it always has been ultimately, and that's the way it always will be, no matter what laws are passed or vetoed.

    Digital art and the internet haven't changed this reality, they've simply brought it into sharper focus. It's not like this new law gives someone the right to just grab your work from your online portfolio and do whatever they want with it. A work is only "orphaned" if the artist's identity can not be determined. If you were so worried about it being stolen, you should've put your damn name on it (and there are plenty of ways to do this that make it impractically hard to remove it, technology can work for you as well as against you if you do your research).

    People really should study the history of IP law before getting too hot and bothered over this stuff. This reactionary crap serves no purpose and does no good for anyone.

    I would address the Illustrators Partnership arguments one by one but frankly it isn't worth the time. If you guys want to end up like those Vaudeville performers who stuck with their union*, then by all means, protest away. But I'd suggest turning all that effort and attention toward something more productive, like finding a way to profit in the modern world and not the world that existed 20 years ago.


    * for those who aren't familiar with history, Vaudeville performers were essentially given a choice by the union which represented most of them. Either boycott radio and movies, or leave the union and never perform on stage again. Guess which option Abott and Costello chose, and then tell me the name of one performer who stuck with the union. You probably can't because they all wound up pushing brooms and driving taxis. The lesson of history here is; Adapt or die. Try to stand in the way of cultural or technological change and you'll get run over.
    -------------------------
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,987
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked 290 Times in 173 Posts
    On a global scale, how can one hope to secure his art from hundreds of millions of people, most of which doesn't speak the same language as him and live in any one of hundreds of countries with very different and complex laws?

    I do believe one should fight this for its implications within the US, but globally... i do believe that is a lost cause.
    My work: [link]

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    693
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 25 Times in 7 Posts
    Last edited by sciboy; March 19th, 2006 at 06:39 AM.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    You know, those links are all good, but I think the most cogent speaker on the subject is Cory Doctorow. For those who don't know him, Doctorow is a scifi author who releases all of his work under a Creative Commons license on the internet the same day that they are published. Doing so has allowed him to build a huge audience of very loyal readers and has dramatically increased the sales of his books.

    Giving his work away has made him more successful, not less. He has found a way to make money in the new environment that doesn't require protesting or trying to force people to behave the way he wants them to. It's not the only possible new business model for creatives in a digital age (and what works for authors isn't directly analogous to designers), but it certainly is food for thought.

    He also worked for the EFF (until recently when his writing career finally starting making enough money to support him full time) as an Intellectual Property rights speaker and activist. Cory is interested not only in reigning in the vastly overreaching IP laws we face today, but he is also interested in making a living as a creator (writer). He has a personal stake in this debate too.

    Anyway, his numerous articles, essays and speeches on the subject are all good information that you should look into, but I personally like an interview he gave Chris Pirillo shortly before last year's Nebula awards. It covers a lot more than just IP law (as Doctorow does a lot more than just work for the EFF), but the portion of the interview that deals with copyright and IP in general constitutes some of the most level-headed and reasonable statements on the issue made from either side of the argument (it's also the source of the Vaudeville analogy).

    The podcast can be found here: http://www.thechrispirilloshow.com/h...doctorow.phtml

    The relevant info about how the Creative Commons fits into his profit-minded strategy starts at about 11 minutes and 20 seconds, but there is a lot of good info before and after that too about DRM technology and it's inevitable failure, copyright in general, science fiction and just Cory in general. It's important to note that although his parents were Communists (as he says early on), he is most certainly a capitalist when it comes to his work.

    Or to quote from the interview itself:
    ...none of this is kind of fuzzy-headed, pachouli-scented, info-hippieness. This is all about being a hard-nosed entrepreneur who wants to make as much money as humanly possible off of my creative endeavors, and approaching that in a way that I think is most rational and responds best to the future.
    I particularly think that his comments about a writer's notoriety being directly proportional to their ability to make money has a very strong analog in the world of concept design (or any kind of design), and we should stand up and take note of it.

    Doctorow was a big supporter of the Orphaned Works legislation as well.
    Last edited by MEP; March 19th, 2006 at 12:25 PM.
    -------------------------
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.