a)In several portions of your article, you require artists to see an Orphan Works Act enacted so that the artist can subsequently defend such action in court to prove it wrong. How many starving visual artists do you know that can defend this kind of action against, say, Disney?
b) you assume that this effects all copyright. It does not. Orphan Works is peculiar to Visual works, i.e. digital, photographic, and graphical arts. These artists are not unionized. They are not well positioned to defend their works. They are not among the higher echelons of lobbying organizations. How many artists do you think were aware of this threat in 2006? How many do you believe were aware that lobbyists are still pushing this even now until the article you mentioned?
c) There is a statute of limitations as far as copyrighted works go. You create the misconception that "even if I see it now, I can sue whenever." That simply is not true. Some courts will trigger the Statute of Limitations when the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the infringement. ALL courts will trigger the SoL at the last infringing act. But what does this mean? That creates a LOT of speculation, especially as far as digital rights are concerned.
d) Marybeth Peters is fine with leaving this in the hands of the private sector. That is the source of the problem. We don't WANT this in the hands of the private sector, and forced registration is also bad. Why make copyright protection for visual arts more difficult to preserve than the rights of ALL other creative works. Doesn't that create a equal protection issue for you? Because it certainly does for me.
Just because it wasn't passed its first time around doesn't mean that it can't come up again. Never fall into a false sense of security when it comes to your rights. Constant vigilance!
no subject
a)In several portions of your article, you require artists to see an Orphan Works Act enacted so that the artist can subsequently defend such action in court to prove it wrong. How many starving visual artists do you know that can defend this kind of action against, say, Disney?
b) you assume that this effects all copyright. It does not. Orphan Works is peculiar to Visual works, i.e. digital, photographic, and graphical arts. These artists are not unionized. They are not well positioned to defend their works. They are not among the higher echelons of lobbying organizations. How many artists do you think were aware of this threat in 2006? How many do you believe were aware that lobbyists are still pushing this even now until the article you mentioned?
c) There is a statute of limitations as far as copyrighted works go. You create the misconception that "even if I see it now, I can sue whenever." That simply is not true. Some courts will trigger the Statute of Limitations when the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the infringement. ALL courts will trigger the SoL at the last infringing act. But what does this mean? That creates a LOT of speculation, especially as far as digital rights are concerned.
d) Marybeth Peters is fine with leaving this in the hands of the private sector. That is the source of the problem. We don't WANT this in the hands of the private sector, and forced registration is also bad. Why make copyright protection for visual arts more difficult to preserve than the rights of ALL other creative works. Doesn't that create a equal protection issue for you? Because it certainly does for me.
Just because it wasn't passed its first time around doesn't mean that it can't come up again. Never fall into a false sense of security when it comes to your rights. Constant vigilance!