She is backing it up with theoretical constructs. The practical effect is no protection for artist unless they have lots of money.
1. "There is no bill" - maybe for another week or so. Advanced copies have been seen and only need to have a number attached to them before they are introduced.
2. "Copyright will still be recognized" - In name only. The effect of the legislation is to make it possible for infringers to pay a small fine. The cost of tracking them down becomes prohibitive. The practical effect is no protection. The cost of asserting and protecting rights will now be a black box, cost unknown.
3. "Copyright will still be protected by international treaty" - Again In name only. Unless registration fees are paid (unknown amount) no practical protection will be available in the US. The legislation gets around the Berne Treaty by not requiring registration. But if you don't register, there is no practical protection. The rest of the world may march to a different drummer, so my work may be safer overseas...
4. "Others can not claim my copyright" - maybe yes, maybe no. She says she is not a lawyer and claims no authority on the subject. There are lawyers who claim otherwise. If someone makes a derivative work of your unregistered image, then registers it and makes a claim against you as having the derivative work. What will happen? Will the law recognize your rights? The courtroom is a crapshoot.
5. "Artist are already at a disadvantage under current law, this will not change" - wrong, flat out. While this law mandates commercial registries, which is a good idea, it takes away the stick needed to enforce user compliance, by burdening artist with potentially onerous registration costs and time requirements, and then removing penalties for the incomplete searches that users will preform. This puts us at an even deeper disadvantage than before.
6. "Display of work will not automatically orphan works" - a red herring. If a work is taken, the identity of the author is separated from the art. Now the taker can claim they "found" it in that condition. It is therefore available to be defined as "Orphaned". Assuming they also claim they checked out a few "registeries", they now have a practical defense that will deture any lawyer from helping you with your case. There is no way to prove malice and intent. Any time you spend tracking down the offender and bringing them to justice will not be compensated in court because this new law defines the penalty to the taker's advantage.
There are real problems with each of these rebuttals offered. I would suggest those wishing to use orphaned works ask for an agreement the gets the blessing of artists, as other countries have done.
Re: A Big Thanks!
1. "There is no bill" - maybe for another week or so. Advanced copies have been seen and only need to have a number attached to them before they are introduced.
2. "Copyright will still be recognized" - In name only. The effect of the legislation is to make it possible for infringers to pay a small fine. The cost of tracking them down becomes prohibitive. The practical effect is no protection. The cost of asserting and protecting rights will now be a black box, cost unknown.
3. "Copyright will still be protected by international treaty" - Again In name only. Unless registration fees are paid (unknown amount) no practical protection will be available in the US. The legislation gets around the Berne Treaty by not requiring registration. But if you don't register, there is no practical protection. The rest of the world may march to a different drummer, so my work may be safer overseas...
4. "Others can not claim my copyright" - maybe yes, maybe no. She says she is not a lawyer and claims no authority on the subject. There are lawyers who claim otherwise. If someone makes a derivative work of your unregistered image, then registers it and makes a claim against you as having the derivative work. What will happen? Will the law recognize your rights? The courtroom is a crapshoot.
5. "Artist are already at a disadvantage under current law, this will not change" - wrong, flat out. While this law mandates commercial registries, which is a good idea, it takes away the stick needed to enforce user compliance, by burdening artist with potentially onerous registration costs and time requirements, and then removing penalties for the incomplete searches that users will preform. This puts us at an even deeper disadvantage than before.
6. "Display of work will not automatically orphan works" - a red herring. If a work is taken, the identity of the author is separated from the art. Now the taker can claim they "found" it in that condition. It is therefore available to be defined as "Orphaned". Assuming they also claim they checked out a few "registeries", they now have a practical defense that will deture any lawyer from helping you with your case. There is no way to prove malice and intent. Any time you spend tracking down the offender and bringing them to justice will not be compensated in court because this new law defines the penalty to the taker's advantage.
There are real problems with each of these rebuttals offered. I would suggest those wishing to use orphaned works ask for an agreement the gets the blessing of artists, as other countries have done.
Britt Griswold