Well, what about these registries so we can tell people that our work isn't orphaned? WHAT REGISTRIES, THEY DON'T EXIST. They have only been loosely hinted at so far, they are only present in one bill currently at that, and they would take time to establish and most likely be run for profit by private sector with registration fees that have not even been discussed yet (current registration for works of visual art is $45 through the government.) Even then, it is too late. Why? Because the work is already out, on the internet, re-titled, cropped, reposted, and for all intensive purposes, lost. and since it is digital, it has been proliferated for 10 years now. There are billions of these images out there. Think that kind of damage can be undone within any reasonable timeframe if ever? And again, don't fall back on the silly "diligent search" for the author since I have already stated how a "diligent search" for images can't be done at this time if the words connected to the image are changed. Oh, and even if these registries are created, and users are forced to log on and search for authors. how many works do you think will still be "orphaned" because the author didn't register them because they didn't even know their piece was online to begin with and they only register works that they use online or that are part of their portfolio. I have seen countless images, mine and others, that pop up online without the author even knowing they have been put online. Fans do this all the time. Scan in things from books, magazines, art exhibits (when no one is watching) etc. My students have done this to me. They meant no harm by it but it illustrates my point. THE DAMAGE IS DONE and building a dam (registries) won't undo the flood damage that has already occurred. It's like putting on football pads after the game. Next, this idea that people are infringing now and that this bill changes nothing, or even makes it better. I have stated this before, The wording of what an artist can receive in the court case (unless they pay these registries) is be changed from "actual damages and profits" to "reasonable compensation." Do these look like different words to you. It means more limitations will be placed on what the artist can get as court payment. Do you think that just might have an effect on whether a possible infringer may take the risk to use another's work. This is simple logic again: Reduce the risks, increase the chances someone will try it. Why do you think there are so few base jumpers in the world. A lot of risks perhaps that have to be weighed. This is the very heart of these bill since their ENTIRE PURPOSE was to reduce the risks that would stop people from using this so-called "Orphaned" work. It was the very reason the bills were written. And, it does not help artist by "creates a very specific provision for payment AND makes that payment mandatory" since PAYMENT IS ALREADY MANDATORY. What is different is that the amount of payment possible is being reduced in order to "encourage usage" and "reduce risk." Oh wait, I forgot, this bill only applies to "well meaning users" that have done and documented this "diligent search." No offense, but this is nonsense and I have written why in previous posts. I believe that these bills are NOT SOME EVIL PLOT TO STEAL OUR WORK. I expect they have well meaning people behind them (at least I sure hope so) but the way the bills are drawn up currently opens far too many loopholes. The amount of debate on this at this very moment proves my point easily. They are poorly written; they do not place limits on who can be covered under these bills or for what purposes, and they are vague in many areas that should be clear before this goes to vote. Waiting until it becomes law drastically reduces what we can do.
no subject
Well, what about these registries so we can tell people that our work isn't orphaned? WHAT REGISTRIES, THEY DON'T EXIST. They have only been loosely hinted at so far, they are only present in one bill currently at that, and they would take time to establish and most likely be run for profit by private sector with registration fees that have not even been discussed yet (current registration for works of visual art is $45 through the government.) Even then, it is too late. Why? Because the work is already out, on the internet, re-titled, cropped, reposted, and for all intensive purposes, lost. and since it is digital, it has been proliferated for 10 years now. There are billions of these images out there. Think that kind of damage can be undone within any reasonable timeframe if ever? And again, don't fall back on the silly "diligent search" for the author since I have already stated how a "diligent search" for images can't be done at this time if the words connected to the image are changed. Oh, and even if these registries are created, and users are forced to log on and search for authors. how many works do you think will still be "orphaned" because the author didn't register them because they didn't even know their piece was online to begin with and they only register works that they use online or that are part of their portfolio. I have seen countless images, mine and others, that pop up online without the author even knowing they have been put online. Fans do this all the time. Scan in things from books, magazines, art exhibits (when no one is watching) etc. My students have done this to me. They meant no harm by it but it illustrates my point. THE DAMAGE IS DONE and building a dam (registries) won't undo the flood damage that has already occurred. It's like putting on football pads after the game.
Next, this idea that people are infringing now and that this bill changes nothing, or even makes it better. I have stated this before, The wording of what an artist can receive in the court case (unless they pay these registries) is be changed from "actual damages and profits" to "reasonable compensation." Do these look like different words to you. It means more limitations will be placed on what the artist can get as court payment. Do you think that just might have an effect on whether a possible infringer may take the risk to use another's work. This is simple logic again: Reduce the risks, increase the chances someone will try it. Why do you think there are so few base jumpers in the world. A lot of risks perhaps that have to be weighed. This is the very heart of these bill since their ENTIRE PURPOSE was to reduce the risks that would stop people from using this so-called "Orphaned" work. It was the very reason the bills were written. And, it does not help artist by "creates a very specific provision for payment AND makes that payment mandatory" since PAYMENT IS ALREADY MANDATORY. What is different is that the amount of payment possible is being reduced in order to "encourage usage" and "reduce risk." Oh wait, I forgot, this bill only applies to "well meaning users" that have done and documented this "diligent search." No offense, but this is nonsense and I have written why in previous posts. I believe that these bills are NOT SOME EVIL PLOT TO STEAL OUR WORK. I expect they have well meaning people behind them (at least I sure hope so) but the way the bills are drawn up currently opens far too many loopholes. The amount of debate on this at this very moment proves my point easily. They are poorly written; they do not place limits on who can be covered under these bills or for what purposes, and they are vague in many areas that should be clear before this goes to vote. Waiting until it becomes law drastically reduces what we can do.