I normally do not get myself personally involved with these sorts of concerns, as it has always seemed out of my hands, and something that would likely fall by the wayside and fail: allowing things to remain comfortably as they are. But in this case, I don’t think I can just sit by anymore if there is legit concern.
Just as with the SOPA and PIPA bills of 2011 and 2012, which if passed would have strengthened copyright and diminished fair use of copyrighted works in all the wrong ways for the internet age; it seems that other parties are interested in passing bills to achieve the reverse. Currently, lobbyists, lawyers, media companies, internet companies, and the Copyright Office itself, have a "proposed bill" for a new Copyright law that would completely and entirely replace the old one: meaning that any previous definitions of terms would also be "re-defined."
The proposed bill's chief intention is and has been to redefine the blanket copyright law from "everybody gets a copyright for anything they make" to "everything you create belongs to everyone unless you register it." Essentially, if passed, this would mean a complete democratization of all existing works that have not been "officially" registered with the copyright office, allowing anyone to commercially benefit from anyone's unregistered works without the payment of royalties, and with far greater immunity from infringement lawsuits. Now this is how things used to be in the US, so people did once live in a world where this was the case. But now because of the internet, and the completely free exchange of ideas, numerous websites, near anonymity, and billions of people producing and uploading new content everyday: trying to implement such an old-fashioned form of law could cause an enormous problem.
To be honest, it seems too crazy and ridiculous to believe that people in Congress want to pass such as law, as it could have an enormous ripple effect that would destabilize the entire way in which art is created: and the way in which artists, independent composers, musical artists, indie filmmakers, and pretty much anyone in the US, make their money with the things that they create themselves. And in turn, this would not only allow anyone to use anyone's unregistered works for whatever reason, but it could cause artworks to be so far removed from their original creators, that one might never truly know the name or identity of the original artists anymore.
This also doesn’t just affect US artworks, but foreign artworks as well: meaning that anybody here could do what they want with anything made outside of this country, violating foreign copyright law.
But this seems to be a bill that--again, just like SOPA--was discussed in the House and Senate back in 2006, and again in 2008. So it has been lobbied for quite some time. And the original document of the concepts that created this proposed bill was drafted way back in 2003.
Now for me personally, I think I have a lot of creative ideas just waiting to be developed: numerous characters, scenarios, designs, environments, stories, and so on, which are and will become invaluable to me down the road as I work to turn these things into commercial products and pieces of media. And I'm sure many of you do as well. And under current copyright laws, I don't have to register anything I make through official channels, because it is simply an automatic given that anything I create belongs to me. And as far as I'm concerned, that makes total and complete sense. I am my own individual person, and while I may have to pay taxes on and for numerous things, I will eventually have to buy insurance policies for things that I own, as well as myself, and I will need to make payments on my future house and car, and so on and so on: the things I create from my own imagination are unique to myself. They belong to no one else but me, and I give no permission to anyone to use the things that came from my own mind unless we discuss the terms. Just because they have now left my mind and have been rendered physical does not mean that it makes any sense at all to say that the whole world now owns it until I make an official claim for it.
However, if this proposed bill goes into law from the Copyright office itself, not only will everything I create from here on out be open to everyone, but every single thing I have ever drawn, photographed, filmed, or written, will be treated like the Public Domain. In fact, that seems to be the chief defense for why this proposed new Copyright law would be better for everyone: it makes the use and exploitation of others work that much easier for anyone who wants to do it, initially the Educational Institutions and Schools, but eventually the commercial industries. But it won't just be for commentary, review, or minor background use anymore. This will involve any use at all, even the ability to copyright someone else's work as a derivative before they even have a chance to copyright it themselves.
And in order to stop someone from using your creations any way they choose, even if you really could stop them entirely, you would have to totally and completely register every single copyrightable thing you have created with a "for-profit" private registry company, that would then charge you an exorbitant sum considering the sheer volume of works I'm sure we all have; in order to actually mark it as "copy-written."
Now if it turns out that anything I've stated here is a gross exaggeration, or even complete hogwash, then I apologize for spreading it further. But from the looks of it, it isn't easy for anyone, including myself, to research this information concerning the “current” iteration of this bill that may be going into Congress for deliberation. Nor does anything regarding current proposed bills of any sort ever seem to make it to the common citizen through common channels. It never seems appropriate for them to send surveys our way, despite often making them available: which this bill has a survey window for right now. And it always has to trickle down the grape vine until eventually just enough people finally figure out what the heck's going on, and then they manage to get a word in edgewise before the clock strikes 12am.
Well I'm getting pretty tired of that scenario, because it happened with SOPA, it happened with the FCC, and it's going to happen again with the New Copyright Law. So we need to make a point of voicing our concerns before this window closes. And I know that we all should have some.
We’re all artists here. We have just as much stake in this as anyone else. And we should make a point of contributing our thoughts against these proposed laws alongside the Illustrators, Musicians, and Graphic Artists if this truly is something that is on the horizon.
Below are the few main articles and pieces of information that are available at this time.
If you’d like to voice your concerns and opinions about these propositions to the Copyright Office directly, they have a specific window of time still open until July 23rd for you to make your comments and send in your letters: http://copyright.gov/policy/visualworks/comment-form/
The main proponent of this bill's opposition, and who has been at the forefront of it both previous iterations (2006, 2008), is Brad Holland: an Illustrator who helped organize a coalition for Illustration and Graphic Artists, called the "Illustrators Partnership of America," in order to make their concerns more clearly heard. Here's their website:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/index.php
Definition and Explanation of previous Bills for "Orphen Works" (works not officially copyrighted)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States
Brad Holland video chat with Will Terry (Youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDoztLDF73I
Artists Alert:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Artists-Alert--The-Return-of-Orphan-Works-Part-1.html?soid=1102063090742&aid=3vozerBiCPE
Brad Holland’s main posting with related comments (this is the page getting passed around the most)
http://www.drawger.com/holland/index.php?section=articles&article_id=15400
Any other related information can be found from these previous sources.
And again, although this is all chiefly from a single source, Mr. Holland, I don’t think one should look at this potential new law lightly, and at least send a letter of concern to the Copyright office; as this could obviously affect how we all work and function in our chosen profession.
Thoughts?
Just as with the SOPA and PIPA bills of 2011 and 2012, which if passed would have strengthened copyright and diminished fair use of copyrighted works in all the wrong ways for the internet age; it seems that other parties are interested in passing bills to achieve the reverse. Currently, lobbyists, lawyers, media companies, internet companies, and the Copyright Office itself, have a "proposed bill" for a new Copyright law that would completely and entirely replace the old one: meaning that any previous definitions of terms would also be "re-defined."
The proposed bill's chief intention is and has been to redefine the blanket copyright law from "everybody gets a copyright for anything they make" to "everything you create belongs to everyone unless you register it." Essentially, if passed, this would mean a complete democratization of all existing works that have not been "officially" registered with the copyright office, allowing anyone to commercially benefit from anyone's unregistered works without the payment of royalties, and with far greater immunity from infringement lawsuits. Now this is how things used to be in the US, so people did once live in a world where this was the case. But now because of the internet, and the completely free exchange of ideas, numerous websites, near anonymity, and billions of people producing and uploading new content everyday: trying to implement such an old-fashioned form of law could cause an enormous problem.
To be honest, it seems too crazy and ridiculous to believe that people in Congress want to pass such as law, as it could have an enormous ripple effect that would destabilize the entire way in which art is created: and the way in which artists, independent composers, musical artists, indie filmmakers, and pretty much anyone in the US, make their money with the things that they create themselves. And in turn, this would not only allow anyone to use anyone's unregistered works for whatever reason, but it could cause artworks to be so far removed from their original creators, that one might never truly know the name or identity of the original artists anymore.
This also doesn’t just affect US artworks, but foreign artworks as well: meaning that anybody here could do what they want with anything made outside of this country, violating foreign copyright law.
But this seems to be a bill that--again, just like SOPA--was discussed in the House and Senate back in 2006, and again in 2008. So it has been lobbied for quite some time. And the original document of the concepts that created this proposed bill was drafted way back in 2003.
Now for me personally, I think I have a lot of creative ideas just waiting to be developed: numerous characters, scenarios, designs, environments, stories, and so on, which are and will become invaluable to me down the road as I work to turn these things into commercial products and pieces of media. And I'm sure many of you do as well. And under current copyright laws, I don't have to register anything I make through official channels, because it is simply an automatic given that anything I create belongs to me. And as far as I'm concerned, that makes total and complete sense. I am my own individual person, and while I may have to pay taxes on and for numerous things, I will eventually have to buy insurance policies for things that I own, as well as myself, and I will need to make payments on my future house and car, and so on and so on: the things I create from my own imagination are unique to myself. They belong to no one else but me, and I give no permission to anyone to use the things that came from my own mind unless we discuss the terms. Just because they have now left my mind and have been rendered physical does not mean that it makes any sense at all to say that the whole world now owns it until I make an official claim for it.
However, if this proposed bill goes into law from the Copyright office itself, not only will everything I create from here on out be open to everyone, but every single thing I have ever drawn, photographed, filmed, or written, will be treated like the Public Domain. In fact, that seems to be the chief defense for why this proposed new Copyright law would be better for everyone: it makes the use and exploitation of others work that much easier for anyone who wants to do it, initially the Educational Institutions and Schools, but eventually the commercial industries. But it won't just be for commentary, review, or minor background use anymore. This will involve any use at all, even the ability to copyright someone else's work as a derivative before they even have a chance to copyright it themselves.
And in order to stop someone from using your creations any way they choose, even if you really could stop them entirely, you would have to totally and completely register every single copyrightable thing you have created with a "for-profit" private registry company, that would then charge you an exorbitant sum considering the sheer volume of works I'm sure we all have; in order to actually mark it as "copy-written."
Now if it turns out that anything I've stated here is a gross exaggeration, or even complete hogwash, then I apologize for spreading it further. But from the looks of it, it isn't easy for anyone, including myself, to research this information concerning the “current” iteration of this bill that may be going into Congress for deliberation. Nor does anything regarding current proposed bills of any sort ever seem to make it to the common citizen through common channels. It never seems appropriate for them to send surveys our way, despite often making them available: which this bill has a survey window for right now. And it always has to trickle down the grape vine until eventually just enough people finally figure out what the heck's going on, and then they manage to get a word in edgewise before the clock strikes 12am.
Well I'm getting pretty tired of that scenario, because it happened with SOPA, it happened with the FCC, and it's going to happen again with the New Copyright Law. So we need to make a point of voicing our concerns before this window closes. And I know that we all should have some.
We’re all artists here. We have just as much stake in this as anyone else. And we should make a point of contributing our thoughts against these proposed laws alongside the Illustrators, Musicians, and Graphic Artists if this truly is something that is on the horizon.
Below are the few main articles and pieces of information that are available at this time.
If you’d like to voice your concerns and opinions about these propositions to the Copyright Office directly, they have a specific window of time still open until July 23rd for you to make your comments and send in your letters: http://copyright.gov/policy/visualworks/comment-form/
The main proponent of this bill's opposition, and who has been at the forefront of it both previous iterations (2006, 2008), is Brad Holland: an Illustrator who helped organize a coalition for Illustration and Graphic Artists, called the "Illustrators Partnership of America," in order to make their concerns more clearly heard. Here's their website:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/index.php
Definition and Explanation of previous Bills for "Orphen Works" (works not officially copyrighted)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States
Brad Holland video chat with Will Terry (Youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDoztLDF73I
Artists Alert:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Artists-Alert--The-Return-of-Orphan-Works-Part-1.html?soid=1102063090742&aid=3vozerBiCPE
Brad Holland’s main posting with related comments (this is the page getting passed around the most)
http://www.drawger.com/holland/index.php?section=articles&article_id=15400
Any other related information can be found from these previous sources.
And again, although this is all chiefly from a single source, Mr. Holland, I don’t think one should look at this potential new law lightly, and at least send a letter of concern to the Copyright office; as this could obviously affect how we all work and function in our chosen profession.
Thoughts?
Last edited: