Sta.sh
but there's still a lot of things to buy and consider, I could use some more money to save 
to celebrate the reopening I'm also doing a giveaway! Actually it's three giveaways running simultaneously on deviantART, Facebook and YouTube, you can join any of them or the three of them to have more chances to win.
2005 
January
:thumb
community information that will tie us all together 
Permission Issues 
Alice in Chains is an anime that is created by Kamryn Wells (Founder of this group/ Kamryn30).
We appreciate you joining us in our group!
This was recently brought to my attention:
Under current copyright law, in effect for the last 30 years, yourvisual art is copy protected whether or not it is registered or carries the copyright symbol.
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to introducethe Orphan Works Act of 2008. If you care about protecting your work,you're against it. It will have the effect of wiping out any copyrighton visual art now in existence, throwing your work into the public domain. If you wish to protect your work (each and every separate piece)you will have to digitize it and register it with private sector registries as yet uncreated, for a fee as yet unestablished. I sayregistries because this bill places no limit on how many separateregistries there could be.
It gets worse. Anyone can submit images, including your images. Theywould then be excused from any liability for infringement (also known asTHEFT) unless the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within acertain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.
That means you will also have to look through every image in everyregistry all the time to make sure someone is not stealing andregistering your art. You could actually end up illegally using your ownartwork or photo if someone else registers it.
Please read more in this excerpt from illustratorspartnership.org [link]> ; Iknow it's long, but it's worth reading. Also, note that while their site is geared to illustrators, everything they say applies as well to photographers, musicians, filmakers, painters, writers, etc:
Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial registries.
On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright Office warned usthat under their plan any work not registered with a private sector registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it was created.
This means you would not only have to register your published work, but also:
— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family photos,
home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.
This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law thetotal creative output of any "creator" receives passive copyrightprotection from the moment you create it. This covers everything fromthe published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries, letters and family photos of the average citizen.
But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would "signal" to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.
The Registration Paradox:
By conceding that their proposals would make potential orphans of any unregistered works, the Copyright Office proposals would lead to a registration paradox: In order to "protect" work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it on a publicly searchable registry. This would:
— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the Orwellian premise that you must expose it to "protect" it.
Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce copyright compliance. Even after you've shelled out "protection money" to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works, you still won't be protected. A registry would do nothing more than give you
a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor infringements - which can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then embark on an uncertain quest to find the infringer, file a case in Federal court, then prove that the infringer has removed your name or other identifying information from your work. Meanwhile all the infringer will have to do is say there was no such information on the work when he found it and assert an orphan works defense.
Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental rights we currently take for granted.
We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences of this radical copyright proposal.
— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
***********************************************
So, what to do about this? More from the Illustrators Parnership website:
March 19, 2008
We expect a bill to be released after the Easter recess. Sources say it will be introduced in the House and Senate simultaneously, and fast-tracked for a vote in the House by mid-May. Advocates hope for swift passage before the summer recess.
The decision to introduce such a radical bill so late in the session is ominous. Because of fall elections, this will be a short Congressional year. Any bill not passed by the end of Congress will have to re-introduced in the next Congress. That means the bill's sponsors must know they have their ducks lined up.
So, I urge everyone to:
GET ON ORPHAN WORKS E-MAIL LIST
To be notified of the latest information on the Orphan Works bill and when to contact your legislators, send an email to illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com and ask to be added to the Orphan Works list. You can also visit the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists for more information, because I didn't even detail all the disgusting facets of this shocking legislation: (illustratorpartnership.org)
[link]
Both House and Senate versions of the Orphan Works Act of 2008 can be downloaded from the IPA homepage: : (illustratorpartnership.org) [link]
And... please act!
The fastest, easiest thing is to sign a petition here: (gopeptition.com) [link].
Go to (usa.gov) [link] to quickly find the phone number, address and e-mail of every U.S. senator, U.S. representative,
and state legislator. In the meantime, please feel free to forward this to all the artists you know.
**********************************
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!! [link]
Under current copyright law, in effect for the last 30 years, yourvisual art is copy protected whether or not it is registered or carries the copyright symbol.
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to introducethe Orphan Works Act of 2008. If you care about protecting your work,you're against it. It will have the effect of wiping out any copyrighton visual art now in existence, throwing your work into the public domain. If you wish to protect your work (each and every separate piece)you will have to digitize it and register it with private sector registries as yet uncreated, for a fee as yet unestablished. I sayregistries because this bill places no limit on how many separateregistries there could be.
It gets worse. Anyone can submit images, including your images. Theywould then be excused from any liability for infringement (also known asTHEFT) unless the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within acertain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.
That means you will also have to look through every image in everyregistry all the time to make sure someone is not stealing andregistering your art. You could actually end up illegally using your ownartwork or photo if someone else registers it.
Please read more in this excerpt from illustratorspartnership.org [link]> ; Iknow it's long, but it's worth reading. Also, note that while their site is geared to illustrators, everything they say applies as well to photographers, musicians, filmakers, painters, writers, etc:
Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial registries.
On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright Office warned usthat under their plan any work not registered with a private sector registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it was created.
This means you would not only have to register your published work, but also:
— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family photos,
home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.
This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law thetotal creative output of any "creator" receives passive copyrightprotection from the moment you create it. This covers everything fromthe published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries, letters and family photos of the average citizen.
But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would "signal" to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.
The Registration Paradox:
By conceding that their proposals would make potential orphans of any unregistered works, the Copyright Office proposals would lead to a registration paradox: In order to "protect" work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it on a publicly searchable registry. This would:
— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the Orwellian premise that you must expose it to "protect" it.
Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce copyright compliance. Even after you've shelled out "protection money" to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works, you still won't be protected. A registry would do nothing more than give you
a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor infringements - which can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then embark on an uncertain quest to find the infringer, file a case in Federal court, then prove that the infringer has removed your name or other identifying information from your work. Meanwhile all the infringer will have to do is say there was no such information on the work when he found it and assert an orphan works defense.
Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental rights we currently take for granted.
We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences of this radical copyright proposal.
— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
***********************************************
So, what to do about this? More from the Illustrators Parnership website:
March 19, 2008
We expect a bill to be released after the Easter recess. Sources say it will be introduced in the House and Senate simultaneously, and fast-tracked for a vote in the House by mid-May. Advocates hope for swift passage before the summer recess.
The decision to introduce such a radical bill so late in the session is ominous. Because of fall elections, this will be a short Congressional year. Any bill not passed by the end of Congress will have to re-introduced in the next Congress. That means the bill's sponsors must know they have their ducks lined up.
So, I urge everyone to:
GET ON ORPHAN WORKS E-MAIL LIST
To be notified of the latest information on the Orphan Works bill and when to contact your legislators, send an email to illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com and ask to be added to the Orphan Works list. You can also visit the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists for more information, because I didn't even detail all the disgusting facets of this shocking legislation: (illustratorpartnership.org)
[link]
Both House and Senate versions of the Orphan Works Act of 2008 can be downloaded from the IPA homepage: : (illustratorpartnership.org) [link]
And... please act!
The fastest, easiest thing is to sign a petition here: (gopeptition.com) [link].
Go to (usa.gov) [link] to quickly find the phone number, address and e-mail of every U.S. senator, U.S. representative,
and state legislator. In the meantime, please feel free to forward this to all the artists you know.
**********************************
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!! [link]
I urge every artist to do the same!
I think pirates have too much protection as it is!
The grey areas of these bills, such as what constitutes a reasonable and diligent search, will lead to much abuse, not to mention artists' legal expenses, before enough precedent is set to define those grey areas or overthrown the new laws.
Back in the '80's, I was a minor part of the group which fought the capitalization law, which would have been a logistical nightmare (and financial hardship) to all professional artists. These orphan-work bills have the potential for more abuse, and no particular benefit, for today's artist. A solution does need to be found, but this is still not a good-enough one to be worth clear risks. If enacted, it will be abused.
This is not being alarmist. Opposing this bad solution is reasonable and responsible, whether one is a professional artist/illustrator or not.
I have nothing against Libraries, Museums, or Colleges preserving material - sounds like the thing to do.
BUT, What I don't feel comfortable with, are giants like Microsoft and Google pushing for OW because they want to make money from work they do nothing to support/create, the rest of us are rightfully concerned as are most if not all professional artists/photographers.
This is about huge corporations profiteering - not saving some dusty piece of archived work. The sale of ads on search engines is a billion dollar business - the databases will undoubtably make money or the companies wouldn't be spending their time/money lobbying.
Microsoft (who already owns Flickr) partnering with PicScout and now the proud employer of the author of the copyright offices OW REPORT JULE STIGALL- [link]
and Tech Law Journal TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,510, December 27, 2006
Google/Getty/AOL (remember the name Shawn Bentley? went to work for TIME WARNER/AOL) has had their finger in the pot too... you can bet this about money not some idealistic sharing of IP in order to benefit society.
Google pretty much says you only get as much copyright protection as you can fight for, so you'd have to be paranoid to be bothered by them running a registry right?[link]
[link]
If anyone can tell me the deal with Photobucket, I just haven't bothered to track down their venerable lineage. Yet.
The poorly defined parameters of what constitutes a 'REASONABLE SEARCH' and where/how can the search be done (PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE doesn't want the public to have to pay to use the 'DATABASES' and they don't want there to be any/or limited penalties if they mistake someone's art for an ORPHAN, since that might stop people from using the ORPHANS) since there are alot of people that see the opportunity to make a buck. It should concern anyone that wants to profit from their artistic labors. Being reasonably compensated after the fact will have to involve legal investigation into the search that was done, the profits that were made and who can rubberstamp out the "reasonable compensation"? And it will be sad thing if the artist objects to the usage after the fact. As the folks over a PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE were kind enough to put it, 'the toothpaste is out of the tube' after all. My favorite was Alex's comment that if someone could profit from the artwork, rightful ownership shouldn't stand in the way.[link] Lord help the user, what a shame if he should be contacted by multiple photographers wanting to know if he's using their photos...(but if you don't decline EVERY unwanted request to use yours...ORPHAN AGAIN!)
You can only collect limited damages if their search is deemed valid - reasonable compensation won't be enough to cover the attorney's fees and court costs to determine the extent of the search in the first place.
If some of these huge companies certify the searches, they will almost certainly provide some kind of 'SAFETY' to the user, or why bother to do the search...and that leaves me believing that some lowly little artists COULD possibly wind up in litigation with said Huge Company/Database Owner or their affiliates. Gives me the willies just thinking about that possibility.
And honestly, if there were really clients out there with their money burning holes in their pockets, they would find the artists now. They don't need any pay for use database. Artists are knocking on the doors of LEGIT companies we're not hiding, we should have the right to continue that ego busting tradition without the time consuming task of being a full time detective, tracking down unauthorized users and watermarking,meta data tagging and thumbnailing every thing we create. Everyone else, register with that database, let me know how its going in a year or two and heck, if you're getting rich And enriching society instead of Pic Scout, I'll join up too! Lots of luck to all of the Orphans, I hope they all find loving homes.
Oh, and btw...Nick Anderson is making up tees with his Copyright Toilets - available hopefully next week...for those of us who are flush with opposition...[link]
I'll post the addy when he's done.
Congress keep extend copyright protection in effect 'killing' the public domian' - but let the 'orphans works' free.
Sure, it's not 100% perfect, but consitering this bill has been in the works for awhile, I think this version will pass.
Oh well. Everyone have fun panicking~!
think about it! if someone does a search and finds someone else hosting your work, they have to give permission right? well, how could they give full rights unless they provide that person with a full psd file.
...they cant give that so the person wanting to buy rights cant an then they have to ask where the image was found from.
besides this little thought from me, i have read over it all, and tbh, if people dont have something to complain about, they will find it, even in this little, actually useful, bill.
FAQ #687: What is news and what is not news?
as there are 100s of articles trying to stir up people with the conspiracies on this bill