Theme
!!!! 
But of course there are always the rules......
Please please please fave the journal!
Make another journal about this giveaway and provide a link of that journal in the comments (this will help spread the word about this giveaway)
this journal 
Rules
Should be about School Times!
oints:
, comment and watch!
Not Impressed Re-posted with permission (seriously!) from
- interesting thoughts on the big scandalous froo froo legislation that has everyones knickers in a twist. 
Orphan Works – You're probably sick of hearing about this on DA, there's basically two camps : "It's a threat!" and "People are over-reacting".
I've stayed out of it whilst doing my own research and I've finally become convinced it IS a threat. My work isn't amazing or super professional, but believe it or not I have had requests from people to use various pieces for commercial work, from brochures to album covers (seriously, I know o.O). When I've quoted my price, they have all backed off. So they have been unhappy to pay even the small fee I've asked for. Now, that's fine, I'd rather my work wasn't used then used for a pittance (which people who find work on DA seem to think you'll sell it for).
With the new Orphan Works act, they wouldn't need to ask me. They could just take it.
Sure, I could put my name on it, but they could just take it off unless I slap a big ol' ugly copyright on it. They only have to say they made a reasonably diligent search for the owner (and "reasonably diligent" isn't defined, so your guess is as good as mine there). And even if you can prove that their using your work without reasonable diligence, you can only ask them for what they would be willing to pay you for the piece, and if you DO take them to court, you're going to have to prove that they didn't make a reasonably diligent search. They don't have to prove they did, as the accuser, you have to prove that. And even then... they would only have to pay you your usual fee, under current law the fines for copyright infringement are up too $150,000.00 - that's a nice big deterrant for commercial rippers. Under the Orphan Works act, the fine is $0, and the onus is on YOU, the artist, to prove they stole the work and didn't try and find you.
So, if this bill passes in MAY, which is not very far off, all of the work on DA, for example, is vulnerable. To protect your work, you'll have to post a nice fat mark over the middle of it with your name/website info, so that no one can just edit it out. Posting high rez/quality images will be a bad idea too.
Further more (it just doesn't end...) this doesn't just apply to DA Artists, it applys to your home movies, family photo's, short stories, diary's, blogs, essays, music, etc etc etc.
Most of us artists who try and make some little money out of our work already struggle, few of us ever really make a full living out of it. We will be crushed by the fee's required to register our work with the privately run registry companies (when you're on a low income, even $5 per work is a lot) which are the solution being proposed by the Copyright office to cover "reasonable dilligent search" requirements. So a lot of small artisans would go out of business.
The impact this bill potentially has is huge, saying it will never happen is silly, because by the time it is passed and the impacts start becoming reality, it's going to be very hard to get it changed or stopped. We need to say no NOW. Doing nothing when potential dangers like this arise is like wandering around in a thunderstorm just because you haven't seen the lightening yet. When it strikes, it will be too late to get to cover.
Please take the time to send a fax to your state and congressional representatives. You can email it, but faxes are better as their a hard copy in someone's hand. Emails are easy to delete. Here is a link to take you to the US House of Representatives and easily find out who you will need to contact - [link] - and here is a sample letter template for you - [link] - Thanks to [link] for the template.
If the orphan works was SOLEY for libraries and museum use, then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it's not, it's an open act. And that is what really makes it dangerous. Even if you think to yourself "well, my work isn't all that awesome." this still applies to you, because even though you might think your work isn't worthy of someone considering it for commercial use, someone out there might, and if they do, you loose it.
Thanks for reading through all of this, and if you want to read more, with lots of legal citations and investigation, check out the link below.
[link]
Love, peace & chicken grease
If that doesn't getcher gears churning... MAYBE THIS WILL - [link]
Also from ~Eidolon-Grey - her forum post -
It all kinda goes hand in hand, doesn't it?
RANDOM THOUGHT - GTA IV = further incentive to get your car fixed... Or is that incentive to actually perform the act of GTA to get there? [link]
& us with a broken car... 
Shout Out's! in no particular order
& somewhat random! 
Da clubs, yo!
I forgot what else I'm in... damn this not having a subscription crap.
Also, GIVE ME SOME STAMPS to throw in here.
And uh... how does one do that, anyways?
I really appreciate it being here, as it very much resonates my thoughts on it as well.
I'm definitely opposed to it, but I'm not gathering the torches and pitchforks, nor am I ready to start flinging molotovs out my window either (at least not over THIS).
Thanks further for the additional example & validation that it's not just 'da kiddies' & ignorant hacks being panic mongers, but rather many able minded & intelligent folks (albeit on both sides of the issue) that are saying that are saying 'well, hang on a second... let's take a look at this'.
It wouldn't be fair otherwise to simply swat someone's point of view or understanding aside, regardless of how deep & lofty their research into the matter was or was not. What irks me, is when the folks that do not look into it themselves take "Bah! Don't worry about it, it's NOTHING" as the whole truth on it, and vise versa when they take "omg this is BS!" as their cue to become a slathering mob, without having done their own thinking, their own research, or at least gleaned their own understanding from an already vague and broad write up of the proposal but are content with simply taking that at their word, at the surface level.
Cheers!
Without the protection that corporations won't use this for their advantage, I stand completely against the bill.
I have to find the exact wording but pretty close to that. I don't worry about casual rips since those are unavoidable such as wallpaper packs/sites as long as my copyright stays on it. I do worry that I'll have to pay for every image and if I don't that the big stockfile agencies will use it to their advantage.
Looking at your gallery you should ©2008 thedarkcloak, All Rights Reserved or best use real name but the copyright should hold with nickname...Also another protective measure and less intrusive then a big watermark - download XnView (Freeware) and it makes it very easy to add text (copyright) and use different levels of opacity.
I put a bunch in my stuff but it's not visible unless highly magnified, and the best way is if you can find a way to put the copyright as part of you image. In other words - multiple protection and if you do it creatively it probably wont be noticed.
Pretty much everything you've said sounds logical to a 'T'.
I think I will start doing that, do a massive image replacement on all my works here, and elsewhere. Like you said, the more protection, the better.
I'll be looking into the XnView prog!
As far as Orphans Act - I can understand images for public but those are the areas I feel could be exploited, Copyright fee and corporations looking for freebies and making a ton of cash.
I don't have a problem if it would be used for the purposes claimed but somehow I just can't see libraries and museums being behind the push of this bill...A kind way of saying I really think the motives are greed and total BS.
But - if the artistic community in general places enough pressure - who knows but so far the bill has stalled out but if it would be worded in a way to protect artists I have no problem. But the wording is vague and that worries me, so if they place limitations of use - although I would still rather see it fail at least it would be something everyone can live with.
It would be a sad day if corporations started to exploit this since it would be the beginning of the end of artists galleries...