Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
  • Mood: Not Impressed
  • Listening to: Pandora dot com - left my HD at home today :(
  • Reading: your future as it gets closer... CLOSER.
  • Watching: videos about parasitic worms & viruses.
  • Playing: Dick Dale tunes in my head, as I frollick.
  • Eating: sunlight & belching out dense storm clouds.
  • Drinking: from the black abyss that is my heart.
with this piece of orphaned writing. JUST KIDDING

Re-posted with permission (seriously!) from :iconeidolon-grey: - interesting thoughts on the big scandalous froo froo legislation that has everyones knickers in a twist. :ohnoes:

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 -… - and here is a sample letter template for you -… - Thanks to… 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.


Love, peace & chicken grease

If that doesn't getcher gears churning... MAYBE THIS WILL -…

Also from Eidolon-Grey - her forum post -

It all kinda goes hand in hand, doesn't it? :movingon: :faint:

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?… :rage: & us with a broken car... :(

Shout Out's! in no particular order ;) & somewhat random! :boogie:
:iconeidolon-grey: :iconthedarkcloak-work: :iconjessibeans: :iconquickreaver: :iconvidz: :iconludi-price: :iconriddlesoftrickster: :icondarknessbloodbane: :iconvalzonline: :iconxonlyindreamsx: :icondivineapathy: :iconesicardi: :iconmyopic: :iconn1nj4zero: :icontattereddreams02: :icondude4: :iconhappymonkeyshoes: :iconpreilly: :iconstuhacking: :iconmndsm: :iconfamilyghost: :iconguyaricankitten: :iconnamesjames: :iconpeachysticks: :icontigress: :iconseskimo: :icondrewerd: :iconsull: :iconsocar: :iconyanimator: :iconyamiza: :iconbarontieri: :icongrimbro: :iconnoah-kh: :iconbladedbutterfly: :iconwulfsbane: :iconedenceleste: :iconbloodshaman: :iconcorvidophiliac: :iconphilipstraub: :iconbryanbaugh: :iconchrisbeaver: :icontiffanyturrill: :iconemilie-san: :iconpinkertonfx: :icondarkdestroyer2d: :icontragically-lame: :icondarknatasha: :iconhoon: :iconel-grimlock: :iconemlan: :iconfredy3d: :icongenzoman: :icongray-eel: :iconinetgrafx: :iconjanaschi: :iconjasonengle: :iconjermilex: :iconjessandpencil: :iconjrthemonsterboy: :iconkarichristensen: :iconkcatstoney: :iconfyreant: :iconleighyoung: :iconpseudo-manitou: :iconsideshowmonkey: :iconvegasmike: :iconukitakumuki: :iconursulav: :iconwraithgod: :iconbran55: :iconthorsassassin:

Da clubs, yo!
:iconavpalternative: :iconbrain-damaged: :iconcityofartists: :iconron-paul-4-president: :iconhorror-forever: :iconhorrorclub: :iconzombie-nation: :icondrawn-of-the-dead: :icongoregalore: :icondeaditesonline:

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?
Add a Comment:
gaeamil Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008   Photographer
Yeah, I know. I just think that this is at sensational levels. It's getting stupid. In fact, not to try to offend or anything, but kinda as a warning, I'm getting more and more sick of this as we continue to speak. After these two replies tonight, anything more about it will be ignored.
thedarkcloak Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008  Professional General Artist
Hey gaeamil, thanks for your thoughts.

I don't think however, that this is at 'sensational levels' nor do I think it's stupid. Having worked creatively both as freelance, and as my daytime profession, I think this whole debacle is far from stupid.

Also, consider the fact that it's not just the 'DA kiddies' who are having their boxers in a bunch. Having personally spoken with other professional folks, in both the creative fields as well as legal, regarding this bill, it's quite clear that the way it's written as it stands now, is not clear cut, and leaves far too much room for exploitation. I've also spoken with people who work at companies that could potentially exploit this bill (not because they're art thieves, but because they use public domain images & clip art for various design projects), and they too, agree that it's too ambiguously written and could empower companies such as theirs to use what they like as they see fit, whilst disempowering the talent behind the resources they would harvest if they chose to exploit the loopholes that they can already see between the loosely written lines in the bill.

Sorry if you feel sick of this, but to be fair, this is my first time responding to you regarding this, so I'll take your 'warning' with a grain of salt, as I'm sure you would not appreciate me merely swatting aside any understanding or perspective you may have on something if I chose to respond to something you'd brought up of your own accord. So, I'd appreciate the common courtesy here of not simply being brushed off and 'ignored' as you implied.

The more you know, the more informed you can be, the better prepared you could be to protect your assets and creative output, regardless of what happens with this bill.

Eidolon-Grey Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008  Hobbyist General Artist
It's hardly sensational. all I've seen is reasonable, thoughtful conversation from intelligent people on both sides of the fence discussing a difficult political issue and how it will impact people on an everyday level. I'm sorry that conversation and thought makes you sick much you feel the need to give me a "warning" for having dared to reply to your comments.

rimete Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2008   General Artist
.:."seeing the copyright that dA automatically puts under every deviation".:. Puts under but not on so if the image is downloaded or saved there no copyright unless you place one yourself.

The same applies to galleries all over - go to any site (photobucket) etc - and how many images have any copyright.

That also brings up that a copyright can't be place automatically on the image since that would be a violation of the copyright laws as present. Only if you consented as with the da watermark option, but that accounts for how many images on the internet unprotected.

Watermark protection can be defeated as any other scheme or worse, just blurred out of the image or along that line.
gaeamil Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2008   Photographer
Well, still. You can still easily challenge it. As I said, I absolutely refuse to panic about it.
Eidolon-Grey Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008  Hobbyist General Artist
I for one am not asking anyone to "panic" about it. Simply to do some research and CARE about the decisions being made by big government & corporations that affect everyone. It takes a half hour to read a few opposing views and come up with your own take on it, and if you choose to do so, it takes another 10 minutes or so to put together a quick fax/email to send to your house rep if you're in the USA. If not, then that's ok, at least you looked into it.

Part of the problem in the USA is that ordinary people don't care about the decisions that are being made until it's too late. And then what do you do?

gaeamil Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008   Photographer
So you know, I've read through a considerable amount of material on this bill. I've even skimmed the text of the bill itself. It's not something to worry about.
thedarkcloak Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008  Professional General Artist
Hmm... I don't think simply skimming an already ambiguous & loosely written bill is going to help define a clear cut interpretation & perspective, nor will it stamp it as "nothing to worry about", considering what I mentioned in my other reply to you. (regarding people I have personally been speaking with, business practices, and legal folks' interpretations).

It's just too loosely written & open for interpretation as it is, unless you mean to tell me that a skim over, will give anyone a far more superior and loftier understanding - regardless of what it's fueled and justified by.

I think, it's not ideal for it to be this big frenzied mouth-frothing mob, but I also think that it's a significant enough deal for people to pay attention, take notice, look into, and take action about, regardless of what their ultimate self-devised understanding may be of it, but it IS important to be thoroughly informed because of the potential impact this could have...

better than having to resort to the old adage of 'too little, too late.' imo. :nod:
Eidolon-Grey Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008  Hobbyist General Artist
So you know, I've read the whole bill in detail and I have 9 years professionally dealing with legaleze... it's got as many loopholes as a fishing net lol But it's good you have been looking it up and skimming, that's more than most people seem to have done.
rimete Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008   General Artist
I'm not going to place any real worry until and if the day happens. There have already been concessions made to the original bill and although there is a push to get the bill passed, that's not out of the normal.

If the day comes then it becomes a matter of dealing with the situation and seeing what might come as a result. The best path at the moment is opposition to the legislation (opinion) and any concerns but at the same time, there seems to be (for lack of better word) a false sense of security that this bill will have no bearing on copyright images. It might sound reassuring but any law even meant with good intentions, can be manipulated if there is a way to do it.

I would hate to see the day that every image had to have multiple watermarks and copyrights along with low resolution imaging. Even worse would be the scenerio of paying for copyright since that would destroy many artists.

That there is quite abit of of fear and worry at the moment is normal to an extent but what worries more is so many people are certain that ther will be no negative backlash. The only way to know that is if/when it becomes law.

Until then I'll go about and not let it become an issue that becomes my main focal point, but will oppose it. When there is nothing wrong with the present system I see no reason to change what has been proven effective with recourse for action if an image gets stolen.
thedarkcloak Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2008  Professional General Artist
Thanks for that thoughtful reply.
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! :ahoy:
rimete Featured By Owner May 2, 2008   General Artist
The wording I want to see and I'm writing a rough draft to send to congressional representative: that any images considered orphans can not be used by any organization or company for profit and can only be used by public sources that are non-profit. Also that the former law in regards to copyright and lenghth of term will remain and no future fee can be assessed if the image has ©2008 (name).

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.
thedarkcloak Featured By Owner May 2, 2008  Professional General Artist
rimete, excellent idea on the re-wording. We were thinking along the same lines of what you've mentioned as we've been sifting through the things we find on this bill, as this is what truly makes the most sense (something that seems to be generally lacking in Washington).

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! :thanks:
rimete Featured By Owner May 3, 2008   General Artist
Xnview [link] very handy tool and great price (free).

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...
Add a Comment:

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
April 28, 2008