*sigh*
People, I love ya. You know I love ya.

However, I do not need any more spam about the so-called "Orphaned Art Act." I know you mean well. I know it sounds all scary and like Congress is going to come and take our art.

They aren't, and it isn't. We'll ignore all the legal ramifications, because it's too bloody early and that's a long debate, and settle on the really important point--namely that THE BILL DOES NOT EXIST.

Everything referenced is from the 2005-2006 legislative session. There is no current bill. Anything resembling such a bill died in committee years ago. This is not something you need to freak out about right now. Somebody on the internet, where NOTHING EVER DIES, found it and maybe didn't read the date and decided this was a current threat, and now I'm getting spam about it from earnest, well meaning people who are understandably concerned about their art.

Relax. It's not happening. You can check the public record and find that there are no such bills currently before Congress.

It's gonna be okay. Really.

/public service announcement

(74 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	lienne 2008-04-12 03:37 pm UTC (link)
	...what on Earth is the Orphaned Art Act? Apparently I missed this particular Internet Freakout Memo. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

abb3w 2008-04-12 05:41 pm UTC (link)

Looks like it's more formally the "Orphan Works Act". Google on the phrase turns up more. The proposal didn't sound completely insane from what I(AmNotALawyer) saw of it, although there's always ways to abuse any law. Admittedly, copyright holders whose works were blatantly abused commercially would have to prove to the courts that the effort to find them was farcical to get ludicrous statutory damages, or have damages limited to commercial use and "reasonable" amounts. To consider our friendly Pear as an example, and presuming the copyright on the work was registered, Ursula would have to go to court on show a Judge that any asshat making the effort of a Google search could find she was the original artist before grabbing the statutory $25k per offence. Even if the court didn't buy that (unlikely, but possible if her lawyer is incompetent enough), anyone who didn't stop using it once she said "hey, that's MINE ya dolt!" (in proper legalese) could be sued on the usual terms, and she could still collect "reasonable" damages (IE, a license fee) from any commercial infringers (like the T-Shirt makers) — though the LOL-WUT non-commercial use before complaining wouldn't net her squat without the judge agreeing she was locatable. Once she's shown up in court, however, anyone who doesn't stop can get sued for the usual statutory damages (with a side order of injunction). The weakness is that you need to get your own lawyer to show Big Megacorporation Unlimited were a pack of asshats before you can sue punitively, which the BMU lawyers will work to prevent, and try to get you to settle. For the artist personally, settling is the better course... which lets the BMUs of the world run amuck. For artists in general, pursuit to the bitter end (or insisting on public admission of wrongdoing as part of the settlement) is better for keeping the BMUs in check... or, of course, keeping the law from being passed. This is probably has more impact for computer games over ten years old, and books and movies over 50 years old, than for the typical living artist. It's also, as Ursula noted, not current legislation, and thus marooned somewhere beyond Limbo until some maroon of a legislator re-proposes it... at which point, it heads back to the Committee on Swamps. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - brooksmoses, 2008-04-12 05:45 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - abb3w, 2008-04-13 03:52 am UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - kynn, 2008-04-12 05:46 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - abb3w, 2008-04-13 03:57 am UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - anison, 2008-04-12 06:32 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - brooksmoses, 2008-04-12 05:41 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - gwalla, 2008-04-14 11:39 pm UTC (Expand)

	sirithduriel 2008-04-12 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	Okay, right. So everything that's going on was from 2005-2006, and nothing new? I found it weird that there were no links to new bills or so.. I only saw links to that old bill and nothing new. (Reply to this)

	therikkster 2008-04-12 03:47 pm UTC (link)
	Hey Ursula, hey Ursula, have you heard about- I joke. But the amount of things that exist only on the internet that real people worry over could form an entire alternate universe. (Reply to this)

	scully_trustno1 2008-04-12 04:18 pm UTC (link)
	...Wow. I need to learn to actually look into stuff before I tell everyone about it. x.x Sorry about being part of the massive spam. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ursulav 2008-04-12 04:21 pm UTC (link)
	No worries, these things happen! *grin* (Reply to this) (Parent)

	turbofanatic 2008-04-12 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you so, so much. Some people don't seem to realize that a little bit of common sense goes a long way. (Reply to this)

	merrycalliope 2008-04-12 04:52 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for letting me know. I saw someone freaking out abut that late last night and all his/her links were pointing at magazine articles rather than any official document. That, plus the fact I was three beers and a fantastic meal down and no where close to putting the time in to research it, made me reconsider posting about it in my own blog. ;D (Reply to this)

	therikkster 2008-04-12 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	Ah- Ursula, people say they're concerned about the hearing that happened on 03/13/2008 hearing on 'promoting the use of Orphan Works': http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427 I know cause I made a big public announcement that the act was dead and old, and now people are telling me it's being redrafted. (Reply to this) (Thread)

fenris_lorsrai 2008-04-12 05:39 pm UTC (link)

That same committee also oversaw hearings on ensuring fair compensation for artists, internet piracy, and digital copyrights. And they were all subcommittee hearings. People seem to get their undies in a bundle over a hearing. This doesn't mean they're actually writing a bill, they're just getting info. They may be investigating and decide they won't write any law, for or against. Congressional hearings are the government equivalent of googling something to get info. Until there's actually a bill its going whole lots of nowhere. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - tiamat_the_red, 2008-04-12 07:08 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - fenris_lorsrai, 2008-04-12 07:22 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-04-13 01:09 am UTC (Expand)

	iguanaartgirl 2008-04-12 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	I find it amusing that 3 posts past this one on my LJ watch page is a group notice about this very thing, claiming there's a "New bill with things added!" I looked, and... yeah... same bill. I admit that it IS scary, but there's a difference between "hypothetical but isn't happening" scary, and "holy shit this is like 5 votes away from being reality" scary. (Reply to this)

	mytimetoheal 2008-04-12 05:01 pm UTC (link)
	But, but it's on the Internets! It must be true! WE MUST PANIC!!!!!!!!!! This is why I always check out Snopes and/or Google anytime I get an e-mail forward like that. At least you know your fans love you. (Reply to this)

(Deleted post)

	kynn 2008-04-12 05:43 pm UTC (link)
	The fun part is that anyone can propose legislation! I am hereby proposing legislation to make everyone wear hats that say "KYNN IS GREAT" on every other Saturday. Quick! Alert the Intarwebs! :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - maradydd, 2008-04-12 06:17 pm UTC (Expand)

	mornmeril 2008-04-12 05:13 pm UTC (link)
	Aaah, I knew bullcrap like that wouldn't get past any reading. This violates the basic human rights. :) (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	reyfox 2008-04-12 05:17 pm UTC (link)
	And basic human rights are safe? (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - catrinaz, 2008-04-12 05:19 pm UTC (Expand)

	kynn 2008-04-12 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	It's not quite that simple, as there's at least one group actively whipping up Orphan Works Act panic based on a recent congressional hearing. (Note that hearings aren't anywhere to close to legislation begin passed, of course.) Here's my overly long analysis of the LiveJournal freak-out over Orphan Works. Feel free to link to it. (Reply to this)

	caelum 2008-04-12 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	THANK YOU. I am tired of seeing that slime mold crawling around! (Reply to this)

	fiercereaper 2008-04-12 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	That article was the worst piece of crap I think I've read in a while. (Reply to this)

	turbinerocks 2008-04-12 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	Ain't research something? :D (Reply to this)

ambyr 2008-04-12 07:07 pm UTC (link)

Can someone simply and concisely explain the objections artists have to some sort of act making Orphan Works usable? 'cause speaking as someone who used to work in academic publishing, who's spent months trying to track down the actual rights holder to seventy-year-old photos whose original photographer was dead only to finally have to abandon any hope of using it because no one was willing to claim ownership and offer a licensing agreement. . .it sounds like a really damn good idea. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	amarafox 2008-04-12 07:29 pm UTC (link)
	How long dead was the photographer? Stuff becomes public domain after a while. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - ambyr, 2008-04-12 07:52 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - maradydd, 2008-04-12 07:31 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - tropism, 2008-04-12 08:19 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - tylercat, 2008-04-12 08:44 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - maradydd, 2008-04-12 09:01 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - tropism, 2008-04-12 09:12 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - maradydd, 2008-04-12 09:27 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - meepa, 2008-04-14 06:31 pm UTC (Expand)

	tsunami_ryuu 2008-04-12 07:46 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, okay, so it's old hat? The article I read gave me the impression that it was an ongoing issue that was going to be brought in front of Congress. Glad to know that it's kind of a dead horse at the moment. (Reply to this)

	ellenmillion 2008-04-12 07:46 pm UTC (link)
	AMEN. (Reply to this)

bladespark 2008-04-12 08:41 pm UTC (link)

THANK YOU so much for not falling for the hysteria and running around like a headless chicken declaring that the sky is falling! I am being INUNDATED with posts about this, and I am seriously getting sick of everybody taking some guy on the internet so seriously. Does nobody do RESEARCH anymore? Hellooooooooo. Your best friend's uncle's roomate's dog passed you a link to a person you've never heard of, on a site you've never heard of, raving about how Bill Gates and The Guberment are conspiring to steal all the art, OH NO, and you believed this without even bothering to go to google and do ten seconds of research? Well... that's nice for you, but could you please spare me, and the rest of us, the hysterical post about how we need to write our congressman NOW!!!!!!!1111!!!!11111 before they take away all our art forever? Thanks. (Reply to this)

	skywaterblue 2008-04-12 08:58 pm UTC (link)
	I am an artist and I support this bill, actually. Not the current draft, but the idea of it has solid, valid principles, as discussed above. :O (Reply to this)

	pseudomanitou 2008-04-12 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	ON that note -- a friend mentioned you should start a Flickr gallery of all the various 'friendly pears' floating around the interwebs. Well? (Reply to this)

	singsonggirl 2008-04-12 10:11 pm UTC (link)
	I'm much more concerned about the Orphaned Fart Act, which dictates that whosoever first detected the flatulence by means of their olfactory sensors would automatically become the assumed origin of and therefore holder of all responsibility for said flatulence... ...I'm twelve. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	seaweasel 2008-04-12 10:55 pm UTC (link)
	BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I am twelve, too! (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - tealizard, 2008-04-14 11:37 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - new_evolution, 2008-04-14 11:53 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - singsonggirl, 2008-04-15 12:28 am UTC (Expand)

	kithpendragon 2008-04-13 03:50 am UTC (link)
	Furthermore, the Orphaned Art Act would have applied to Copyrighted works. I'm guessing that the people who are panicking about it don't even HOLD any copyrights. (Reply to this) (Thread)

florahart 2008-04-13 06:00 am UTC (link)

Yes they do. Copyright, in the US, since 1976, is inherent in any work you write, draw, or otherwise fix in a medium. Term paper you write for History 101? Copyrighted. Poem you write in the back of your looseleaf notebook? Copyrighted. Sketch of Obi-Wan Kenobi having a sandwich with Gregory House? Copyrighted. Yes, really. So that's not the issue here. I've argued elsewhere that folks who are upset about this are possibly overreacting to a reactionary article--I mean, I agree there is no current *bill*, but there is current *discussion*--but whether written/drawn works are copyrighted to be relevant here? Yes, that part is, in the US, true. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	catsarah 2008-04-13 04:54 am UTC (link)
	Is this the article everyone is talking about? http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1 Someone else on my flist started talking about this. (Reply to this)

	redregon 2008-04-13 04:55 am UTC (link)
	still, eyes should be on washington to prevent this from happening. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	gwalla 2008-04-15 06:37 pm UTC (link)
	Why? It's not a bad idea. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-05-13 05:56 pm UTC (Expand)

---

(74 comments) - (Post a new comment)