Orphan works - actually, don't be alarmed
Apr. 12th, 2008 10:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonimpYou may have seen This article from Animation World Magazine talking about an "orphan works" bill that was supposedly being put to congress. The gist of the claims in the article are, creative works will no longer be born copyrighted, and if artists don't pay register their work with private registries with faulty search functions, or if they're registered but the search function fails to locate them, then the works are "orphaned," and basically become de facto public domain. Sounds pretty bad, right?
Well - it's not. From the look of it, this guy is being more than a little alarmist. This is the US Copyright Office's page on orphan works. It defines orphan works as "copyrighted works whose owners may be impossible to identify and locate." That page has several other links, including the full text of the report. Nowhere does it say anything about overturning the current copyright laws. You would still own the copyright of your work for your life +70 years. One of the administrators on y-gallery posted a journal entry about this that does a pretty good job of breaking down the alarmist arguments in the AWM editorial, complete with links.
Basically, it doesn't look like this is a case of the government being evil and trying to take the livelihood away from artists. More like misinformation and somebody trying to get everyone's panties in a twist over nothing.
Edit: Here's another rebuttal to the article. Very clear and well-written.
Basically, the original article is bull.
Well - it's not. From the look of it, this guy is being more than a little alarmist. This is the US Copyright Office's page on orphan works. It defines orphan works as "copyrighted works whose owners may be impossible to identify and locate." That page has several other links, including the full text of the report. Nowhere does it say anything about overturning the current copyright laws. You would still own the copyright of your work for your life +70 years. One of the administrators on y-gallery posted a journal entry about this that does a pretty good job of breaking down the alarmist arguments in the AWM editorial, complete with links.
Basically, it doesn't look like this is a case of the government being evil and trying to take the livelihood away from artists. More like misinformation and somebody trying to get everyone's panties in a twist over nothing.
Edit: Here's another rebuttal to the article. Very clear and well-written.
Basically, the original article is bull.
