The Orphan Works bill: US Government legalising art theft

[Justyn]

A bill introduced to the US Congress would rewrite copyright laws in such a way that would make every piece of art made within the last 30 years and every work made after it passes into an "orphan work", unless it is registered with multiple (and an unlimited number thereof, with no governmental oversight to top it off) private registries. In otherwords: legalising art theft.

Here are some links detailing things that discuss the matter.

http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&column=MindBiz&article_no=3605

This effects me, personally, I plan to go into graphic art. This also effects every single artist of every kind that lives in the United States. This flat out violates international copyright laws. I will write, or speak directly to, my congressman once I am able to.

[Syka]

Wow...um, yeah. That's bull. As an amateur writer, that would effect me bad. Especially as a POOR amateur writer.

Cheers,
Syka

[Renegade Paladin]

Made within the last thirty years?

Well, this is completely backwards. Let's try "made more than thirty years ago." Copyright periods just keep getting longer and longer, and you can bet that when a copyright extension bill goes before Congress, it's because "Steamboat Willie" is about to pass into public domain, which would threaten Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse.

Edit: Though I'm skeptical. Your list of sources, I can't help but notice, doesn't include citing the bill. Since all Congressional bills are available online (http://thomas.loc.gov/) there's no reason not to provide the bill. I recommend you do so.

[Semidi]

Time to write to my congressman.

It's all fun and games when I want free music, but I'll be damned if someone is going to get my stories for free. I need to eat!

[Renegade Paladin]

I'm feeling nice, so I did your homework for you. A search of the bills of the 110th Congress with the phrase "Orphan Works" in the body or title yields the following results:


661 Bills from the 110th Congress ranked by relevance on "Orphan+Works ".
0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
5 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
656 bills containing one or more of your search words.
Oops. Looks like you fell for a hoax.

[unstattedCommoner]

Edit: Though I'm skeptical. Your list of sources, I can't help but notice, doesn't include citing the bill. Since all Congressional bills are available online (http://thomas.loc.gov/) there's no reason not to provide the bill. I recommend you do so.

That would be because no bill has yet been introduced. There has been a committee hearing (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427). A previous Bill may be found here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5439:).

[Renegade Paladin]

Then there's absolutely nothing to worry about. If the bill hasn't even been introduced to committee yet, it probably won't even see the docket before it's time to seat the next Congress at the glacial rate Congressional proceedings move.

[Mauve Shirt]

Does this count as politics?

[Woofsie]

Does this count as politics?


No.


Well... yes.

[Hell Puppi]

Heh I was just reading about this. No I don't think there's a bill yet.
There's some good info here (http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185), and you can also sign up to a mailing list that will notify you once the bill comes up. So there's no need to be up-in-arms yet, but it would be a good idea to maybe bookmark a site or two and check up on it just in case this sillyness comes to pass.
Yeah it seems silly to worry about now, but it's better to keep an eye on it and have nothing happen than to disregard it and have something happen, methinks.
Of course, this is entirely up to you. It is the internet, weird stories get passed around.

[bosssmiley]

:smallconfused:

This should be in Media Discussions.

Ah, just when you thought the US copyright system couldn't get any more b0rked. This'll be interesting to watch, especially considering what the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works) (that the johnny-come-lately USA only put their pawprint on in 1988) has to say on the matter. :smallannoyed:

Obligatory link to Lessig's "Free Culture (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cxZp0sV3V80C&dq=free+culture)".

[PyritePyro]

Copyright wasn't broken until they took away the requirment to register with the US copyright office. If they go back to that, it would be much easier. Also, copyright is way to long. The laws no longer serve the constitutional mandate.

[BlackStaticWolf]

I think the OP is being unnecessarily alarmist. There isn't even any proposed language for such a bill at this time. Further, parts of the prior proposed bill would violate international treaties that the US has signed. Despite certain actions taken by the executive branch, the legislative branch rarely violates such things.


Copyright wasn't broken until they took away the requirment to register with the US copyright office. If they go back to that, it would be much easier. Also, copyright is way to long. The laws no longer serve the constitutional mandate.

I find this post to be somewhat perplexing. What constitutional mandate are you referring to, exactly? There's nothing in the US Constitution that requires laws with respect to copyright at all. I've love to know what passage it is that you think is a mandate.

[phoenixineohp]

"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"

From Ursulav's live journal. (http://ursulav.livejournal.com/758643.html)

Her stuff (http://www.metalandmagic.com/) is fantastic by the way. She's so good it's practically unfair.

[Jimorian]

I find this post to be somewhat perplexing. What constitutional mandate are you referring to, exactly? There's nothing in the US Constitution that requires laws with respect to copyright at all. I've love to know what passage it is that you think is a mandate.

"Article 1: Section 8: Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Still, as others have pointed out, there's nothing particularly imminent about this, but it might come around for discussion again at some point (author and artists organizations are keeping an eye out).

[BlackStaticWolf]

"Article 1: Section 8: Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Still, as others have pointed out, there's nothing particularly imminent about this, but it might come around for discussion again at some point (author and artists organizations are keeping an eye out).

Section 8 doesn't require Congress to use any of those delegated powers. It just says that they have power to make such laws. Implicit in the delegation of any authority is the power to refrain using the delegated power.

Now, for the sake of argument, even if we assume Congress is required to make such laws... HOW Congress is to do that isn't specified. Nor is the precise meaning of that "limited times." That means that it's a policy decision well within the discretion of congress. If they think one day is sufficient, then they can do one day.

Likewise... it specifies "Science and useful Arts" (emphasis added). A plain meaning interpretion shows that the Framers pretty clearly intended patents to apply to technological inventions (unsurprising seeing as Ben Franklin was one of them). Nothing in the language defines what is meant by "useful Arts."

This implies that the decision is, once again, up to the discretion of Congress. They could very easily decide that only educational texts are useful. Or, if they wanted, they could decide that every art is useful except for a couple specifically named ones.

My point is simple: a clause that allows this much leeway in execution can't rightly be called a mandate.

There are clauses that can and are rightly called mandates (for example: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." is a mandate), but this isn't one of them. It simply doesn't have the requisite specificity.