dose this only apply to america

apparently, but a similar bill has been proposed in europe

Don't be selfish... this isn't about how it can benefit us as artists. It's about benefits for culture when the owners of deteriorating works can not be contacted or located.

Also, I don't share your respect for the IPA. They seem like a load of self-interested greedy wank-offs to me! The issue of orphan works is real and time sensitive. We've already lost so much as a culture due to fucked up copyright laws that keeps materials from their proper place in the public domain!

Thank you for mentioning it and posting this very interesting link; I really think people are not giving it the importance it needs. Many simply dismiss it by saying it's not as bad as it seems, or that people are missinformed about it
Hope more people get to know what's going on and that more and more will sign the petition to stop it.

--
Reality leaves a lot to imagination.
- John Lennon

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere.
- Carl Sagan

this webcast (well it was but now you can only download the mp3) about this is pretty interesting, enough to keep me listening to it all the way through in one sitting. it only has the information you linked to as well.

in the end it's all about the money that can be made from art resources like clip art and the companies that own the websites. the only thing keeping this going is their money in the back pockets of those politicians supporting it. meh

--
Having a non-smoking section in a pub is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool

what about the benefit for culture when new art is created? if you read the link you might understand the problem better. i don't understand how defending a small industry from collapse is selfish. if you can explain why, please do.

As long as there are new artists there will be new art (I don't buy that crap of artists saying "I just won't make art anymore! Sooo friggin' melodramatic it's laughable). I've read the arguments you pointed out and they're not only reactionary but jump to several false conclusions. Orphan works bills would not be some kind of "free for all art-theft" enabling legislation like they are trying to rally us to think!

Also, I hope you're not suggesting that new art, films, media should replace the old! There is much of value in art and creations of the past, as copyright law stands right now... it's mostly the "popular" relics of the past that are being preserved, restored, and represented. I don't think any amount of money interests from artists and the art industry should stifle those who genuinely want to remedy this trouble of inaccessible and disappearing orphaned works.

The issue with orphan works isn't whether or not older works have value. The issue is whether or not any work, old or new, will be accredited to the original artist.

Orphan works wouldn't help to preserve older works. It has nothing to do with preservation. Its about allowing anyone who finds an "unclaimed" work of art to use it however they see fit.

The way the copyright law is now, any work of art that's over 50 years old + the lifetime of the creator is open to use unless a sanctioned party renews the copyright on that work. This allows older works of art not only to be preserved, but passed on to future generations in the condition the piece was originally created.

Under Orphan Works proposed legislation, any work of art, old or new, if found without your name, a copyright symbol, or unregistered with the copyright office, is basically considered stock imagery. Most artists don't mind if students use their work for, say, a photo manipulation, or as a reference for a student sketch. For many such artists, all they require is your written request and a sample of the image you're making using their work. It isn't the non-profit use of our art that concerns us, but the broad definition of "orphaned works" that potentially allows anyone to use our work for profit if we don't slap a water mark on everything we create, down to the routine scribbles in our sketchbooks. This isn't paranoia or arrogance. I know, for a fact, that there are thieves out there who will shamelessly take credit for another artist's work, and will try to profit from it socially or financially. Its happened to me on several occasions growing up, and a few times as an adult. The only thing that protected me was current copyright law.

It isn't just finances that bother us, either. Its the idea of someone unfairly taking credit for our ideas, then the added insult of said thief making a profit off of our ideas with no word of thanks whatsoever to the original artist.

Art is a very personal thing. We artists spend hours of our time, draining our minds, our feelings, our psyche, into whatever it is we're creating. Artists will always be artists, whether the Orphan Works bill is passed or not. Anyone who's truly passionate about art will continue to create it. However, that doesn't mean all of our hard work is the visual equal of shareware. If we make it, we have a right to say how it should be used, who uses it, and how much its worth. Its our baby.

You find it selfish and arrogant for artists to protect their rights... I find it selfish and arrogant to expect artists to give up their peace of mind so "users" can claim, "Finders keepers, losers weepers." If you don't know who created a work of art, you still know whether or not you made it. So if you really want to preserve it, just leave it labeled as "Artist Unknown."

--
Please, think of the kittens.

I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior. Just getting that out there... ¬_¬ b

I think you're missing a large part of the argument here... and I really don't have time to sum up everything for you. I would recommend reading something by Lawrence Lessig if you get the chance. He has written in depth on the trouble and issue of orphaned works. I will give you a little bit of a clarification though.

As copyright law stands it's, as I understand it, the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years not 50! That might be alright for some types of art and creations... but the main focus of the push for legislation concerning orphaned works is drawings and paintings.... it's video and film... which have a shelf-life far shorter than copyright laws. Much of that work isn't going to get restored or re-issued in any way either unless the copyright holder is still around and interested in it. Thus you have lots of work that will simply disappear off the face of the earth! Are you really cool with that happening? Because it is happening! Really, look into some more man! It's an important issue.