I'll add this to my journal

--
AЯIЭLLЭ J.
Digital Artist
ಠ_ಠ My Gallery: [link]

Feed this starving artist? Sign up for a commission today!

Cool

Jesus! Im glad that I don't live in the states.

--
Just because your paranoid, doesnt mean that isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face.
~Jim Butcher


Who would like to see me naked? [link]

Well the trick was that a U.S. citizen or corporation could reasonably steal ANYONE'S art, no matter where it came from, if they could claim it as an orphan whose creator they couldn't find. So being a non-native artist wouldn't save you. But the legislation is working towards ensuring that terms for a reasonable search are provided. And rules for what to do if the actual artist does come forward. The idea behind the legislation is that there are many registered works of art out there whose creators have died, and whose current owners nobody knows - if they ARE still owned by anyone - and people are afraid to use them in anything because they have no idea who might show up claiming to be the heir. Lets say you saw a painting someplace and it inspired you to write a novel, you want to use the original piece on the cover of your book? But you can't find the current owner. This legislation would allow you to use it after doing a reasonable search, and if the owner does pop up, you won't be bankrupted by the lawsuit just because you had no clue how to find them. The owner still retains rights, but not the utterly destructive ones they have in the U.S. now. Canada has been using similar laws for something like five years now with no problems.

I suppose that's true. But Im more of a writter than an artist, I do more writting than I do painting.

--
Just because your paranoid, doesnt mean that isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face.
~Jim Butcher


Who would like to see me naked? [link]

thanks for the info.it 2 in the morning here so i'm a little drained so i hope that i make sense.lol
i'd acctually already read some of these articles i reread them and read the ones i hadnt.i've acctually been awhere of the orphan works act for awhile i thoght it had been squashed but it again rears its ugly head with a few minor changes.it still sounds as horrible and to me in some ways even worse(caped at $200?)there seems to be no redeeming features to this bill.it sounds like a scam to steal from hard working americans. what if i suffer from a mental illness and am locked away in a sanitarium under the name jon do? any one could claim my work an orphaned work .
because they are unable to find me at least thats how i understood it . thanks again .i hope i made at least a little sense

--
[link]
(\__/)
(+'.'+)
(")_(")
i'am the rabbit god.
ARTISTS BEWARE!!! THIS HURTS US ALL![link]
LETS STOP IT DEAD IN ITS TRACKS!

Well from what I understood the $200 cap was a suggestion, but that the revision set it at a more reasonable sum. The problem is that currently someone who innocently uses your art after not being able to identify you can end up being sued for millions, even more than they might possibly have even made from the act. As an example was my idea of a picture that spawns an idea for a novel. The writer wants to use the original picture that inspired him on the cover, but can't identify the artist, assumes finally that it's an orphan, and uses it. Under current laws the artist could step forwards and demand all sorts of unreasonable compensation, including more for every copy of the book sold that featured the picture as a cover than the book actually sold for and/or having every copy of the book ever sold refurbished with a different picture on the cover. Under this legislation, the original artist would still be compensated, or have the right to have his work removed from future works, without utterly destroying those who used it without being able to locate him. The real disagreement most artists are having with it is defining what counts as a reasonable attempt to find the artist.

i do respect you position to me a cap is just wrong the laws are fine how they are we shouldnt fix what isnt broke.everthing in it seems to lesson the power of the copyright.

--
[link]
(\__/)
(+'.'+)
(")_(")
i'am the rabbit god.
ARTISTS BEWARE!!! THIS HURTS US ALL![link]
LETS STOP IT DEAD IN ITS TRACKS!

Well from what I understood the cap was going to be based on several factors rather than a simple rather low amount. So for instance if a record company used your art on the cover of an album that sold millions of copies, you'd get a good deal of money - based partially on the income the record company earned from the album, but not more than the record company had actually made as it is often now.