~lunarflight

Been a while, eh?

I'm posting this because I'm seeing a LOT of panic about the Orphaned Works Act and a lot of misinformation.

Everyone, calm down. It's not as bad as it seems.

Basically, the orphaned works act declares any work where the creator cannot be identified as an orphan and free for use. This does not actually "legalize art theft." As long as the work shows clear owner ship, then it is NOT an orphan. If you sign your work, watermark it, otherwise put your name on it, it is clearly yours.

"But that can get edited out!"
Yes, but if you can say "I only put my art up here and if you look at it, there's a watermark. I haven't posted it elsewhere, so this person claiming that it had no signature? Is lying because it's clearly got my mark on it so they must have edited it out."

The registries are not the only way to have a copyright, but instead are a sort of "copyright insurance." It's a way of saying "My stuff is in this registry so it is clearly mine, got it?" and having a big company say "Yup, see, it's there. It's theirs."

I don't agree with this as I figure the point of a copyright is to keep others from making money off of your work, but it's not the only way your work will be copyrighted.

Also, I think posting it in an online gallery (such as this one), will work for marking ownership. Because if you post your work in a gallery, someone can't come along and say "I didn't know whose work it is!" Yes you did, you took it out of my gallery which SAYS its mine!

So, please, calm down everyone. The sky is NOT falling. The law is NOT for legalizing art theft. Breathe. It's okay.

Here's my rant about it: [link]
Here's a more clear article about it: [link]
Here's what the copyright office themselves is saying about it: [link]
And if you still disagree with it all here's a petition: [link] (yes, I did sign it. I'm not panicking over this law, but I think it's ineffective at the least)