|
Post by paulette on Apr 11, 2008 17:38:54 GMT -5
There is a new bill going up before congress. You will have to register your artwork, everything! If it isn't registered it will be orphaned and usable by anyone. If someone else registers it, You lose! Read this article, mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605, at the end is information on what you can do and how you can stay informed. The current world system is that your work is protected from inception. It works! Get involved and make sure you are not going to get messed up. Pass this around.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 11, 2008 18:58:05 GMT -5
I heard about this a couple of years ago & wondered what was going to happen with it. All the artists I knew on the web were up in arms about the act & sending protest letters, petitions, etc. but then I didn't hear any more about it.
I haven't read your link yet - does this mean that every little doodle needs to be registered? Hee, hee, they'll repeal that act soon enough when they get flooded by artists trying to register their work! They won't be able to afford the staff to handle it all!
Thanks for the info, Paulette! You're a gem!
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 12, 2008 12:35:10 GMT -5
Am I missing something? What's the point of all this? I can't see it benefiting anyone by the art thief as the author of the article says.
I may be cynical by nature but I always get the feeling when there is a little too much state intervention that it's just another tax by another name since I doubt registration would be totally free.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 13, 2008 4:19:10 GMT -5
I agree, Rose. This act will not benefit artists, especially casual artists like most of us here. And I know that most of the members here are not from the US & may say "So what? It doesn't affect me" but it will. If the US goes with this act/law, other countries will follow in order to have a consistent way of dealing with copyright issues.
I haven't had time, but I'd sure like to know who proposed this bill in the first place & what was the rationale behind it to convince other politicians to endorse it! It almost sounds as if there's some kind of behind the scenes collusion going on. May we borrow Alex to come here & straighten out these idiots in Washington?
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 13, 2008 12:42:56 GMT -5
Very true Jan. I too just don't see the rationale behind this. Usually laws are made (or should be made) to address a need. I don't see the need here at all. As for Alex, he's a tad busy king-making at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Apr 13, 2008 15:14:38 GMT -5
There is also debate going saying that this guy didn't do enough research. Your best bet is to get informed on the topic. Jan is also correct, Canada loves to follow the US in law making.
|
|
|
Post by margaret51 on Apr 13, 2008 16:55:26 GMT -5
And I'm sure N.Z would follow also, oh dear what ever next.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 13, 2008 18:12:16 GMT -5
I had a reply all typed out earlier but it went into cyber space when I got cut off the internet! Here's a short version:
The bill is the result of someone fearing that old canisters of film are deteriorating & will be lost because of the current copyright laws. By the time that the film is old enough to be out of copyright, it could well be past saving. That was the original intent of the bill.
Also, I was concerned that works by current artists over the past years could be "stolen" but evidently, there is a period where these works are under the current copyright law.
HOWEVER, there are still many loopholes and opportunities for abuse in this new law & however nobel the original purpose, I still oppose it. No matter how tough the penalties, this law would leave artists of any kind open to legalized theft.
You can read the whole progression of this bill at the copyright office website. I can't get it right now but will try to post the link later.
|
|