General Question

delirium's avatar

Why would anyone actually want the Orphaned Works bill to pass?

Asked by delirium (13691points) July 24th, 2008

I’m not being an asshole. I just can’t think of very many reasons why it would be worth all the trouble. I don’t know why its happening in the first place.

I am an unknowing little jellyfish when it comes to this.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

6 Answers

Dog's avatar

Because Google and Getty images are backing it. They stand to make a lot of profit by cataloging images for sale and by also creating mandatory databases artists will have to put images in to prove the work is not orphaned.

It is very bad for those who create.

I wonder how Microsoft would feel if computer coding was deemed public domain….

Dog's avatar

Also manufacturers will have literally millions of orphaned images to register and use on products without having to pay royalties.

Thus the need to license artwork from artists will drop dramatically. This will save manufacturers a lot of money too.

Read the bills if you are interested- and remember what is NOT written is as important as what IS.

Allie's avatar

Of course Google Images would back it, that’s where millions of people find images anyways. It could be very, very bad for photographers though. Basically, it would allow the use of an image if its owner could not be found and asked for permission. If you want to publish/make use of an image that isn’t yours you should be required (no exceptions) to ask the owner of that image for permission to use it. It is way too easy to just give up and claim you tried to find the artist. The bill needs to state specifically what is considered “diligent research” in finding an owner.
An extreme example – your a photographer and you take a beautiful picture of the ocean tide, a porn filmmaker uses that image in his/her opening credits. If you didn’t want your image used that way then that sucks for you. All the porn filmmaker has to say is that they tried to or didn’t know how to find you to ask for permission. The most they would have to pay is what the price would have been originally, nothing more. And they still get to use your image.
If the amendment is passed with its current wording it would make it legal to use an image if you don’t know who the artist is or how to ask their permission to use the image. If you get caught, worst case, you pay what you would have had to pay anyways.
One problem with it is that it puts the burden of arguing points of law on the artist/photographer. Possibly in court if it ever got that far.

marinelife's avatar

Here is a nice summary of the opposition and things artists can do to help stop the bill.

Dog's avatar

Also please note that there are TWO bills – one in the senate and one in the house-
So many people stand to make loads of money off the work of artists and photographers that they put in TWO bills figuring one will stick.

Both bills are in violation of international copyright law and
Yet it is looking like they will pass due to the apathy of the people.

Folks be sure to put your name and copyright on any image you put into cyberspace. Google crawls for and indexes images removing meta tags and digital information.

delirium's avatar

Thank you so much. I really appreciated all of this. :D

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther