I'll join the riot - although I'd like you to understand that I'm normally not the person to blindly do so - I even "missed" out on the whole Yellow Alien business here at DA because I found the information to be lacking and contradicting - in short: it didn't affect me, it didn't mean a thing to me and based upon the information I was given it wasn't worth rioting over.

America now wants to pass a bill that allows anyone to steal artwork - be it written, drawn, filmed or any oher creative work, even advertising. I read the journal by *Shadowgrail yesterday and dismissed it as bullshit at first - even if I have absolutely no reason to believe shadowgrail would talk such sort of bull. I even checked the date to make sure it wasn't just a late april's fools joke. Another reason I was in doubt was the nature of said bill itself. Who in their right mind would change copyright? It's one of the few laws mankind has that is (mostly anyway) based upon logic and common sense.

You shouldn't believe all you see, hear and read - it could be the next bonsaikitten prank, you know? So I did what I susually do: researching a bit. Apparrantly the "THE ORPHAN WORKS ACT" has been around since 2006 and it tried to pass in congress in the same year - failed. Good. Unfortunately some person by the name "Howard Berman" who is a chairman wants it passed and has re-introduced it to the congress with minor alterations which are ironically based upon protest of some copyright holders as the felt the bill didn't cover their respective works (photograhpy, haute couture and advertising). So, it's back.

To this point I still did not give much thought to the bill. Then I read who is on the list who support the bill.

getty images

Corbis

So, to add a bit of drama to my posting: that's when the horror made some sense to me. If you do not know who Getty Images and Corbis are then you must be sleeping under a rock or something.

In a nutshell: they sell creative works for cheap. Which is not as bad as it sounds, on the contrary. Platforms like Getty Images and Corbis started providing a service for both artists and people who would like to use their works to create something new. This means photography mostly but the platforms expanded their services in the past and they now offer graphics and other services as well. It means you (the creator) is able to upload a work, Getty Images or Corbis put those on display and a client pays a small fee which enables him to download the work and use it in creating an ad. This makes contacting the original creator obsolete. All legal and financial services regarding such a transaction is done by the platform who provides the download. The original artist retains the copyright and is paid based upon what he sells through the platform.

Just as it's done here at Deviantart. Keep that in mindwhile you read the following

With the passing of the Orphan Artworks Bill all that would change. You'd have to register your work to even have a minuscle chance of retaining the copyright to your work. The bill allows any idiot who comes along to take your work and use it for whatever intend they have.

Example:

You upload an artwork to deviantart. Someone (Person A) downloads it and publishes it on photobucket. Someone else (Person B) finds it, contacts Person A and the mails just bounce back. Person B has EVERY right to use your work for WHATEVER they desire - according to the bill.

- Person B treid to contact Person A to ask permission and the contact failed - this alone enables Person B to use your work!

- Person B can't find (read!) your signature. Person B doesn't know who originally created the work and thus he can use your work for whatever he wishes!

You don't get any money and you can't get your work back.

The Orphan Works bill not only gives you that kind of crap, but also this: You need to register your work. I hate to make nazi-comparisations, but this sounds very much like... well.. you hopefully know history. Back to the topic: you have to pay to regain your copyright. Not you as an artist is required to register, but every artwork you intend to create and publish. Yes, you have to pay for your own work and it doesn't mean that you still have the copyright! Take the above example, it's still the same. If Person B can't find any copyright or contact information directly on your artwork then you're screwed!

Big companies like Disney would have to register their works as well - if they don't do that properly, then anyone who wants to download the next big hit-film by Disney, then they can do so quite freely - and they're even allowed to make money from their service if they repackage the movie and sell it. You don't believe such a thing would happen? Take a look in the general direction of China. Think bootlegs. What is happening now because your governement doesn't have the legal means to protect you from chinese copyright priates would be legal. In the USA, not in china. The nature of the internet would change completely - if you do not know the origin of the file you downloaded, then you're free to use it. It won't stop at borders, the internet is global.

You do see the "Creative Commons" everytime you upload a work to Deviantart. With the passing of the bill such liscences as Creative Commons provide would become null and void. Can you imagine paying everytime you upload an artwork to Deviantart? Every single fucking time?

Whatever it takes, stop that bill. (I really hope that this bill isn't as important an issue as the internet makes it to be...)