A whole bunch of people have been linking me all over the place trying to tell me anywhere from "this is not bad for artists" to "This does not exist!".

_{"Concerns have been raised, however, as to whether current copyright law imposes inappropriate burdens on users, including subsequent creators, of works for which the copyright owner cannot be located (hereinafter referred to as “orphan”' works). The issue is whether orphan works are being needlessly removed from public access and their dissemination inhibited. If no one claims the copyright in a work, it appears likely that the public benefit of having access to the work would outweigh whatever copyright interest there might be."} - LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office [link]

_{"Instead, we recommended a framework whereby a legitimate orphan works owner who resurfaces may bring an action for “reasonable compensation” against a qualifying user. A user does not qualify for the benefits of orphan works legislation unless he first conducts a good faith, reasonably diligent (but unsuccessful) search for the copyright owner."} - United States House of Representatives 110th Congress, 2nd Session March 13, 2008 [link]

This still reeks of bullshit. So if someone on photo bucket takes your work and uploads it there, and you happen to not have your name on it (even though you've clearly stated it's yours on your DA page) and they can't find your DA page, they can then claim it as an orphaned work. Yes, you can take them to court with your DA page and say "Here is where it's from you dipshits". Which is costly and time consuming and simply something alot of artists can not do.

I personally stand by the "If you didn't make it, and didn't get permission to use it, it's not yours to use".

As for terms of the whole scholar and museum issue addressed, I personally think the ASMP suggested revisions to be quite reasonable:

<sub>In terms of drafting, we are proposing to limit the scope of the Orphan Works defense to:

1. Uses by individuals for non-revenue producing personal or community purposes, including uses on websites that do not generate revenues for the individuals using the Orphan Works;
2. Uses in works of non-fiction, such as books, articles or documentary films or videos;
3. Uses by non-profit educational institutions, libraries, museums or archives qualified for treatment under ¤501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended
* in exhibits, including website displays, and
* for uses that produce revenues and that are ancillary to exhibits."


"Based on what ASMP was told last week in DC, there are plans to get language of a bill finalized and a bill (or two bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, probably with identical language) introduced this spring, with the hope of having it marked up by summer. Interested groups, such as ASMP, have not yet seen a working draft; we are told that it is going to be similar to the last version, but modified somewhat to be more acceptable to us and the artists/illustrators.

ASMP is working on language to submit to congressional staff and the copyright office right now in an attempt at further improvement. One of the reasons for the time pressure is political; many people want to get this done before there is a change in the chair of the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee. Rick Boucher (D, Virginia), who is in line to be the next chair, is seen as generally less friendly to copyright owners than the current chair, Howard Berman (D, California)."</sub> - [link]

On a lighter note, everything is still (apparently) in draft mode as it has been for several years and has never come through. Hopefully it will stay this way.

[link] < - US Officials you can contact

Many of the articles masquerading as 'news' have recently come into light and have been oddly mis-informed and dramatized, but I guess if you see it listed as 'news' over and over and over you believe that it is news.

_{"...That gives you, artists and authors, time to get familiar with the actual legislative landscape, research what might be proposed in a bill, and decide for yourself what position to take."} - Meredith L. Patterson [link]

This still seems like alot of BS, and and yes, I still reject this. If I can see some changes regarding commercial use of presumed Orphaned material, I might be able to get behind this a bit more.

^{Note: My journals are journals about what things look like from WHERE I STAND with the information I have been exposed to. You'll notice I don't make news posts about this shit, this is because I do not feel my opinion is news (please do not substitute my thoughts for actual news). When I write things I always provide links as to where I'm getting my information, please look into them yourselves as well. I do however, like to be informed about this sort of stuff, so if you have more information or news regarding this you think I should see, please feel free to note me with it, I'm super short on time right now, so I may not read through all the comments.}