/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>lel I don't live in USA
This affects every image ever created, no matter the artist's nationality, residence or citizenship. Anyone in the world can copyright your work as your own under US law, and use or sell it as they see fit.

>lel this won't pass, it's ridiculous
The companies pushing for this stand to make retarded amounts of money at zero cost, yes it will pass.

>lel I don't make fanart, I don't care
This is not about fanart, this is about your rights to own your work.

Here's the whole thing
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

>What can I do about it?
Go to the following link and follow the instructions.
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Artists-Alert--The-Return-of-Orphan-Works-Part-1.html?soid=1102063090742&aid=3vozerBiCPE
We have until July 23 to write and try to make it clear this will kill the industry.

It might also help to write to established artists, since basically no one knew about this until 2 days ago, and time is running out.

>lel I don't live in USA
This affects every image ever created, no matter the artist's nationality, residence or citizenship. Anyone in the world can copyright your work as their own under US law, and use or sell it as they see fit.

>lel this won't pass, it's ridiculous
The companies pushing for this stand to make retarded amounts of money at zero cost, yes it will pass.

>lel I don't make fanart, I don't care
This is not about fanart, this is about your rights to own your work.

Here's the whole thing
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

>What can I do about it?
Go to the following link and follow the instructions.
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Artists-Alert--The-Return-of-Orphan-Works-Part-1.html?soid=1102063090742&aid=3vozerBiCPE
We have until July 23 to write and try to make it clear this will kill the industry.

It might also help to write to established artists, since basically no one knew about this until 2 days ago, and time is running out.

Thanks for the new thread, OP

>>2158639
Holy fucking shit, USSR artists had more copyrights on their work than we will if this bill will pass

Does this only affect images that are posted online? Solution then is just to not post anything online right?

>>2158657
But anon, that's literally not an option in today's day and age.

>>2158657
What do you mean? Create bird mail imageboard?

americans always talk about their fucking freedom and now this happens. your country is fucked up

>>2158657
I'm not convinced, what does "mass digitization" in the title of the bill refer to?

>>2158663
this, even muslim mudslimes has more freedom, more freedom to rape and stone victims to death.

This all reminds me of the Youtube DMCA scam claims that were/are going on where a fake company would abuse youtube's shit claims rules to file false copyright strikes against viedos. If the claim went unchallenged, because of way youtube has it's DMCA claim system setup, YT default agrees with the person making the claim (Evil Corp), not the content creator (artist), so evil corp could then then choose to monetized ad revenue from the video they now "own" according to youtube. Since guilty until proven innocent like this new law would be. The onus is on you to prove you own something.

Plug that scenario into this one. Company X has a team of gophers on day one of this law going in and copyrighting thousands and thousands of images. They now start making either print or online catalogues like the old style illustrator directories of the 90's. Only this is nothing more than a macy's shopping catalogue of images, a stock photo house of paintings. Then they start sending those out to clients, some of whom may want to use that for a fraction of the coast rather than pay you.

>>2158657
Now of course there will be the issue of images saved from the net not being much use for print work, without stuff being done to them, but who's stopping them from making hi-res scans of work that's already been printed and painting out any type work that's on it. Who's going to be able to prove that hi-res scan wasn't already on the net and thus covered by this rule? Even if it is online only, or digitized photos people can still steal your idea. So you'll have artists who never bother to learn major portions of the creative process making a living just copying everyone from already existing works, compositions, character designs, colors, etc. That may not hurt the top tier guys who have to be really good and creative for those jobs but it would hurt the lower end and mid tier guys who make a living working those jobs as they get better and work their way up.

Apparently popular artist such as Sakmi have finally become aware of the issue. A couple of tumblr posts finally caught fire. I can't believe I'm saying this on 4chan, but single boost the hell out of these posts if you can. Let others know:

http://wannabeanimator.tumblr.com/post/124518931390/digital-doodle-i-interrupt-a-long-term-hiatus

http://wannabeanimator.tumblr.com/post/124516726115/an0ther-artist-attention-artists-copyright-law

Reposting some top-tier doublespeak from last thread
copied from the pdf

The Copyright Office recognizes that there are special concerns with regard to pictorial,
graphic, and sculptural works. Notably, advocates for illustrators and textile manufacturers have been persistent since 2006 in pointing out that, because their works are rarely made available to the public with copyright information attached either for business or aesthetic reasons or because the information is nefariously stripped out
a search, no matter how diligent, is unlikely to be successful.
Thus, they argue, orphan works legislation, if applied to commercial uses, will
create a loophole for bad actors to exploit, without any benefit to visual arts creators and owners in terms of increased licensing.232
Furthermore, they maintain that in order to close this loophole,
visual artists will be effectively forced to spend an enormous amount of time and money
digitizing and registering their works with private registries, a burden that only the most wealthy will be able to bear.233
The Office takes these concerns seriously, but does not believe that they outweigh the benefits of comprehensive orphan works legislation encompassing all categories of works. In fact, it is the very same characteristics of mass distribution and frequent lack of textual identifying information that some argue would put visual art works at special risk for infringement under an orphan works regime, that make it necessary to include such works. Visual art works present, in fact, almost the paradigmatic orphan works situation, and better that potential users have an incentive to diligently search for their owners than that they are infringed outright or collect dust.
Furthermore, the Office believes that many features of the proposed legislation, such as the rigorous search standard and the Notice of Use provision, make it less likely that bad actors will find an orphan works limitation an attractive shield for their activities.

In the unlikely but unfortunate event that a work of visual art is erroneously claimed by a user to be "orphaned" and cognizable damages to the owners result, a small claims tribunal of the sort recommended by the Office
240
should provide a suitable forum for hearing the resulting
complaint. Photographers were one of the primary constituencies advocating for a small copyright claims system,
241
and the Office believes that such a tribunal would be a particularly apt
venue for determining whether a qualifying search was performed by the user, and other
questions of compliance with the remedy limitation requirements of an orphan works solution.

>>2158639
>>It would "privilege" the public's right to use our work.
So, wait, does this not mean that you would be able to create works that are variations of existing IPs and sell them legally? 'cause that'd be a good thing, no? It's what people who draw fanart are doing right now, and with the current state of copyright it's only a matter of time til someone gets sued and thrown into jail.

Copyright for Derivative Works and Compilations
The proposed legislation clarifies that, despite the language of 17 U.S.C. § 103(a),
292 any user of an orphan work who qualifies for the limitation on remedies may still enjoy copyright
protection for a compilation or derivative work that employs preexisting unlicensed orphan
works. Like those sections of the bill relating to injunctive relief, this provision seeks to
incentivize good faith uses of orphan works, despite the fact that they are technically infringing.
Users are encouraged to engage in productive uses of otherwise dormant orphan works,
provided the works qualify under the diligent search standard.

>>2158672
No, that refers to a derivation of an image, not IP. Corporate IPs are MORE protected now, due to the private copyright firm basically acting as the Inquisition.

>>2158672
But the difference is that instead of referencing off of designs and compositions, it allows them to literally download your paintings, print them off, and sell them without permission unless you specifically register that particular drawing.

so say you post original work on internet
some fucker claims copyright for it
and you're gonna get sued if you want money for your own art?

>>2158663
>>2158666
It's because the left leaning side of the country bolstered by uninformed voters and PC wack jobs elect politicians who are Europeans style liberals, they want socialism. Which doesn't work unless you have a large burdensome government regulatory system that restricts citizens rights. Honestly Progressive style Republicans while good on some things are for big government as well, so just as bad. This is why, for you US people, who you vote for does matter and if you vote Democrat this should be a lesson for you in the upcoming 2016 elections. More stuff like this could be on it's way.

>>2158669
So right, a long standing liberal belief that you are depriving society the benefit of your work by not letting others use it. "We understand this will fuck you over, but the benefit to society as a whole outweighs your wellbeing and rights." Thats anti american as fuck.

>>2158672
No, big corps will have the money and time to protect their shit. You wont be able to touch that. Not only that this law would empower these new registration offices to sue you on behalf of the copyright office without informing them. So in fact you'd be more likely to get in trouble since it'd be another source of revenue for these registries.

>>2158677
Yup, for each one. Most likely individual court cases on each image. Even then I'm not sure you get all the money. Only a percent.

>>2158672
>So I could take a picture of mickey, turn him blue, and be able to legally sell it?

>Of course not, the point of the bill is that corpos fuck you, not the other way around, silly slave.
>Listen to the vid in the OP, the private firm that will be in charge of copyright can sue you without any involvement or consent from the copyright owner.
>Disney still owns Mickey, so while you can sell someone else's picture of him, you are still fucked by the copyright enforcers.
>On the other hand, any painting you do can just be sold/monetized with minimal effort, and you don't get shit. So if you drew Mickey, Disney can just take it AND you get fucked for copyright infringement.

Is this actually happening
it all sounds so insane that almost seeems like a joke

And in the case of derivative works created with orphans, the draft legislation significantly limits the availability of injunctive relief. Where a user has created a derivative work containing a "significant amount of original expression," the general provision with respect to injunctive relief, which dates back to the 2006 Orphan Works Report, remains the same in the current draft: a user may, upon paying reasonable compensation to the owner of the work in a reasonably timely manner and providing attribution(where requested), avoid an injunction and continue to prepare and use the new work. A court may determine that payment of a percentage-based royalty constitutes reasonable compensation. This provision accounts for the reliance interest of the user, who - based upon a qualifying but unsuccessful search for the copyright owner - may have created a new work that combines the orphan work with his own significant original expression in a way that is effectively impossible to untangle without doing damage to the new work.

While limiting injuctive relief encourages users to utilize and invest in derivative works based on orphan works,it does not do so without exacting some cost. The restriction on the scope of injunctive relief with respect to derivative works applies for the entire term of the copyright in the orphan work. Therefore , a user could continue to use a derivative work for decades despite objections from the owner, as well as enjoy copyright protection for that derivative work.

Users must: (1) if sued for infringement, prove to the court by a preponderance of the
evidence that they performed a good faith, qualifying search to locate and identify the owner of
the infringed copyright before the use of the work began; (2) file a Notice of Use with the
Copyright Office; (3) provide attribution to the legal owner of the copyright, if reasonable under
the circumstances; (4) include a to-
be-determined distribution, display, or performance of the work; (5) assert eligibility for such limitations in the
initial pleading in any civil action involving the infringed work; and (6) state with particularity
the basis for eligibility for the limitations during initial discovery disclosures

>>2158679
what about supporting yourself with kickstarter and patreon?
also what if you post your work on your own domain?

>>2158681
It is. Some people choose not to believe it because it sounds so ludicrous, but big corps, even ones that tried to stop this before like Google, are pushing this hard.

A search is considered to be diligent if users search or utilize: (1) Copyright Office
online records; (2) reasonably available sources of copyright authorship and ownership
information, including licensor information where appropriate; (3
)
technology tools and, where
reasonable, expert assistance (such as a professional researcher or attorney); and (4) appropriate
databases, including online databases. Each search is mandatory only to the degree it is
reasonable under the circumstances. For example, a search of Copyright Office records is only
necessary if sufficient identifying information already exists on which to base the search. Users,
however, cannot rely solely on a lack of identifying information; instead the user must undertake
the most comprehensive search possible in light of limited information, because a lack of
identifying information does not excuse a user from conducting any searches.

>>2158687
Be serious, nigger.

When a user fails to conduct a qualifying search, the user is not eligible
for a limitation on remedies. This does not technically mean that the user cannot move forward if
he or she is inclined to take a risk; indeed this is the situation we have today. Rather, it means
that the user will have no clear shield against liability.

>>2158681
Yes it will happen if people don't try and stop it. The only hope we have for stopping it is to let as many big name artists know as possible and hope some of them will help speak out. I've seen some prominent people posting about it, like the image in OP, Dave Rapoza retweeted something, some art directors have too. But who knows how far they will take it or how many others they'll let know so you have to keep tweeting/email as many artists as you can find. Be polite and concise but direct them to the links for the Youtube vid and Brad Hollands site that are in the OP.

>>2158687
Nothing matters unless you pay, fill out the paperwork and register the work with one of these new private registration companies. And portions of the rules PDF make it sound like there may be more you need to do to be technically "registered".

>>2158694
But a lot of the wording makes it sound like it's up to the person infringing to tell you they didn't try hard enough too find you. Who would ever do that.

Where a user satisfies the eligibility requirements of the orphan works legislation,
monetary relief is limited to "reasonable compensation". Neither actual and statuatory damages, nor costs or attorneys' fees, would be available. In most cases, "reasonable compensation" will be close to or identical to a reasonable license fee. Statutory damages for infringement of a work
whose copyright owner cannot be located, and thus will not have been licensed for a long time,
would be unlikely to have been assessed at the high end of recovery in any event.
264
Some
commenters have stressed the importance of the recovery of costs and attorneys' fees as an
incentive for re-appearing owners to bring suit in the first place, and criticized the absence of this
remedy.
265
However, incentives to litigate are obviated by the requirement that, once the owner
files a Notice of Claim of Infringement, the user must negotiate for reasonable compensation.
Because the costs of litigation can be avoided, there is no need to include the remedies of costs
and attorneys' fees as part of orphan works legislation

The
Davis
case shows that the burden of demonstrating fair market value falls to the
copyright owner. The proposed orphan works provision specifies that "reasonable compensation" refers to the value that would have been arrived at
immediately before
the
infringement began. This wording precludes copyright owners from asserting the amount for
which he or she would have licensed the work
ex post
–
the owner must prove that similarly
situated owners have licensed similar uses for such amount.
268
The Office believes that "reasonable compensation" should be understood to include a percemtage-based royalty as well
as a single, fixed sum, so that an orphan work user does not reap an unfair windfall in the event
that his reuse of the work proves to be commercially successful.
269
Ultimately the "reasonable compensation" structure allows a copyright owner to present evidence related to the market
value of his work and, at the same time, allows the copyright user to more precisely gauge his
exposure to liability"

States and their employees generally are not subject to monetary damages for copyright
infringement.
288
This removes, to some degree, the incentive for state actors, such as universities, to engage in qualifying searches for the owners of orphan works, as their monetary liability is
zero either way. State actors are, however, subject to limited injunctive relief if found to have
committed copyright infringement. If a state actor, after performing a qualifying search, uses an
orphan work as part of a new derivative work, and the owner emerges, the owner potentially
could be barred both from injunctive relief (under the orphan works statute) and from damages
(under the Eleventh Amendment), thus leaving the copyright owner with no remedy

>>2158700
>>2158702

So it sounds like:

Aka, "Oh....you found out I'm using your work? Ok well I complied with the law and you didn't pay to register your work so the government is telling you I only need to pay you a small percentage, fee comparable to that of a licensing fee, for stealing your work and selling it. Don't like it? Too bad you have to pay for lawyers to sue me even if you win you cant recoup the lawyers cost from me, and you won't win any damages (money) anyway.

So I get to decide what a 'reasonable' rate is and the best you can do is take it."

How would you even see what others have licenced things for? Where would you find such info to provide as evidence.

Nice, lol. The law strips you of most legal recourse and protections and sounds like it wont even let you stop them from actually using the image like you can now. That is of course unless you are disney and can afford many lawyers to write ulta strict copyrights for your work in the first place.

>>2158704
Nononono... If you don't pay to register your work, he doesn't have to pay you shit.

What I posted applies if you DID register the work, but he failed to find evidence of that by googling it.

>>2158639

can't people sue? this sounds like complete bullshit. i'm eurofag thank god but i listened to the podcast of will terry (or will terrel or whatever, not the fat guy but the other guy) and it sounded fucking bad.

>>2158703
Amazing, I thought protection for Libraries and Schools was the genesis for creating a law like this to begin with. Now they are just wholesale exempt from damages so the rest of this law is nothing more than a corporate money grab on copyrights.

>>2158704
yeah its a fucken travisty and non of the famous artist that every one prasies and adores are even making a freaken tweet about it, why??

>>2158707
They plan to establish a tribunal that will handle the "suings", but even if you win, you only get a small amount of money and you still have to pay the lawyer and other costs yourself, meaning you may very well lose money.

>>2158706

AMAZING! So even if after you find that someone is using your work (if you didn't pay) you cant retroactively dispute their copyright claim and copyright it? To get money?

So you have one shot to copyright the work and even then people can use it. So it truly is "sharing work for the public good" bullshit.

>>2158707
No it looks like it says specifically you CANT sue. Just arrive at an agreement through some small claims court thing they set up.

Also, I'm not even at the half point of the pdf, and the legal mumbo-jumbo is hurting my head.

Someone, please take over

>>2158709
Don't think this applies to literary work (In reference to GRRM)......yet.

Generally speaking because people don't know about it, don't think it will pass or don't understand what it all means. I see artists retweeting shit but then they just go about their daily business tweeting normal stuff . They must be like "Oh well, I did my part. Back to business as usual."

To be fair to them, maybe they are talking to people behind the scenes trying to get them to write a letter and inform others, but who knows.

how does this affect people outside of the US?
and I dont mean that as well that doesn't affect me lol
i'm genuinely concerned and just as pissed off as everyone else

From what I can tell:
>Copyright is only applicable now if you pay for it.
Pay the private companies to give you a sticker of approval saying you own/created your work.
>If you don't fork up the cash to register your work, it's an "orphan" and anyone has the ability to come in and steal it if they so please
Companies will make profits off of your hard work and since you didn't pay to be protected you're SOL. The people who stole your art have more rights to it than you since you did not pay a "creation fine"
>All big companies are most likely the ones running the privatized copyright offices now, and run the tribunals.
This means you either pay a fine or get your work stolen. Either way they're getting their money from you for no damn good reason.
>So say it happens to you, what is the recourse?
You'll end up paying more to get pennise from the people who took advantage of you, leaving them unquestioned and able to fuck over whomever they choose.


Literally they are trying to steal works and create barriers and paywalls JUST so you can make art independently.
A little kid draws a new superhero in a coloring-book and doesn't fill out the paperwork to claim it as his own? Too bad timmy, I've decided to steal your image and register it in my company's name. :)
What's wrong timmy? Sad I'm making millions with your idea? Well here's some peanuts, hope it covers mommy and daddy'd lawyer fees.

>>2158709
You quickly stop being a successful, praised artist if you speak against the corporations that directly or indirectly employ you. Most art people these days are graphic designers or concept artists who specifically create art for their clients to copyright. They are 'safe' because it doesn't impact their line of work at all.

>>2158720
>Most art people these days are graphic designers or concept artists who specifically create art for their clients to copyright. They are 'safe' because it doesn't impact their line of work at all.

Been lurking these threads for a while. This seems like a decent point.

>>2158717
Peoples work from outside the US can be copyrighted by people here either outright or by slightly modifying it. So even though you live abroad a lot of companies exists here and will be able to freely use your shit.

And laws like this are spreading around the globe and will more so if this happens.

>>2158720
Not entirely, now being able to use vast swaths of free art and designs companies might cut down on their work forces. More artists may emerge as "concept" guys who just steal work with little to no skill that end take your job. Might not happen right away. but look at "photobashers"

>>2158717
It affects everyone the same, and is actually worse for most non-US countries.

>>2158718
Not only that, but even with registered work, it's easier to just let it go and deal with your work being stolen.

WANT TO MAKE ART?

PAY THE ART FINE OR WE'LL TAKE YOUR ART FOR RANSOM AND USE IT FOR OURSELVES.

AND ALSO THERE ARE NO METHODS FOR YOU TO RECLAIM IT

HA
HA
HA

>get exceedingly ridiculously good
>never leave any contact info on your work
>leave subliminal phallic imagery in every-single one of your pieces
>let them get stolen
>dicks everywhere

So, what are hobbyists supposed to do?

If you're drawing art for fun and not to make money do you just have to accept that anyone can use it as they please?

>>2158728
Yes. :)

>>2158728
Some hobbies are more expensive than others. Now you either draw pretty pictures or take up boat sailing for the same money. Have fun!

Companies are ran by Mr.Krabs' who persuade the innocent Spongebobs of the government to do outlandish stuff!11 We must be the Squidward and call them out on this

Other link:
http://copyright.gov/policy/visualworks/comment-form/

>>2158721
Large portions of the art world are made up of smaller companies that I could see have a hard time keeping up with the cost and time of copyrighting all artwork created for them to the level a Blizzard or Riot might. This could become a burdensome problem for them and allow their shit to be stolen.

>>2158728
Yes, Unless you pay. Don't post any good ideas online with out registering them.

AND

None of this address the change in fair use rules in this law which allow minor changes to work to then be claimed as a new derivative work and copyrighted be the "creator". Assuming that portion is correctly described and work as it sounds and as Brad Holland said it would.

>>2158728

You could probably try start shit online and you wouldn't be impacted because you'd have no professional career to trash to begin with.

Wouldn't consumers realize how unethical art theft is? I might just be a bit delusional though, I've had people defend Kr0n's tracing to me.

>>2158733
Which reminds me, has anyone tried to inform /co/ about this? I know there is a fair share of content creators on that board.

>>2158735
Average US citizen Joe Assmunch doesn't know dick about whats going on, and likely wouldn't care or have an opinion. Not enough to do anything about it anyway. This law will be so complex and lengthy with legalese normal people wont know what the fuck you're talking about. Look at all the obviously dumb shit the government does and people go along with it.

>>2158737
Not sure, but it would be worth it to spread this discussion to as many forums or boards as possible, even off here onto art forums. The 23rd may be the deadline for this letter stuff but the fight will continue on after that while we wait to see what the law will be and when it will be voted on. People need to keep up with this and stay informed.

The amateur porn game devs on patreon, and those other shitty sites must be having a field day with this.

Also, even if the infringer pays me $1000 for a $200 painting, wouldn't I be losing money if I bear my legal costs? Not to mention the shit I'm in if I don't actually get any money.

>>74095502

Someone help me over here, please.

>>2158639
I trust the government's decisions wholeheartedly. They know what they're doing collectively and have been through many meetings before this conclusion.

What are you guys highschool faggot hispters who spend too much time watching conspiracy theory videos?

>>2158752
Dammit

>>>/co/74095502

>>2158751
Depends, if the Tribunal is like small claims court, which I thought I saw it called, you wouldn't need a lawyer and only pay a small fee to file a claim. But nothing is set up yet so who knows.

The problem is you wouldn't get 1000 for a 200 painting, you'd get more like 150 because he'll say that 1000 is unreasonable and he'd have only hired you to do the job for 150 and you'll have to show evedence of what people get paid for similar jobs like yours. (all the while this law could be lowering the rates people get paid, due to cheap work available for free) You can also ask for fees that would account for licensing your work, letting others use/print it for a price. (like a calendar company) but you'd have to provide evidence to show how much that would be, and who knows how you'd do that.

>>2158754
Just point them to this thread so they can read the excerpts

>>2158754
I'll try but shit they post fast in there. Yeesh. Hard to keep up.

We can't forget /i/ and /a/, /co/, and even /pol/.

We need as many people as possibly, and those boards have a lot of drawfags.

Not /b/ though because they'll most likely ruin it all.

>>2158766
No, stop it. We need relevant people to know, not shit-tier drawfags.

You're just inviting shitposting.

Jesus Christ, /co/ is literally retarded

>>2158767

Have to agree, that thread is a loosing battle. Lots of shitposting. People here on IC seem to give a fuck and be generally reasonable about this. What we really need though are industry pros to send in letters to the copyright office. They are the people we truly need informed.

Having people be generally aware of this is great, but I doubt they will help much.

>>2158766
Post it to the drawthreads on the over boards too, cgl etc
>>2158767
What is wrong with you? A signal boost means you tell everyone, not just the people in your special artist club.

It might actually be helpful to write up a brief example of a letter with blanks for people to fill in, since a lot of people are just fucking lazy and aren't going to write their own email thing to send off.
If someone's NEET, could they do it sometime?
I'll do it if nobody else does but I'm at work right now.

I've read all the links, the links' links, and the posts in this thread, but am unable to determine whether I'd rather now leave to scream a bit and bash my head against a wall, or have a hearty cry.
This isn't real, someone's found and pasted the plot of an upcoming dystopian novel. How can our system be messed up this badly? How can this even be considered? No, no, no.
I knew the government has plenty of flaws, but it's always felt to me to be a useful tool overall in keeping with the public interest. It can't possibly have devolved into a corporate dictatorship so glaringly as to have the leeway to cut its everyday working citizens off at the knees then order them to keep the bricks coming, the tower must always be higher and they still have the use of their hands.

>>2158768
Most of /co/'s userbase is corporate shills, because the board's discussion is centered around brand worship.

>Russia building "chinese firewall"
>Roskomnadzor already has full control on everything
>freedom of speech is dead
>meanwhile in US
Looks like the world is going crazy.

>>2158770
Are you seriously telling me preteen shitposters on 4chan will provide a "signal boost" even marginally relevant?

What we need is that people who actually care about this, and have internet presence, spread the word, meaning pros.

Just look at the /co/ thread. It was a mistake.

how about spreading the word to art schools/colleges/universities

>>2158770
Drop your email template bullshit, we already sent a shitload of emails yesterday. Write your own fucking messages and don't spam people with the same shit.

>>2158773
This is just the tip of the iceberg, Anon. Have fun reading about TPP/TTIP.

>dyatopian novel
Pretty much, yeah.

>>2158781
What kind of awareness campaign can you even give an example of where only the elite are alerted?
Preteens love signal boosting, they boost and boost on tumblr about the most inane things. As long as the news is getting reblogged and shared everywhere, it will eventually fall into the eyesight of someone you deem 'relevant'.
Most professionals don't really post non OC.

Not to mention, as anons were saying before, this is really something that's more likely to hurt upcoming artists and hobbyists than established professionals; and so they probably aren't going to make so much noise about it unless it becomes a popular thing to care about.

>>2158781
And not only that but you need to tell ALOOOOOOOT of pros because not all of the ones you tell will care, or understand or do anything about it.

Still post of forums, but maybe Art forums where people are more mature and care more about this. Like CGsociety, CA, Permanoobs, Crimson Daggers. to what extent people still go to those.


>>2158770 Ehhhh

>>2158786
This. If you are too lazy to help out inform artists, or even write a letter yourself to the copyright office why bother giving a shit because you'll never make art your living and this will never affect you. This is basic shit that will hurt your chances of ever getting a job, if that doesn't motivate you how do you get yourself to study and do work in the first place?

>>2158793
>Most professionals don't really post non OC.
Shut up and read the links, that is exactly what this is about.

Their resume directly influences their arguments. Read the links.

"Non-elite" artists follow "elite"artists on social networks, not lurk anime boards. They will get the word better from them.

>>2158786
>>2158794
Sorry if you two misread my comment, but I was saying we should make a template up for lazy/illiterate people in general, not for myself.

I'll do it myself then later tonight since it's clearly such a heinous idea. If you want to win something like this, you need sheer numbers, regardless of whether you think a lazy person is a worthwhile supporter of your cause or not.

So, what if I make a web comic and host it on my own website, do I have to register the idea of the comic as well as every individual page?

>>2158803
This is wrong, and bad. Don't do it, and stop this bullshit. You have clearly not read the links provided, and those letters will not do anything. The entire point is that informed professionals explain how this will affect them.

Spamming people's mails with 50 copies of the same shit will NOT help.
Spamming the congress with the same irrelevant, uninformed letter signed by people with no resume to show they actually work in the industry and that their livelihood is endangered will not help.

We already have example letters given, which you would know if you READ THE FUCKING LINKS YOU FUCKING RETARD

>>2158803

You could if you want to, it's not going to hurt I guess.

For people writing the Copyright office plebs like most of us probably wont make much of a diff. Your resume will dictate how seriously, if at all, they listen to what you say. Which is why industry pros need to send them in more than us, number do count so I guess plebs emailing wouldn't hurt. But you may not want to make it look like a group of people just mailing in a form letter that might make them think it's fake.

As far as emailing Pros I would think more people emailing is great but having the emails be different and personalized would be better. I mean you could also copy the greatly worded tweet in OP's image and tweet that to artists. What you don't want is people spamming artists with tons of the same emails potentially pissing them of to where they don't even bother reading them. My point was people to lazy to write something probably wont take the time to email people either even if provided a template.


Yeah what he is saying. >>2158808

>>2158784
YES! This would help, I've been a part of similar campaigns before and schools weighing in certainly has some form of effect, especially in demonstrating more openly that this will be a blow to students & young people, swinging sympathies to an extent.
Also >>2158793
this.
The more people know, the better. We need to create a wave here that'll build too hugely to be ignored.
But hopefully we can avoid expressing ourselves in ways which would turn sympathies/opinion against us like 4chan raids. If everyone could just take this relatively seriously, there are a heck of a lot of artists out there today, hobbyists included, since there are so many free art programs around and social scenarios that involve art where any willing drawing hand is considered an asset.
The more little guys know and discuss it, the more likely likely the big guys'll stumble on their conversations, who aren't personally alerted. Also, more people will be informed so there'll be more folks to help in the alerting.

>>2158809
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me in a way that made me feel like a human being. I'll hold my horses for now on the template, I was just trying to think of a way to be proactive.
Let's hope we can all beat this together somehow!

>>2158812
>We need to create a wave here that'll build too hugely to be ignored.
>>>/co/

This needs to be handled with care and dignity. Our job is to let the pros know, not to play pretend and act like we're a force on the internet.

>>2158816
Person you quoted here, I agree perfectly and apologize if I didn't convey this.

>>2158784
>>2158812


"States and their employees generally are not subject to monetary damages for copyright
infringement.
288
This removes, to some degree, the incentive for state actors, such as universities, to engage in qualifying searches for the owners of orphan works, as their monetary liability is
zero either way. State actors are, however, subject to limited injunctive relief if found to have
committed copyright infringement. If a state actor, after performing a qualifying search, uses an
orphan work as part of a new derivative work, and the owner emerges, the owner potentially
could be barred both from injunctive relief (under the orphan works statute) and from damages
(under the Eleventh Amendment), thus leaving the copyright owner with no remedy:"

Schools dun care brah, they are exempt from getting in trouble. They want this, the state that owns some of the schools wants this. This whole thing started as a way to digitize all content so people in schools could research and use it. Now....maybe some privately owned ART schools might care, but not schools in general.

>>2158815
Not a problem dude.

>>2158816
This. We arent some super crusaders. Dont go into this with the idea we are going to change the world. Focus on just contacting pros and spreading the word to forums and twitter. Don't get caught up in the euphoria of thinking your making some huge difference, then sit back and feel all good and do nothing. That isn't to say you shouldn't spread the word around the net, but if a huge wave comes then cool but that shouldn't be the focus of what your doing. Focus on informing people Pro and bleb alike (Pros do matter more in terms of the copyright office talking them more seriously.) Let them know about the copyright office letters and share the links to the vid and Brad Hollands blog article.

>>2158820
Posting this on tumblr, twitter, facebook, etc. is good. Those are big sites with many users, and artists usually use more than one for their work. The news could also spread fast due to people seeing this on their phones and shif.

Sending artists messages about this is probably good.

Making this a 4chan thing, involving other boards, making some EZ bake mail form for lazy faggots to use is not good. At all. And we are literally the only board with any personal investment in this

Do your part, but don't overdo if..

>>2158754
shouldn't we also make a thread on /p/ since this also works for pictures?

I want this to pass so something interesting happens in my life. War would be pretty good right now.

>>2158830

/co/ has a lot of artists that do not go to /ic/, this'd be an investment.

Just saw someone post this on a facebook group. Not sure if it's legit but it looks it.

Non-U.S. artists can email their letters to the attention of:

Catherine Rowland
Senior Advisor to the Register of Copyrights
U.S. Copyright Office
crowland@loc.gov


So non-US people can now send in emails. I SUGGEST, you keep it in the same format that the US submissions are in and be cordial and POLITE.

>>2158833
You Sir are a moron, stop shitposting.

>>2158837
No, it wouldn't.
>>>/co/74095502

>>2158832
Good thinking.

>>2158639
So does this look bad for the R34 industry?

If this passes I think we're gonna have a huge wave of 'degenerate art'; pictures of pregnant women getting beat to death or something, shit that's just completely unusable by the jews.

This shit is straight out of some dystopian novel or something.

>>>/p/2630077

Hopefully, they will actually care.

>>2158845
>industry
But yes, extremely.

>>2158853
Fuck not my porn mang.
thats all i have left

>>2158845
wait, wouldnt they profit from lax copyright laws? isn't basically everything they do infringement?

>>2158856
God damn it, why won't you lazy cunts read? You could listen to the damn video while fapping or something, and you'd know the answer.

>It would "privilege" the public's right to use our work.
So, I will be able to photobash works of Craig Mullins, Ruan Jia and Jaime Jones with no problem? Sweet.

>>2158860
because it doesn't affect me. i'm a dirty hobbyist. i was just wondering.

>>2158861
Sure. And then someone could just paint mustaches on the faces and use that instead of paying any of you.

>>2158862
It does affect you. Every picture you post in /ic/, I can just take and copyright myself. Just because you don't thunk you're losing money doesn't mean someone can't find a way to make money on your free labor.

>>2158864
Why would I care if I already got paid for the job for a client. Later, I will photobash my own shit and sell it too, I don't give a fuck.

>>2158868
wow thanks for the fucking lecture. there's a million ways we're getting fucked, i can't research every single one, someone makes money off my work that sucks but it just adds to the heaps of shit that we have to deal with.

Remember, this also affects writers, musicians, actors, errybody.

>>2158639
They really want to kill all the beginning artists...

>>2158870
Nobody's gonna pay you if someone else gets the same shit for free.

>>2158898
No, it doesn't.

>>2158861

Not if those works were done for, and are now owned by a company large enough to write comprehensive copyright protection form them. This law HELPS companies protect their work, not individuals who can't afford to do so. I think I've said this about 40 times now.

>>2158870
Because you might not be making money of just client work, what if you make some personal work as an IP, make T-shirt designs, posters, anything, and want to sell it. Someone could just make a knock off version and sell it at a cut rate, profit. Or what if you cant get any client work because they are just using shit stock fantasy images for the basic jobs most people start out doing, licenced to them by someone using other images as "free" work. Also you wont be photobashing your own work since the companies will most likely own all the rights to it, not you, and they will have good enough lawyers to actually wright copyright that protects their stuff.

If you do infringe on your own work that is no longer yours and the company doesn't care it still wont save you. These new corporate copyright registries will be able to sue you on behalf of the company, who's work is copyrighted though them, never having to tell the company they are sueing you.

So yeah, save the moronic tough guy attitude for someone who gives a shit like your mom. Thats not going to get you anywhere and it's sure as hell not impressing anyone. Just makes you look ignorant.

>>2158871
This goes beyond anything we currently have to deal with. Some pleb stealing your work online and posting it around or tracing it to put on his DA doesn't even compare to corps and other artists being able to take your work and ideas and sell them for money and you have little to no recourse.

>>2158781
>>2158767
I don't know about the other drawthreads, but I know /a/ at least has some professional illustrators (as in they work for a studio or are freelancers who make a living off art) as drawfags, not sure whether they visit /ic/ or not though.

>>2158870
You can't be serious.
You think anyone is going to pay you to draw something that not only someone else will be able to use with minimal edits, but that you will be rehashing for someone else?

>>2158871
>baww I have to eat a spoon of shit anyeay, ehy not take the whole bowl baww

>>2158898
>>2158900

Not yet it wont, only visual works as I understand it.

But that could mean if this is passed future laws might be crafted to do the same to those fields as well. Same argument will be made. Slippery slope.

So why are they doing this? This is just a big fuck you.

Welp. /p/ doesn't care in the slightest, apparently.

i might join isis if this passes

>>2158905
well keep thinking you're the center of the fucking universe, see if anyone will care

>>2158916
>I have no freedom to practice art here
>better join isis
Literally the dumbest post this year.

>implying any of this ever has a chance of passing

>>2158919

>>2158920
It does though.

>>2158912

This is a quote from the /co/ thread on this topic.

"...
>Inherent copyright
It was morally wrong in the first place. Just controlling the property of other people under an implicit (nonexistent, nonconsensual) contract because you have an emotional attachment to it.

>This will effectively kill low-to-mid level industry, probably kill freelancing, and generally kill the dream.
Have you heard of the patron model, or services in general? Ideas aren't products. They can't be unless you rape freedom in the face with a dildo made of monopoly money. I have a neat picture and I want to make money off it. Should I make it freely available and sue the shit out of anyone who thinks they can share it without handing me cash? Yes. Fuck joining in with a no-cameras gallery. Fuck paywalls. Too hard. I'd rather control people than my own work because that nets more dosh.

I'm sick of bards and painters making more money than people that actually contribute to society not because they are good at their "job", but because they've exploited a broken system that provides disproportionate profit in the information age (with all its billions of suckers) and lifetime monopolies on ideas and other peoples physical property.

Every little step towards the public abandonment of copyright is a good step. I hope it gets so bad they all throw up their hands and go back to actually working and trying to make money instead of using the force of law to spoon money into their anuses...."


And that's why, people like that vote and bolster government officials to do these things. There are plenty of people out there that feel entitled to your shit and have no clue how hard it is to make it or how much training it takes to be Mullins or any of those guys. They are lazy dumb fucks who are losers and have got nothing going for them, no talent or skills and they resent that people out there make more than them working funner jobs. It's the bases of most liberal democrat thinking.

>>2158918
No, we, as artists are in the middle of the whole orphan works debacle. This is literally how we earn our living, and yes our opinion does matter, because if this passes, 90% of the art part of modern western culture is going down the drain, and all of us with it.
And I sincerely doubt they will stop at visual art.

How old are you?

>>2158925
No, it really doesn't. There isn't even a bill in the works.

This is fucking insane. 2015, more like 1984.

>>2158928
i'm 23. i'm with you in that this bill sucks but again, it doesn't affect me (much), this isn't how i make a living, and i can't believe this is going back and forth and noone would answer my simple fucking question, rather everyone gets all offended that i won't put in the one and a half hours to a question that's really pretty friggin irrelevant and that i just asked out of curiousity.

>>2158926
funner is not a word

>>2158926
>I made this, it's mine
>no, that is a nonexistent and nonconsensual contract, I never agreed to that, you are raping my freedom and I do not like it

>>2158929

You're probably early 20's, maybe more like 12, I can understand your confused...and stupid. But let me be clear, this has every chance of passing as does any number of other much larger more regulatory bills that have passes before.

As I've said 40 times before this will likely be tacked onto a larger omnibus bill, maybe even in the upcoming trade legislation, buried deep down within where no one will know about it. Obamacare anyone? They aren't going to pass a clean bill with nothing in it but this, telling everyone "Hey, look, we're taking away your rights!" moron.

>>2158933
If you cant figure out the answer with all the info provided here and in the last thread you're an idiot. Dont expect everyone in life to wait on you hand and foot. Do some of your own investigation.

I wonder if Michelangelo had to deal with this shit.

>>2158940
Reproduction didn't really exist then. So no, nor did copyright. Unless you could paint something or sculpt something you wouldn't have been bale to do shit to take business away from him. Also they had less artists then.

>>2158933
What question? The one about photobashing? The rhetorical one that you answered yourself by concluding it is sweet?

Or the one about r34 that is answered in the fucking op
>as well as giving the private copyright firm freedom to prosecute anyone of infringement with no action from the copyright owner.

>>2158939
What bill? There is no bill right now.

>>2158939
>If you cant figure out the answer with all the info provided here and in the last thread you're an idiot. Dont expect everyone in life to wait on you hand and foot. Do some of your own investigation.
i'm a med student and reading shit like this makes me want to become one of those cunt doctors who give you all your diagnoses in latin and don't look at you when they're talking to you.

>>2158944
>Or the one about r34 that is answered in the fucking op
>>as well as giving the private copyright firm freedom to prosecute anyone of infringement with no action from the copyright owner.
aaaah thank you thank you thank you. i got it backwards first.

>>2158948
wtf? I said it could be talked onto some future bill. Do you lack reading comprehension? There will be a bill at some point and people are trying to head it off at the pass before it gets to that stage.

>Oh I can see the train coming but it hasn't hit me yet. So I'm not going to make any attempt to stop it or move until it's too late.

>>2158948
We already have a deadline for protesting and a report for the new law. This is also like the 4th time they're attempting this, just much worse. After 23rd, they will write up the bill and put it to vote, we already know what will be in it
http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

>thinking you're better informed than Holland

>>2158953
If the visual art business had someone like taytay then there would be a big as fuck hate train riding around town.

Pay attention to laws passing around holidays

>>2158952
> says is med student.

>cant follow along with simple conversations and read back posts for answers to question.

>in my country I am doctor, here I am only janitor.

If this doesn't affect you, and you are a med student (which I don't believe) why are you here. Why even post?

>>2158952
>>2158953
So what you're both trying hard to talk around is the fact that, as it stands, this is all just a conspiracy theory.

So guys, basically to my understanding.

If this gets passed, this will kill visual artists such as freelancers, and artists who try to make a living or building up a career in the industry?
Meaning according to the Domino Effect, if it succeeds, this will also pass to other industry's for example the music industry, the fashion, graphic design, even the game industry.

>>2158961
>as it stands, this is all just a conspiracy theory
It could become real and probably will.

>>2158959
Med students have nothing better to do than ask inane questions about cartoon porn on 4chan.

>>2158961
Really?

http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

That is document from the US copyright office telling you what they will be putting in the law. Stop trolling, shitposting and read something.

>>2158964
>could, maybe, possible

Uh-huh.

>>2158966
>a report is synonymous will a bill

Don't think so mate.

>>2158968
Nobody said that, you imbecile. Even for a shill, you're bad at this.

don't affect me
why give a shit

So, from what I understand, if I want to post something I draw, I have to officially register it as my own lest someone else steals it? And if I draw copyrighted characters, I'll go to jail?

>>2158964
>the Copyright office literally pouts out a 250 page document detailing the proposed changes to the copyright law
>conspiracy theory
They are literally telling you this is what they want to do.

>>2158971
>talk reason inside a reactionary circlejerk
>ur a shill!!

Predictable. You can keep dodging reality as much as you'd like, but that doesn't negate basic fact.

All this drama is rhetorical as there is no bill being pushed. You're all losing your shit over something that doesn't exist.

>>2158967

Lots of things in life are "coulds", until they happen no one knows for sure what that "could" will be. So your line of reasoning is don't comment on anything, worry about anything or do anything about anything until it happens and is to late to stop or change?

And that bills which eventually become laws just materialize from no where. No one studies proposed rules or puts out paperwork to inform people what they intend to do or what rules they will change?

More than likely you are one of the fags from /co/ coming in here just to troll because you like what these proposed rule changes would do.

>>2158974
No one is asking you to, in fact no one really even cares about you. Thats probably why you're here to get attention. No one here who is worried about this needs you to participate. Actually by posting here you are bumping this thread letting more people see it. So thank you.

>>2158975
Yes and even if you copyright people can still most likely use it, only have to pay you some money. Or change something small about it, make it a derivative work and pay you shit.

>>2158926
i-it's unbelievable... how can someone actually think like this?

>>2158982
It's simple, all about the money.

>>2158974
Anon, it will cause a Domino Effect for future industry's.

>>2158975
Basically, yeah. Thus artists' aren't able to rise up in the ranks of the industry, freelancers won't be able to make a living.

Basically, artist's have to legit 'git gud' at art to make a standard living.

>>2158980
>>2158984
That's fucking ridiculous. I am glad it's getting attention at least, but not nearly enough. Fanart, porn or not, of any kind will be pretty much nonexistent.

>>2158974
It will affect you when all the things you enjoy stop being made because nobody can sustain themselves.

>>2158982
If their ideas had a genesis in rational thought so someone like me, or any other average person, could understand it chances are they'd be smart enough to understand why thinking that way is wrong. Therefor the nugget at the center of their thought process must be some sort of emotional or irrational idea. So who knows, bitter jealousy as motivation? No clue.

>>2158986
Fanart is the least of our problems, this will kill OC.

Would making a petition on smth like change.org help?

>>2158991
Just another way to make the big guy bigger and the little guy smaller.
In the inevitable event that this transfers to music, how will we even have any bands/artists that aren't corporate products?
This is overwhelming as fuck. I knew the government was fucked up, but I didn't think shit would turn Orwellian this fucking fast.

>>2158991
>>2158986
>>2158988

At the very least it will unevenly affect individuals who make their own content for a living as they may not have enough money to copyright their work to the degree a large company might be able to. It may also lead to artists having to give up more rights to the companies they deal with so the companies can better protect their interests. (as anyone would do) It will also make existing companies far more protective of their content and will most likely increase enforcement of copyright.

So fanart and shit like that will still exist but you better not take credit for making it, and if you do you better not try and monetize it since the new private copyright registration companies can sue on behalf of, without the knowledge of, the company that holds the copyright on any particular thing.

Plus the whole thing about loosening the rules on fare use and derivative works that will fuck up all sorts of other shit.

>>2158997
Not sure, right now the only recourse is to get industry pros to send in those letters. But maybe a petition might garner some support for the over all cause. If done WELL I dont see how it could hurt. More people seeing this the better change to resist it, for awhile longer anyway.

>>2158997
Definitely couldn't hurt.

How hard will it be to register your works? If it's really easy then I don't mind it too much. Would imagine this also makes what's in the public domain and whats copyright much more clear than it is now.

If they do this right won't things end up more organized and less confusing in the long run?

>>2159003
Did you read the excerpts posted?
Those only apply if you DID register your shit. You still get fucked, and you have to deal with bureaucratic BS every single time.

>>2159003
>If they do this right won't things end up more organized and less confusing in the long run?
No. the exact opposite.

>>2159003
>anyone can just copyright their own version of any work
>more organized

>>2159000
>>2158999
English isn't my first language and I don't really understand whats going on, all I know is "it's real bad". Is there an anon that would be ready to make a good petition that would gain support from artists and regular people.
In that video, they talk about how if you upload a pic on facebook then anyone can use it if you don't 'register' it, this is probably something most people, even non-artists care about. Remember the "uproar" when people learned that instagram could use anyones photos?

Wow. Funny to think I could go up to any artist, take a picture of his work, put a sepia filter on it and call it my own in a court of law.

>>2159014
Have fun filing copyright forms without limbs.

Video production guys already break your legs for undercutting, too bad we mostly operate over the internet.

>>2159013
Actually thats a very insightful observation. Nice one.

That actually does tie this in to normal people. Companies would be able to use ANY and all photos they find line for what ever they want, stuff that normal people may not want to be associated with. Nor I'm not quite sure how that meshes with owning your likeness and stuff like that but that could be route to use to engage normal people. A write up or petition including information about how this could hurt normal people on twitter or facebook might be helpful.

Is/has anyone else making/made a petition on change.org? If not, I'll make one right now. I've never done this before, so any help would be nice.

>>2159023
do they have a browse function? maybe somone's made one already

>>2159023
Do it, I don't know jack. I guess you should specify it's about http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

>>2159025
there is one here, but the maker cancelled it saying it's a sham and everything's fine:
https://www.change.org/p/act-do-not-let-the-the-next-great-copyright-act-be-passed-5621449d-fcc0-40ee-a7e3-88b45b1d70a2

>>2159023
I'm surprised there isn't one yet

>>2159028
i love how everyone is just allergic to putting sources for their shit claims

>>2158727
Top lel

>>2159030
oh, yeah there's >>2159028, gotta look into why the maker cancelled it a bit more

>>2159028
>they tried to pass it 2 years ago, so that means the the new attempt with "2015" in the title is just a sham
Good news, gentlemen! I just found out Germany and Austria already tried this world war thing 30 years ago, and they didn't stand a chance! It's just a sham, everyone, relax!

>>2159031
>>2159030
OK, I'll do it. Do I address it to Congress as a whole, or are there specific people? Help me out, anons.

it's going to be alright right?
alot of people know about this and TPP right?

I want to get off this ride ;_;

>>2159041
What does MGSV have to do with it?

>>2159028
It is real. It's just in the thoughts and not a bill yet.

DIDN'T SCHOOL HOUSE ROCK TEACH YOU ANYTHING?

>>2159041
time is running out

In the process of writing the petition, I'll post it ITT when I'm done.

>>2159045
but don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose

>>2159041
No it wont be, at least nothing is guaranteed. The best you can do is keep going, keep getting gud but also pay attention to whats going on. Participe and help inform people on Twitter, Facebook, forums and direct mailing people. Thats what the corps and governments want is for people to get tired and lax, to tune out so they can step in again and steal shit from you.

Right now the major deadline is the 23rd of July, this thursday, to send in emails to the US copyright office. Check OP for links on how to. It's important to get INDUSTRY pros to send these in as their extensive resumes will garner them more legitimacy in the eyes of the government. But everyone here should still submit a letter, take an hour to do it. Even if it doesn't work you still need to at least try.

After the 23rd the fight still isn't over as this will all be written up into a bill, if it gets to that. Then we need to speak out against that bill, to our congressmen. Anything you can do to keep the discussion going will help. It's better than rolling over and giving up.

>>2159052
Do you think the pro artist at big studios like Disney and Dreamworks will care? I'm writing my letter right now.

>>2159041

>>2159038
Remember to make it appealing for "normal" people, don't make it only for the artists.
as >>2159013 and >>2159020 said this bill isn't good for anyone, and the more people that sign the petition, the better.

>>2159056
It's not like every pro works in house for a huge company, anon

>>2159052
Funny, you got to legitimate git gud as soon you are born into this world.
>Want to be an artist?
Start when you're 10
>Want to be a musician
Damn you need to start at a young age.

>>2158662
yes

K, I'm done typing everything out. It's officially referred to as the Orphan Works bill, correct? If not, what? Just making sure I don't screw it up.

Wait...wouldn't companies and indie people lose publicity?

Artists tend to spread the word of cartoons and characters by drawing them with fan art, by doing that people get more aware of that character.

Thus they're more likely get picked up by normal peep thus free-advertising for that company.

>>2159056
Honestly....I dont know if I'm smart enough or know enough about this to really give you a good answer for that. Most of what any of us know is anecdotal at best from Brad Holland or what we can decipher from the proposed rules legalese. My thinking is they may not care as much as the independant artists will. They have the money and power to copyright and enforce their claims. On top of that will have these copyright offices independently sueing for them scaring people away from using any copyrighted material. Which is what most big companies want anyway. In my opinion, I'd say they would be more for this than against. At one point google was against this and is now for it. So who knows.


>>2159061
You'll really will have to start at 10 now, like the masters of yore so you have enough time to be good by the time you need to be financially independent. This could kill of most low-to-mid level jobs artists live off of while they continue to become top tier. aka Dan Warren. (could as in maybe, no one really knows but it seems logical.)

The offical doc: http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

>Orphan Works and Mass Digitization

It's not a bill yet so it doesn't have a real name I dont think. Brad Holland also refers to it as:

>The Next Great Copyright Act

Sorry, >>2159071 is for >>2159066

>>2158932

PETITION DONE, GOGOGO

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-congress-stop-the-next-great-copyright-act-orphan-works-and-mass-digitization-bill?just_created=true

How does one change their brain to turn themselves into an Artist Savant so I can survive into the Orphan Works world?

>>2159080
Why 100 anon?
Simply a small number is not going to convince people.

>>2159083
Didn't see an option to increase the number. I'll see if I can edit it.

>>2159080
Put the specific "facebook example" from >>2159020
>>2159013
Change it to "Normally, when you draw something OR take a picture of something(...)" more people take pics than people that draw and upload their shit to the internet.

>>2159084
I think it does it automatically? like when you've reached 100, it will go to "# needed to reach 200" and then "#needed to reach 500" and so on. idk ive never made one

>>2159083
>>2159084
Nope, no option. Maybe it changes when you get sigs?
>>2159085
Will do.

>>2159085
Yes people should be also be pushing the Facebook/twitter/instagram angle for normies to get involved.(anywhere you post or talk about this issue) That engages 99% of the pop not just artists and might be a more persuasive argument than art.

>>2159089
>>2159085
Edited it to include both of these things.

>>2159095
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19REHOhbKaKJ1NWypHb4L_QOuK_CwQ7Ch-zmaZhWKD8I/edit?pli=1

I made a google doc, to edit the text since it's not that good. Anyone can help.

>>2159099
petition maker here, will check that regularly and edit accordingly.

>>74099461
>>74099644
>>74100097
>>74100227
>>74100357
Looks like we got ourselves a blue collar mexican who thinks art isn't a job and that the ttip is a good thing.
His bait was successful.

>>2159102
I'm sorry it's really messy, I dont really know how Google docs works

>>2159111
no worries. I've put in your edits. I'm not much of a writer, so it's good to have help.

>10 supporters
Hope you guys are sharing this shit, too.

Alright, which one of you derailed the /co/ thread?

So is this copyright orphan works part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or a separate thing? TPP has copyright parts that are basically akin to SOPA.

>>2159115
Me

I have an idea, lets have a bunch of anons pose as musicians, artists, and photographers and threaten to kill themselves, and say it was the big companies' fault, then ask them if they want to pass a bill that encourages suicide.

>>2159116
It's not a part of anything yet, the actual bill is still to be written. This is what they plan on putting in the bill

I wish we had some way to get rid of parasites like Sakimichan and Kronprinz capitalizing on someone else's intellectual property, but that's not a way

>>2159122
#cut4orphan

>>2159125
Stay mad. Stay jelly.

>>2159121
son of a bitch!

>>2159125
I'd much rather they made money off their generic fanart than the government.

>>2159126
>There are others who would literally cut themselves
>It would be like #cutforbieber
>yfw

>>2159130
This

Please guys, we need people that actually understand what's going on to help write the petition.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19REHOhbKaKJ1NWypHb4L_QOuK_CwQ7Ch-zmaZhWKD8I/edit?pli=1

How you want your copyright laws, fam?

Can't someone show this to celebrities so thousands can sign this?

>>2159137
what does "fam" mean?

>>2159138
Sure, I'll just casually mention it to Brad and Angelina tonight when we're in the hot tub.

>>2159139
Family

>>2159131
Let's get it trending ASAP

>>2159142
I lel'd

>>2159137
It needs more epic maymays, someone get a frogposter in here! #cuckmepls

>>2159125
JELLY
E
L
L
Y

>>2159138

A better bet would be to just continually post this around informing people. Average people,industry professionals and beginners.

Target people or groups who have large online followings, tweet them, post on their facebook groups or forums. Find private contact info for artists or photographers and send them links to the vid, Brad Hollands blog post and the petition and let them work to spread the message too. You'll never get some celeb to listen to you unless you already have a large following of average people behind the message posting it around. For celebs it's all about a PR thing to raise their own profile.

>>2159149
The vid is like 1 hour and a half... if only someone could make an easy to understand video or an "info-image"

>>2159151
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnC1mqyAXmw

>>2159153
I-is this the same as the TPP thing?

>>2159154
?!?!?!? I believe so....

>>2159153
>>2159154

Even if so best not to conflate the two. Keep it simple and stick to the copyright and mass digitization stuff. Bringing in tpp brings a whole host of topics and problems that would derail things.

>17 supporters
We're doomed.

We told you so.

So, correct me if I'm wrong but basically this is new bill will make us have to pay to copyright our work if we ever post it online, even if it's on our own website?

>>2159131
>>2159126
I'll do it, tomorrow or sometime toward the end of the week.

>>2159165
That's an understatement to the point of being false.

>>2159165
yes, It´s exactly that and more, I´m not from the US but this is really concerning since Visual production has it´s commercialized home there

It worries me, I really hope you guys stop this, go send letters to your country

the only artist I know that is concerned about these kind of things is Richie Pope, if someone here sends him something on fb Im sure he will spread it like wildfire

>>2159165
Yes inherent copyright ownership of the images and stuff you create will be done away with. You'll now have to pay for each painting, image or scrap you create to be registered in one of the new copyright registration business that would be created. The rules are hard to understand for someone like me who is not a lawyer but the gist of the law seem to be pushing/forcing content creators to allow others to use their work. Even if you do register it if someone tries to find you work "in good faith" but cant they can use it and only have to pay you what they or the newly created "tribunal" court system deams a "fair market wage" or some bullshit.

In general it seems for average people it will be harder to truly "own" the things you make.

Ontop of all of this the changes in fair use/derivative work rules could allow people who minorly alter your work and copyright it as a new derivative image and pay you jack. (of course any large companies with legal teams will be able to craft far better copyrights than you and thus will be safe, but you wont!)

>>2159169
So alongside that ,it lets anyone use our art without penalty unless we pay. Anything we make we have to register or else anyone who sees it online can use it without any consequence?
eg: If I make a character concept idea, post it on my website, someone can use it for their game down to the very last detail without any penalty if I don't pay to register it?
That's fucked.

>>2159170 -----> >>2158839 ------> http://www.drawger.com/holland/?article_id=15400


You can send them as well if you are international

I'm legitimately confused. Saw this posted on /co/ and saw the bill in question. So far it doesn't make explicit mention of a need for individuals to register a piece of artwork.

It seems like the bill in question is just asking the Librarian of Congress to exercise common sense when looking over copyright issues and make new rulings on certain things within a 3-year period.

>>2159171
See, again with the registration thing. Where is everyone gleaning the registration from?

If this is the case, how much does an artist have to pay to register a piece of artwork?

>>2159172
by the time this passes
If you don´t pay for every copyright of your work anyone can use it regardless, innate copyright is eliminated by this. you have to pay for every work, every image you do, every design

EVEN IF YOU PAY FOR COPYRIGHTS, your work can be used in form of a deritative work (usign a part of it shaddadaba, using bits of it) in fair use

DEATH TO FREELANCERS BILL
DEAD TO FANART BILL
DEAD TO INDIE COMPANY BILL
DEAD TO SMALL BUSSINESES BILL
LONG LIVE MONEY
NO MORE INDIE GAMES BILL

that´s what it should be called
btw we should let v know, they love them indie games

we should start posting this all over the other boards, especially /b/. I'll at least put it in loli and r34 threads, saying if they want their favourite artists to keep drawing, they need to sign.

>>2159174
You didn't read shit.

Thus, they argue, orphan works legislation, if applied to commercial uses, will
create a loophole for bad actors to exploit, without any benefit to visual arts creators and owners in terms of increased licensing.232
Furthermore, they maintain that in order to close this loophole,
visual artists will be effectively forced to spend an enormous amount of time and money
digitizing and registering their works with private registries, a burden that only the most wealthy will be able to bear.233
The Office takes these concerns seriously, but does not believe that they outweigh the benefits of comprehensive orphan works legislation encompassing all categories of works

...the use of PLUS, or any other registry, should be treated as only one component of a
qualifying search.

etc.
etc.

>>2159182
Already did, /b/ doesn't care...

>>2159196
fucking /b/, they've lost their teeth

>>2159174

You also have to understand that is is coming from a paper put out by the copyright office that details many possible solutions to problems, or at least that's how I read some of the chapters. So if that's the case we aren't totally sure what the ultimate wording of a bill would say. But since there are things in that document to alarm people, combined with Brad Hollands previous experience fighting off orphaned works legislation and him speaking out on this we have cause to be alarmed by these developments. So we're voicing our concern and fighting to make sure no stupid rule changes are made law. The document doesn't totally spell out everything since it's not a law, but you can read between the lines, as >>2159187 posted. Thats on page 52.

http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

>>2159198
>>No.629237089
Try to bump the thread at least, they cant see it when there's so much porn
>pic related, it's the op image

Holy shit guys, thanks for making the thread. Its been an upsetting way to start the morning. For once I'm upset I'm barely on social media because I'm not in a good position to spread the word but I'll post about it on Facebook and write a letter, every bit can help.

>>2159203
lemme fix that >>>/b/629237089

>>2159212
Thanks
>Gee I wonder what's on the front page of /b/
>trap thead
>Porn web-m
>cuck thread
>What hair do you like on women
>r-34
>dubs thread
>This thread is on page 6
What the hell /b/?

That's scary as fuck.

>>2158679
>left
>america
top kek

>>2159203
Forgot to link the petition which is gaining more and more now.

Well I give up. /b/ seems to think because they're the consumers it doesn't really matter. It will only affect artists.

>>2159262
>that nigga who doesn't understand it will tarnish everything he consumes
Also, discussing the subject with all those porn threads is hard for them.

>>2159262
That anon is apathetic as FUCK

>>2159262 ---> >>2159020

Unintended consequences of this law could impact everyone who posts any image online. Facebook, twitter, instagram. Your shitty photos you take on vacation and post online.

>>2159265
There's always porn threads. If there's a certian time to post something like that then by all means post it, but I sat and wasted an hour trying to get a bunch of plebs to read the op just to have people say "it doesn't really matter" "it's just getting blown out of proportion" is discouraging and shows that people who aren't a corporate fuck might be all for the bill passing or just don't care.
I know it's /b/ were talking about but come on.

>>2159262
I'm going to sound like le ebin oldfag for a second, but I miss the /b/ that would have jumped right on this shit.

>>2159271
You're wasting your time in /b/. Your talking about a bunch of NEETS who don't pay taxes, don't have jobs and don't participate the real world. It's hard to understand the impact of something like this if you never leave the basement and worry about supporting yourself. You shouldn't have bothered in the first place. Time better spent would be emailing Pro artists, tweeting them and other large art communities. Not 12 - 24 year olds on /b/ who dont know and dont care since mommy and daddy with pay for all muh stuff.

Some make one on /v/, maybe they'll care more.

>>2159284
/v/ alread had a sticky about this a few weeks ago.
It never really crossed boards back then

>56 supporters

I'm disappointed sycra didn't make a video. Am I the only one who sent him a message?

>>2159292
I figured it's pointless to contact celebs/internet famous people because it'll just get clogged up in the hundreds of messages they get every day.

>>2159292
I sent him one too, among many others. Even spelled it out that him being in Romania doesn't help him.

I never got a response from anyone, and I didn't notice it had any effect.
feelsbadman.jpg

Fully convinced at this point that to be a politician, the only requirement is a seething hatred for humanity, and a love for money.

>>2159301
Don't you mean ave insane greed of humanity?

>mfw almost nobody cares about the government raping all art forms up the ass

>>2159311
Maybe it's not so bad, read this--->
>>>/co/74105363
>>>/co/74105422
I don't know what to think anymore.

>>2159311
sauce on that cutie?

>>2159316
You have excerpts IN THIS THREAD literally copied from the pdf, showing you EXACTLY what a good faith search is, and how the process works.

Why don't you actually read and think for yourself instead of taking the word of some faggot on /co/ who doesn't give a fuck?

>>2158753
you realize they had to fucking bribe third world countries to get people to join this

>>2159301
I guess that makes a great number of us a politician.

Time to start looking into the traditional art markets as plan B.

Literal only upside of this, if you're prepared to pay to copyright all your shit, is that there will be a fuckload less competition.

>>2159316
>have to search for an owner

how does this work, does the doc say? what is the baseline of trying to find it? do they just slap it into google images or do they have a team of lawyers? this seems like something that has the potential to fuck over people who don't have any web presence/whose work gets stole and spread without an attributer tag

>>2159340
>literally pay
i guess gubbermint literally does hate poor people

>>2158639
Welp, there goes that alternate history mythological-fantasy action adventure universe I worked on for the past half-year.

Maybe I can save it if I pull an Alan Moore and use it as a vehicle to show off all of my disgusting fetishes.

/co/ confirmed for dumbest non-/b/ board.

niggas can't into reading

>>2159340
How much does copyrighting an image cost?

>>2159371
Don't know, this isn't a bill yet. many details aren't hammered out. If the registration agencies are private business they may be able to set the rate.

Guys, you can feel relieved, it was all a big hoax
>All these big artists getting worked up over some misinfo shit

http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/

http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/

>>2159383
Sorry anon, beat you by 14 seconds

>>2159386
W-well, at least I'm better at maths.

There's 96 supporters, keep spreading the petition, guys.

>>2159382
huh, well i feel dumb

Maybe someone should try /lit/

>>2159391
I was feeling weird about it for some reason, because there were all these claims about it and whenever I actually looked at it there was nothing in the wording that suggested what everyone else were thinking...

>>2159382
>government disinfo
>implying these kikes can fool me

Never.

Just kidding, though.
Good thing that it's all bullshit.

>>2159382
>>2159383
We already knew this, the point was to tell them not to write the law.

After 23rd comes a period of reading the letters before the law is written, which then gets turned into a bill.

>>2159167
Good

Could we perhaps interest the fitness community in this? Think about it: gym selfies and instructional fitness blog images could be abused as well. Whats to stop a sportswear company from slapping their logo across an image, changing your shirt color and using it in their advertising? Maybe Instagram could put up a fight but I haven't much faith in it. To get around the issue of using another's likeness they could simply crop your face out (no more needing to pay for 'parts models') or replace it with a past model's likeness - they do shitty enough chop jobs as it is all the time. Actually, what does this mean for personal rights in regard to your own likeness? From what I've read people who already use their likeness for commercial purposes have additional safeguard but its something that upcoming models and actors still grapple with regardless.

In this case its less worrying about Nike and more worrying about Betty's Sportswear multiple states away, not so big you find out right away and cause a PR nightmare but just big enough to legally outmaneuver you.

>>2159445
Nigga, all they care about is powerlifting, bodybuilding, gainz, protein and zyzz.

Relevant:
http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/

What do you guys think?

>>2159447
As if the fitness community isn't rife with vanity. Plenty of people put their images up for encouragement and validation, some of them with the ambition of eventually using their looks to generate income (selling meal plans, personal training sessions etc). They would care if someone used their image to sell shitty fitness plans or gym memberships or headbands and shit. I think it would be legally more complicated than that of drawn images because of likeness but there is potential.

>>2159456
I'd rather err on the side of caution and at least demonstrate that we are not interested in such policies.

>>2159457
It doesn't hurt to try, you're right.

>>2159456
I think artists should learn more about law and legal issues.

>>2159383

So Brad Holland who has gone to congress before and helped fight similar laws in the past is wrong, but because this person says their an advocate their argument is more legitimate? I dont see any persuasive arguments in his blog. He quotes some past laws, past court rulings, and some small parts of the Copyright pdf. Laws and court cases can be changed by new law, so thats not proof anything wont happen.

I dont see this guy adress any of the text people have quoted here and elsewhere. His main argument is as I'v seen before. "Don't worry about this, it's not even a bill yet!" That doesn't mean anything, just that they want you to shut up and not voice an opinion on anything until *they* are 100% convinced it's bad.

Nothing this guys says is any more legitimate than Brad Holland, he doesn't make any killer points that make me worry less that in the future some of the weird ass wording in this copyright office paper could be put into a bill form. The idea they even want to change anything is weird.

He says he works in politics so he knows what he is talking about but under the comments section of his blog, he's asked if he thinks laws are passes fairly and not through lobbyism, he can't even give a straight answer. He constantly tells us he knows what he is talking about like some schmuck fishing for approval.

I'd still be weary of this any any proposed changes to copyright law, things work fine as they are, any change made in the law in an attempt to make it easier for plebs to use "orphaned" work is just going down a dumb path. Try and do your own research, stay informed as best you can. Even if you end up being wrong at least your trying to keep up with stuff. Sounds like this guy wants you to sit down and shut up, nothing to see here folks.

>lying government official anons saying it's fake
Nigga it's real.

http://copyright.gov/orphan/
>The Office released its final analysis and recommendation entitled Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report of the Register of Copyrights in June 2015.

>>2159456
I said this earlier on in this thread and got called a fucking shill.

All of ya'll are fucking imbeciles.

>>2159473
Their point, as wrong as it is, is because it's only recommendations that no one will act on them. It's not a bill yet so why worry.

Then why the fuck did they make them? They just decided one day to write up these fucken recommendations for no reason and no one asked them to? That sounds more reasonable than being skeptical and speaking out against them?

>>2159476
>All of ya'll are fucking imbeciles

I didn't call you a shill, but I will call you a moron. See >>2159469

>>2159469
>So Brad Holland who has gone to congress before and helped fight similar laws in the past is wrong, but because this person says their an advocate their argument is more legitimate?
Pretty much this. It's not like Holland just woke up one morning and decided to talk out of his ass about this, he actually actively worked with lawyers to understand and oppose this.

We know this is not a bill.How could it be, the law is not actually written yet. But even the pdf tells you they're going for the same thing as in 2006, and goes on to explain why it is now more possible to do it, and draws parallels with situations in other countries.

>>2159478
>We know this is not a bill.How could it be, the law is not actually written yet. But even the pdf tells you they're going for the same thing as in 2006, and goes on to explain why it is now more possible to do it, and draws parallels with situations in other countries.

Someone needs tell the guy who wrote this. >>2159456

On a positive note the Youtube vid has almost 50k views. I don't remember but I think it was around 9k when I saw it 3 or 4 days ago. So great job.

>>2159484
And the petition has 119 people and was created 6 hrs ago. Keep spreading the word.

>>2159473
I wonder how many people actually read the report

>>2158665
"Google and the World Brain" is a documentary outling "mass digitization" if you want to know more.

Basically Google wants everything scanned and online in a database they control and can monetize as they please. This new copyright law is a part of making it legal for them to do it.

The word seems to be getting out there, the youtube video has over 50k views now and has quite a few comments on it. There is some question as to whether or not Brad Holland jumped the gun on this thing hyping it up too much too soon, but I think people are worried and a threat (real or not) to their livelihood gets them hyped up. If you want to help continue to fight and inform people go to the youtube vid and help Will and Brad respond to commenters. A lot of the people posting here seem to have better and more well written comebacks for the naysayers than the people currently posting on the vid.

On a side note, I'm not seeing this thread come up anymore on the front page. Like it's hidden, only shows up in the catalog. Is that a thing or is just me?

>>2159569
We reached the bump limit.

http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/dont-believe-the-hyperbole-theres-no-orphan-works-law-before-congress/

LOOK...LOOK...God.

possibly unrelated, but sorta similar, what can we do about the TPP and TTIP?

>>2159578

>>2159578
>Myth busted.

>>2159578 --------------->
>>2159585 --------------->
>>2159589 --------------> >>2159469

>>2159578
https://archive.is/uLOn4

>>2159578
Read >>2159469

>This whole thread right now

bump

>>2158662
>posting in a bird mail image board.

Bump

Bump

>>2159885
>>2159903
>>2159931
>bumping a post witch reach it's bump limit

>>2159954
huh?

>>2159382
>>2159383
still doesn't mean you have an excuse not to write to them

So /ic/,

What's your plan when this will be settled?

>>2160029
/k/ is the only answer

New thread, one people will actually see. >2159991

>>2160045
Lel. What exactly will be your target?

>>2159958
the thread is over the bump limit you dummy

Fuck the government this bill will effectively kill torrents and put everyone in jail, forever!
Oh wait, wrong thread about people misinterpreting the law.