I personally don’t have a strong feeling about this either way, but for the other side of the argument, Public Knowledge (who I have tended to agree with on many things in the past) has a good overview at:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/overview

and a myth/fact sheet at:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts

I’ve seen the links and I’m not buying it completely. the registry will exist to provide a search database for copyrighted works. If someone searches the database and my work isn’t in there, they can say they have performed a search and go on their merry way. Then it’s up to me to realize that my work is being used illegally somewhere in the world for a urpose I never intended. While there may be gray area in the law, I don’t think their “facts” are as clear-cut as they believe.

I agree with Jim.

The “facts” on the PublicKnowledge link are carefully worded and a bit misleading.

For instance, they are correct when they say “Neither bill contains such a mandate [to register all visual arts in expensive, private registries.]” Yet, while the bill doesn’t force visual artists (or let’s just say “image producers” since many effected by this legislation would not call themselves “artists”) to register their work, failure by the artist to do so could qualify their work as “orphaned” making it free game for others to grab up and use.

To give a hypothetical example of what this legislation would allow. Let’s say I post a picture of TheBoyfriend™ and I on my blog, and then decide to stop blogging. The American Family Association or some other anti-gay organization snags the photo and can’t get my permission because (for this hypothetical only) I’m not blogging anymore so the email address on my blog isn’t valid, and I didn’t think to spend either the money or the time to register the family photo in some private registry somewhere. That photo is therefore “orphaned” and they can use it in some hateful anti-gay marriage ad. Now I’m the face of the anti-gay movement and I don’t even know it.

And if I DID find out about it, the best I could do is have them stop using the photo and get “reasonable compensation” which (as somebody in the graphic design field who deals with copyrighted photography all the time) could be at best around $500 or so but more likely given the amateur nature of the snapshot more like $10-20. So the AFA would have been able to use copyrighted work for uses abhorrent to the author of that work for no more risk than MAYBE having to pay $10 IF they got caught.

Maybe just because I’m a child of the digital age and think I’m entitled to everything, but I think this legislature is great. If you really want to protect your work, you’ll go through the steps to do so. Otherwise, you can’t put it out there on the internet and just expect people to respect your intellectual property out of the goodness of their hearts.

-L

you can’t put it out there on the internet and just expect people to respect your intellectual property out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sure I can. I leave my car out there on the street and I expect people to respect that it’s my property.

Most of my image works are on Flickr and registered under a creative commons license, and I’m very happy for people to use them (and they have - sometimes for political purposes I don’t support).

I think most people know when they’re stealing an image or words or music. They shouldn’t be allowed to do so just cause they’re too lazy and too cheap to shoot their own photo.

But you wouldn’t leave your car unlocked on the street. Anyway, the analogy doesn’t work, because if someone copies and uses your image, you still have it, unlike a stolen car.

Jim V.:

I will have to read up on this. Are you saying that all works that are currently listed as copyrighted are affected or will they be grandfathered?

I think if I have to pay somebody to register my copyright, that somebody should be the US gubmint. I know they waste the money they collect and are all lazy, inefficient layabouts. But at least screwing people isn’t the only reason they exist, unlike the sorts of parasites such a law would bring out of the sewers.

If you really want to protect your work, you’ll go through the steps to do so.

So it’s the victim’s responsibility to go through undue expense to protect their work as opposed to the criminal’s responsibility not to commit the crime? Ludicrous.

Otherwise, you can’t put it out there on the internet and just expect people to respect your intellectual property out of the goodness of their hearts.

Exactly, if you could, this legislation wouldn’t be a big deal, but you can’t. Therefore it’s the threat of being sued if you steal, that prevents people from doing so. This legislation removes that threat.

This legislation is one step from legalizing theft.