File :-(, x, )
Artists/Photographers about to get owned by Congress. Anonymous
http://mag.awn.com/?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605

"An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission."

Orphan works legislation is getting passed around in congress. What this legislation would do, is make an artist/photographer have to register every sketch/photo they take in order to have rights to it.

At the moment, they automatically have rights to works they make without registering.

This legislation actually affects more than just people who rely on the current law to make a living. It has an effect on anyone who uploads any material online.

Example -- Say you upload pictures of yourself or friends to myspace or facebook. Under current law if someone were to use those pictures without your authorization, you could legally sue the shit out of them. Under the new law, you'd have no legal options unless you took the time to register every photo.

It's a fairly shitty situation no matter how you look at it.
>> Anonymous
There's also an effort to do the same in the UK and Europe.
>> Anonymous
Registration of copyright, so long as it's done by a government and not a private entity, and so long as it's free or for a token fee, is a good idea. There's no reason why someone should be able to get the shit sued out of them for using some random unattributed photograph floating around the Internet, where it would be impossible for them to find the owner.

Also, no one's making money off non-custom photo jobs these days. IStockPhoto and its ilk killed the stock photo market. The reason to care about copyright is just to keep artists in control of their work, how it's presented and how it's used.
>> Anonymous
>>162859
good idea, but a bit unrealistic for people to register everything they create. Artists rights, much?

I doubt anything will come out of this though
>> Anonymous
GOOD THING I LIVE IN CANADA HO HO HO
>> Anonymous
>>162864
I care very much about artists' rights to control who uses their stuff. I'd be apalled if some photograph I took wound up being used by a cigarette company in an ad, for instance.

On the other hand, I think it's absurd that someone can be sued for something pretty much out of their control.

Registration wouldn't be a perfect solution, but legalizing non-commercial, non-political use of works not registered sounds perfectly reasonable.
>> Anonymous
I'm no lawyer.

What happens if you add your watermark, which contains a trademarked logo and someone else "registers" that photo?

Who wins?
>> Anonymous
>>162871
Your trademark, if valid and recognized by the proper authorities, would supersede the person who registers it.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
Yet another reason I'm glad I'm moving to Mongolia.
Seriously.
>> Anonymous
you guys have no idea what this means:

-works have to be registered if this passes and are not automatic
-when you register your works you pay a fee
-larger companies can pay the fees
-people can take your work and register it, and make money off it

thats it
>> Anonymous
>>162938-people can take your work and register it, and make money off it

isn't that why we should be RAGINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG?
>> Anonymous
>>162871
unless, of course, they photoshop out the copyright logo. It honestly doesn't take that much effort, just an few minutes or so with a healing/clone stamp brush.
>> Anonymous
>>162940

it would discourage most people
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
It violates international copyright law [Treaties that the US is signatory to]. It'll never fly.
>> Anonymous
omg this is so evil, like its not hard enough to be an artist now the government is trying to make it harder? fuck Scientology, we need to march against the USA!!!!
>> Anonymous
i say we take this a step further and charge artists a fee to practice or a monthly fee to keep work copyrighted, that would make them get real jobs and contribute to society
>> Anonymous
>>162960
Eat me chocrates
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>162960
Because the arts have never done anybody any good, ever, in the history of all society. Especially Rome.

Idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>162963
lol
>> Anonymous
>>162856
I really think this is pay back from the "man". Payback from all that movie and music stealing.
>> HAHA OH WOW des
>>162949
Yes, that's certainly stopped the US goverment in the past.
>> Anonymous
>>162963
While the guy you're responding to is an idiot, I do think artists should have "real jobs." Art should just be something people do, not a commodity or a business.
>> Anonymous
>>163022

Yes, that will work well. Just get the average working guy and he can easily be the equal to Leonardo da Vinci by doing "arty stuff" once in a blue moon.
>> Anonymous
>>163026
Kafka held down a typical, 9-5 office job at an insurance company every day of his adult life.
>> Anonymous
>>163028

No he didn't. He worked there for a year and was very unhappy.

He also produced little work for a lifetime. There could have been a lot more without distractions.
>> Anonymous
>>163031
No, that "worked for a year and was unhappy" thing was a night shift job. After that, he went to a government insurance institute (got that slightly off) and worked there during the day for the rest of his life. From Wikipedia:

>On November 1, 1907, he was hired at the Assicurazioni Generali, a huge Italian insurance company, where he worked for nearly a year. His correspondence, during that period, witnesses that he was unhappy with his working time schedule - from 8 p.m. (20:00) until 6 a.m. (06:00) - as it made it extremely difficult for him to concentrate on his writing. On July 15, 1908, he resigned, and two weeks later found more congenial employment with the Worker's Accident Insurance Institute for the Kingdom of Bohemia. His father often referred to his son's job as insurance officer as a "Brotberuf", literally "bread job", a job done only to pay the bills. However, he did not show any signs of indifference towards his job, as the several promotions that he received during his career suggest that he was a hardworking employee.

He also produced quite a lot. He just published almost nothing.
>> Anonymous
>>163033

You said an insurance company. He wasn't working for an insurance company then.

A guy who hated his life and job and in the end had little art to show for it compared to what he could have done otherwise. Wow!!!!! Great example!!!!! Let's just change the way the world works so you can have your dream of no artists making a living!!!! BRING IN THE COMMUNIST UTOPIA YOU DREAM OF!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>163040
>You said an insurance company. He wasn't working for an insurance company then.

You're nitpicking. It was a government insurance institute. It could've been working any regular job and the point would stand.

>A guy who hated his life

If you think Kafka's emotional and existential issues would click into normality from him quitting his job you're stupid.

>had little art to show for it compared to what he could have done otherwise.

I don't know where you're getting this from. Kafka didn't publish much because he was ambivalent at best about the quality of his own work. He wrote quite a lot and instructed that after his death his works were to be burned. His estate thankfully ignored this request. The works Max Brod had were edited and published; his last lover, Dora Diamant, simply held on to the works she had in her posession. In the 1940s, the Gestapo seized them, and their fate and contents remain unknown.

>Wow!!!!! Great example!!!!! Let's just change the way the world works so you can have your dream of no artists making a living!!!!

Explain to me:

1. Why artists living a vastly different lifestyle from the people they're trying to address is a good thing.
2. Why art should be turned into a commodity.
3. How working a normal eight hour workday leaves someone unable to produce art, given that eight hours of sleep on top of that leaves
another eight hours to do whatever in.
>> Anonymous
Correction, before you jump on me again: the works in Diamant's posession were seized in 1933, not the 1940s.
>> Anonymous
>>163048
>3. How working a normal eight hour workday leaves someone unable to produce art, given that eight hours of sleep on top of that leaves another eight hours to do whatever in.

Spoken like someone who is either untalented or unemployed or perhaps both.

Art takes time, but in those remaining 8 hours you speak of, you still have to travel to/from work, get dressed, shower, shave, feed the dog, walk the dog, tend the lawn, prepare and eat dinner, maybe fuck your girlfriend or wife if you're lucky, and if you found the time to put up those shelves she wanted, else you're gonna spend that time masturbating.

Maybe every second day you might find an hour to put your feet up and relax, but you're sure as hell not going to be making much art.

I keep thinking you're unemployed because anyone with a real job knows that there just isn't very much time left over at all -- and the time that IS left, is spent too tired and fucked up to be creative.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>163061
QFT.

I work 8 hours a day and you've all seen the sort of art I produce.
>> Anonymous
>>163061

I'm currently unemployed at the moment due to some other things, but I've worked in the past and that'll hopefully change in the next few days.

>to travel to/from work

How long of a commute can you have? The longest I've ever had was ~20 minutes.

>get dressed

~5 minutes.

>shower,

~5 minutes.

>shave

~2 minutes, or just have a damn beard.

>feed the dog, walk the dog

Don't have a dog, so I can't say how long this is.

>tend the lawn

Always had an apartment since I left my parents' house, so I have no clue how long this takes.

>prepare and eat dinner

Depends on how long you want to make it. Anywhere from five minutes to an hour. During which you can be thinking about art. Same with your commute. The actual physical process of just one part of the equation.

>>163064
And how much time do you spend fucking aroung /p/? (Not that I spend much, if any, less.)
>> Anonymous
>>163065
let me put it this way - your reply above clears things up dramatically.

Those 5 minutes you've mentioned multiple times - I challenge you to actually time yourself when you shower/shave/get ready to actually meet people of the opposite sex. Yes, it's not long compared with what women have to do, but if you're dry and preened in 5 minutes, its no wonder you're not losing valuable time by participating in a relationship -- a section of my post you conveniently ignored.

going by your list there, only males in large cities who live in apartments within a certain radius of their workplace, who don't own pets, or have kids, and who don't particularly enjoy fitness, or spending time with a loved one.

... only they are allowed to be artists.
>> Anonymous
>>163048
>How working a normal eight hour workday leaves someone unable to produce art, given that eight hours of sleep on top of that leaves
another eight hours to do whatever in.

Shit tires you out, when you get back in from work what are you more likely to do, spend ANOTHER 8 hours working or chillax?

Theres a difference between hobbyists and professionals for a reason.
>> Anonymous
>>163067
I left the relationship part out because it varies tremendously depending on who the people are and a bunch of other factors; it just can't be counted up like the rest of those things. Also, you didn't mention a relationship, you mentioned just the physical aspect of it.

I also don't get why you think spending however long "preening" is necessary to be in a relationship, or why you think women have to "preen" more. Hygeine, yes, but that's satisfied with the shower and brushing teeth, shaving, etc.

My point is that art should just be a part of someone's life, an expression and extension of the rest of it. It doesn't have to take place in those eight other hours a day; someone who persistently works at something two hours a day, every day, is going to accomplish quite a lot.

On the other hand, having art as this big commodity and a seperate job has gotten us Damien Hirst and Andy Warhol.
>> Anonymous
>>163073

Are you talking about 'art' or jobs which require artistic skill?

'Art' being pure expression. Artistic skill, being animation, architects, product and fashion designers, concept artists, illustrators, film makers,photographic reporters, graphic designers etc etc.

When i finish my course im hoping to get a job as a conceptual artist/illustrator. I sure as hell would not devote anything like the amount of time i do to studying to get my work up to a professional standard if the only reason i did it was as an expressionist circlejerk.

While you could argue the field of concept art is a useless one, i doubt you could say the same of something like architecture or product design.
>> Anonymous
>>163067
You don't need to spend an hour or two getting ready. Thats retarded.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>163031
What?! I am going to kill you. HA HA HA HA
>> Anonymous
>>163048
>1. Why artists living a vastly different lifestyle from the people they're trying to address is a good thing.

Art can be a job. What's wrong with that and how is it "a vastly different lifestyle from the people they're trying to address" if they paint/photograph/arrange photoshoots/draw/design/whatever from 9-5?

>2. Why art should be turned into a commodity.

Everything is a commodity in Western society. This cannot be escaped. Learn to deal with it or spend the rest of your life raging.

>3. How working a normal eight hour workday leaves someone unable to produce art, given that eight hours of sleep on top of that leaves another eight hours to do whatever in.

a) Normal work day is 9-6.
b) Average commute is 30-60 minutes each way.
c) it takes 30-60 minutes to get ready in the morning.
d) it takes 30-60 minutes to eat/get unready in the evening.
e) Sleep is 8 hours.


9 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 8 = 21
24 hours - 21 hours = 3 hours

And let me add that those 3 hours would ALWAYS be in the evening, and would generally be downtime after a stressful day.

You are an unrealistic, unemployed young faggot who does not understand yet how the working world works.
>> Anonymous
>>162859
There's no reason why someone should be able to get the shit sued out of them for using some random unattributed photograph floating around the Internet, where it would be impossible for them to find the owner.

Perhaps before using it they ought to find the owner, and if they can't find the owner they ought not use it.

This is why stock photography and clip art exists. It's artwork that's been commodified in such a way that it's easy to obtain the rights to use it.