Orphaned Works

So hey, I'm back in blogtown. Sorry to those zero of you reading this blog, but the truth is, I have more popular endeavors currently going on. Namely, Art and Digg. Also, now Whirled is taking some time...but I won't bore you with my life.

So Orphaned Works. This is a bit of an issue that I was introduced to one day while wandering through the internets. So far I've seen two sides to the issue, and I have to say, they're very compelling arguments.

For those of you too lazy to read the above linked articles, there is a bill currently before congress that is going to change art copyright laws to involve Orphaned Works--Orphaned Works being any art for which the original artist cannot be traced. The current law states that when an artwork is created, it automatically becomes the property of the creator, and gets a sort of mini-copyright to cover basic issues with the ownership. This orphaned works bill basically says that if you can't find the original author of a piece, then that work's copyright becomes forfeit.

Now the two sides. The pro side gives the example of finding a bunch of old photos in your grandmother's attic. Meridith L. Patterson says that without this law in place, those incredible photos can't be used (At a museum, for instance) because you don't know who photographed them. However, with this law, you can finally get this beautiful capture of a moment in history into a museum where it belongs! Historians rejoice, students sleep, everyone goes home happy.

HOWEVER, the con side worries that this bill, once and if it becomes law, will allow stealing of intellectual and artistic property via a loophole in the legislation. Mark Simon makes a powerful, if somewhat rambling, argument for the destruction of this bill. He even goes so far as to claim that if the bill passes, "YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY OFF YOUR OWN CREATIONS!"

Now my stance on this issue is admittedly weak, as I've dug and dug and dug for more information on the actual bill itself (I really have no idea where to look for these things, if you have a good source, please email me) but found not much more than what these two people are saying, as well as the insult slinging that has made the internet such a fun place to live. But of all that I've seen, I think this law is one of those that needs to be filed under "Needs A Rewrite". I think the idea that spurred it is honorable, and that history books would be a lot more interesting if we could see more examples of the actual times they're talking (writing) about. But Mr. Simon has a point, that there are some glaring holes in the laws presented here. I'm sure that congress will see these holes and not allow the law to pass, but with our government, you never really know. So I will suggest as Simon does with a little twist: Write to your congressmen, and tell them you don't want this bill as it is to become law. Don't get outraged and skip points like Mark Simon (Or me at times) does. But definitely make sure to let your voice be known.

As for me, I just sent an email, and now I'm off to art class.