This makes me sick. Literally. Another prime example of the government forcing us to pay to protect ourselves. Slowly, but surely, the government is no longer protecting us. They are, instead, continuing to line the pockets of the corporate world.

What’s particularly strange about the whole thing is that in many ways the gov’t has gone so far overboard in protecting copyright the past few years, with the DMCA and such. Then it comes out with the orphan works act, which I thought was a breath of fresh air (for them to recognize the problem of so many 20th century creative works being lost) until I actually read it.

It does nothing to clear up any of the rights on old material with uncertain ownership, and does plenty just to make creating new work a hassle.

Maybe this will at least wake up some designers to the biggest problem in American politics: the Democrats in Congress are rapidly proving themselves to be just as crooked and inept as the Republicans so many of us have been trying to kick out of Washington. Between this and the farm subsidies bill, I think it’s safe to say that the only people getting anything good out of Congress are the ones rich enough to not need it in the first place.

I’ll add a link to an alternative take on this here:
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/05/my-take-on-orphan-works-act-of-200...

Also, remember that *currently* US law is such that *unless your work is registered you’re only entitled to actual loss*. No legal fees, no punitive damages. There’s more on this here:
http://duncandavidson.com/2008/04/the-copyright-conspiracy.html

Both of the links above relate to photography, but should be equally applicable to creative works in general.

I’m not a lawyer, and perhaps I misunderstand something in the proposed new law.

My impression is that the prospective law makes it such that “even if your work is registered, you’re only entitled to actual loss.”

It seems like there is no incentive whatsoever under this would-be law for anybody to contact or pay a rights holder. After all, the worst thing that can happen is they will come after you, and then you can just offer them the usual reasonable payment, and they’ll just take it, because there are no additional penalties.

Or am I misunderstanding something there?

T

It seems like there is no incentive whatsoever under this would-be law for anybody to contact or pay a rights holder

If I understand it correctly this will all come down to what is eventually considered to be a “diligent effort” to find the rights holder. If the “diligent effort” is more expensive then just calling the rights holder to begin with, it will make sense, assuming that rights holders are actually able to track down and sure violators. Given how few creative types could actually afford the legal fees involved, you’re probably right…