I'm not usually a person to worry about posting things in the "news" section of deviantART, but people are panicking without doing research, and it's tiring to see everyone so upset over something extremely small.

I've been reading all sorts of things concerning the uproar of "the orphan act." What you read in this news post will be what the owner of y-gallery has to say about the topic to discredit all of the non-sense that is floating around. I will also supply direct links to the Snover's y-gallery journal so that everyone can leave comments there (copied and pasted the article because A.) people who have slow browsers, since y-gallery can be rather slow and B.) some people's parent's might disapprove of them being on such a suggestive website). So if you are concerned about the Orphan Works Legislation, and I certainly don't blame you for being so, I urge you to read what Snover has to say on the subject matter. I hope it eases some minds.

Snover, owner of y-gallery. [link] <--journal entry

"Someone posted a journal. It linked to an article. A really stupid article written by a really stupid man about orphan works legislation. Using personal attacks, weasel words, outright lies, and some choice quotes from people that would apparently like to be able to continue to receive royalties on every pencil drawing they've ever made since the beginning of time, he weaved a 3-page tale of how the big corporations are planning on stealing our souls (and all our copyrights) through legislation that aims to increase the number of works that enter the public domain.

"I doubt that my response to the magazine (Animation World Magazine, in case anyone is curious; here's the original article) will ever be printed, so I'm posting it here for posterity. And also because I spent a while writing it, and don't want that time to feel totally wasted.

"(I fucking hate this sort of misinformation campaign bullshit.)

"LETTER BEGINS!

"As both someone that is aware of the current issues surrounding copyright law in general, and orphaned works specifically, I don't know where to start with this error-riddled article.

"First of all, Mark's definition of orphan works is wrong. An orphan work is a creative work where the original copyright owner cannot be located or identified. What he is describing as "orphan works" is, in actuality, the public domain. (Though, improper registration only applies to works from before when the Berne Convention was ratified.) (See en.citizendium.org/wik····an_works)

"Second of all, there is no current legislation before congress regarding orphan works. The Public Domain Enhancement Act was the last bit of legislation regarding copyright and orphan works reform, and died after being referred to committee in 2006. You can confirm this yourself by searching for "orphan works" at the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov/bss/110····rch.html).

"Third of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act doesn't legalise theft any more than copyright expiration legalises theft. Copyright is supposed to be a short, fixed term exclusive right that encourages the production of new creative works. Copyright was not intended to allow Disney to continue to make money on cartoons created 3 generations ago, or for John Lennon's wife to get rich off her dead husband's estate, but that's how it is today thanks to the large media conglomerates. (For someone that's spending so much time railing against corporations, Mark seems to spend a lot of time not talking about how the major film and music studios have pressured Congress to extend copyright terms 11 times since the original 1790 copyright act.)

"Fourth of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act requires a token payment of $1 every 10 years, ONCE THE COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT ALREADY FOR FIFTY YEARS. That means, the first 50 years of copyright are still free, even under the proposed Act.

"Fifth of all, Mark is wrong about current registration requirements. In order to file ANY copyright infringement suit, not just one for statutory damages, you have to register the work with the copyright office. Statutory damages can only be claimed if the registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work. All this information is easily available from the Copyright Office's Web site (www.copyright.gov/circ····.html#c) so there's no reason for him to get it wrong.

"Sixth of all, I'm very interested to learn how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes Bill Gates money, since Mark claims that Bill Gates doesn't "do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money". I'm even more interested as to how Mark thinks that Bill Gates stepping down as chairman of Microsoft to move into philanthropy will make him more money than continuing to run the largest software company on earth.

"Finally, the most important thing. The point of orphan works laws, which is COMPLETELY missed by this three page comedy of errors, is NOT to make it possible for people or corporations to steal your work. In fact, most of the orphan works legislation has been pioneered by people such as Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred -- people that are TIRED of big corporations continuing to steal from the public domain by pushing forward copyright term limits. The point of orphaned works laws is to make it possible for people to use works whose owners cannot be found, thereby preventing these works from fading into oblivion and creating a new surge of creativity built on these freely available works.

"Under the current system, even if someone is willing to pay for license to use a work, if they can't find the original copyright holder, they can't risk using the work in case the original copyright holder or a heir surfaces later and sues them.

"With the proposed US orphan works law, after 50 years, if the copyright holder does not pay the $1 tax to continue their copyright ownership, the work enters the public domain. How fifty years of exclusive rights is not enough for Mark, I don't know. It's still FAR more than the original 28-year term set back in 1790, and still FAR more than is needed to make money on a work. Any potential legislation that works to reduce copyright terms is a VERY GOOD THING for all creatives today.

"Hey, it even means that once Corbis's library enters the public domain, you won't need to pay them to get copies anymore."