Want to keep your work people of the United States? Would you be able to pay for your stuff so it would be protected. Please, read this so you really know what is going on.
El payaso, lolly, deja su puesto de Director de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, para convertirse en un deviant más, dejando a la comunidad sin un gran director y unos zapatos muy grandes que llenar.
Against state law, Alaska state officials gunned down 14 wolf pups after shooting their mothers. Please read the story below and if you want, I supplied links on how to help.
Want to keep your work people of the United States? Would you be able to pay for your stuff so it would be protected. Please, read this so you really know what is going on.
Yes that is right because of orphan works artists are screwed. i did the math and here is the answer
DEVIANTART= 54,439,300 deviantations (pieces of art)
BILL GATES= COPYRIGHT REGISTRIES= $5 PER PIECE OF ART
3 REGESTRIES= $5X 3 REGISTRIES=15$
so deviantart has about 55 million deviations if you do the math it will cost anywhere from 800-825 million bucks to copyright everything on deviantart.
DO YOU HAVE 825 MILLION DOLLARS.
WELL I GUESS YOU BETTER ASK YOUR PARENTS FOR MORE ALLOWANCE!
i read that stuff i have the actual 200 page report from the government and the mark simon stuff i know. this is serious and it would really cost that much to copyright all of the art on deviant art with just 3 registries. if this law is passed my parents will have to pay 10's of thousands of dollars alone copyrighting family photos
If you really think it would be necessary to pay to copyright all of the artwork on deviantART and all of your family photos, then you either did not read, or did not understand the link that I gave you.
Let's assume that the orphan works bill is the real deal. And they require registration of artwork, and say its set at even 10 cents per piece, thats still 5.5 million dollars to copyright all that, and thats with only 1 registry. multiply that per registry. It can get quite expensive.
and i've seen that link dozens of times. And i've read it. I've also read several articles and listened (in full) to the webcast interview by Mark Simon with Brad Holland.
The only short fall if it is that the artists doesn't give the grit of the bill, or rather the shady part of it. Such as the reasonable search, of which is in the bill, isn't defined clearly. There are several shady spots like this throughout the bill that need absolute clarification otherwise, if approved, then all artwork that wasn't properly registered (and only big name people could do that to the fullest extent) would be in jeopardy.
Are you not getting that the bill, the one everyone and those interviewees are talking about, was killed in 2006? And that it only applies to works that have no original creator? That are essentially, and for all intents and purposes, without ownership. The more recent legislation, and the previous bill, pertain only to works that nobody can legally use because the original artist cannot by contacted in any way shape or form. It opens the art up for others to use. Should the original artist somehow appear, they can stop any and all use of said works. If the work were used for non-profit, they must simply cease use, the artist regains ownership and the work is no longer labeled as an Orphan Work. If the work is used for commercial gain and the artist appears, they must stop use of the work and the artist may be entitled to money. That's how the bill works. You do not have to register anything, so long as you're not a shut-in hermit that hides from society in the middle of the woods. And the argument that they can steal your work doesn't change the fact that anyone can steal your work right now. It doesn't change a thing in that regard.
Feature of weekly favorites found by me as well as treasures from my thumbshare! [link] Share your digital art thumbs! Visit this forum thread now and please help by passing on this link in your own journals! [link]
Now it's time for August 2008 Visual Art Features, many new art to discover!
Don't forget that many artists need to be viewed, they deserve it! Fave Fave Fave! My main purpose in doing a monthly feature about (to my point of view) 'the best visual art' is to put in the same level as well wellknown artists and popular creations as unknown artists and under-exposed creations. Artists need to be supported. So don't be shy!
Here's the Menu per Category :
Digital Paintings & Drawings | Mixed Media | PhotoManipulations | 3-Dimensional | Vector & Vexels | Photography | Traditional Paintings & Drawings | Artisan Crafts
With a gallery that takes you on a journey into another world, `spyroteknik has firmly secured a place as one of the top artists within our community. Always willing to participate in events as well as providing critique and guidance to members in such a humble yet inspiring manner is a quality which deserves recognition. So it's with great pleasure that we award this month's Deviousness to Martin Bland. Read More
Devious Comments
--
Inscribete a =noticias y permanece actualizado de las noticias del mundo hispano en dA
and FAQ #711: Can I remove or edit a news article I have submitted?
--
--
friction.fotografie | da prints | etsy prints
--
i support the WTF project
"Calgar C" on itunes
SITE [link]
*webgraphix
*DesignersJunior
*ProjectEarth
~artalliance
*DesignPot
*DA-Networking
~logotypes-club
*Club-Vector
*Happy-Flasher
--
i support the WTF project
"Calgar C" on itunes
SITE [link]
*webgraphix
*DesignersJunior
*ProjectEarth
~artalliance
*DesignPot
*DA-Networking
~logotypes-club
*Club-Vector
*Happy-Flasher
--
i support the WTF project
"Calgar C" on itunes
SITE [link]
*webgraphix
*DesignersJunior
*ProjectEarth
~artalliance
*DesignPot
*DA-Networking
~logotypes-club
*Club-Vector
*Happy-Flasher
--
friction.fotografie | da prints | etsy prints
and i've seen that link dozens of times. And i've read it. I've also read several articles and listened (in full) to the webcast interview by Mark Simon with Brad Holland.
The only short fall if it is that the artists doesn't give the grit of the bill, or rather the shady part of it. Such as the reasonable search, of which is in the bill, isn't defined clearly. There are several shady spots like this throughout the bill that need absolute clarification otherwise, if approved, then all artwork that wasn't properly registered (and only big name people could do that to the fullest extent) would be in jeopardy.
--
A better browser for Free
You don't truly understand something until you successfully teach it to someone else.
The more recent legislation, and the previous bill, pertain only to works that nobody can legally use because the original artist cannot by contacted in any way shape or form. It opens the art up for others to use. Should the original artist somehow appear, they can stop any and all use of said works. If the work were used for non-profit, they must simply cease use, the artist regains ownership and the work is no longer labeled as an Orphan Work. If the work is used for commercial gain and the artist appears, they must stop use of the work and the artist may be entitled to money.
That's how the bill works.
You do not have to register anything, so long as you're not a shut-in hermit that hides from society in the middle of the woods. And the argument that they can steal your work doesn't change the fact that anyone can steal your work right now. It doesn't change a thing in that regard.
--
... in my pantaloons.
I WANT DRAGON HOLIDAYS :U
Previous Page12 Next Page