This is a Joke?

--
Noticias del dA en tu idioma en: noticias.deviantart.com

FAQ #687: What is news and what is not news?
and FAQ #711: Can I remove or edit a news article I have submitted?

--

I hope you're kidding. Go read [link] please.

--
friction.fotografie | da prints | etsy prints

no this is real! i am serious

--
album now on sale info in journal
SITE [link]
*webgraphix
~DesignersJunior
*ProjectEarth
~artalliance
*DesignPot
=DA-Networking
~logotypes-club
~Club-Vector
~Happy-Flasher
~piano-society

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

--
album now on sale info in journal
SITE [link]
*webgraphix
~DesignersJunior
*ProjectEarth
~artalliance
*DesignPot
=DA-Networking
~logotypes-club
~Club-Vector
~Happy-Flasher
~piano-society

if this law is passed my parents will have to pay 10's of thousands of dollars alone copyrighting family photos

--
album now on sale info in journal
SITE [link]
*webgraphix
~DesignersJunior
*ProjectEarth
~artalliance
*DesignPot
=DA-Networking
~logotypes-club
~Club-Vector
~Happy-Flasher
~piano-society

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.

--
friction.fotografie | da prints | etsy prints

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.

--
A better browser for Free

You don't truly understand something until you successfully teach it to someone else.

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.

--
... in my pantaloons.

I WANT DRAGON HOLIDAYS :U