There Is No "Next Great Copyright Act", Remain Calm

Lirodon writes: A YouTube video has gone viral, particularly around the art community (and the subsection of the art community populated by the same type of people who tend to spread these around to begin with), making bold claims that a revision to U.S. copyright law is being considered, with a particular focus on orphan works. Among other things, this video claims that it would require all works to be registered with a for-profit registry to be protected, that unregistered works would be "orphaned" and be usable by "good faith infringers" and allow others to make derivative works that they would own entirely. Thankfully, this is all just hyperbole proliferated by a misinterpretation of a report on orphan works by the U.S. Copyright Office, as Graphic Policy explains.

Comments

Re:Copyright needs reform

[Jason Levine]

How about back down to what they were originally in this country: 14 years with an optional 14 year extension that you had to specifically file for.

If I were able to reshape copyright law myself, I'd do three things:

1) All new works are copyrighted for 14 years plus a one-time 14 year extension that you must file for.

2) All non-commercial infringing (i.e. no profit motive - and, no, ads don't count) would carry a penalty of $100 times the market value of the work. For example, get caught distributing 500 MP3s? Your fine would be around $50,000 (500 * $1). Still high, but not "bankrupt you for life" high.

3) All existing copyrights would phase out gradually. (This would be a concession to businesses.) Starting with the oldest material, five years' worth of material would enter the public domain every year until all material was under the new copyright length. This should give companies plenty of time to plan for the public domain.