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

Shocking.

[NeutronCowboy]

Random Youtube video found to be distorting facts and be less than insightful. I never saw THAT coming.

Re:Shocking.

[Jason Levine]

It's almost like you can't get your information from random strangers based totally on your friends/family saying "Hey did you hear about this" anymore.

Next, you're going to tell me that Bill Gates really doesn't enter me in the International Lottery every time I forward cat videos to Nigerian Princes. (Hey, those guys keep dying. If anyone needs mindless entertainment, it's them!)

Re:Shocking.

[ArmoredDragon]

You seriously think the Republicans will reform copyright if they get in office? If they do, it'll be in favour of their corporate overlords, and We The People will git shafted even more.

I think they're a little more likely to. Freshwater economists (who the Republicans favor) are generally against long copyrights and protectionism/mercantilism of any form (Milton Friedman was one among several who signed a letter urging congress to vote against the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, saying that it's a "no brainer" that it shouldn't be passed.)

Keynesian (aka salt water) economists, which Democrats often favor, tend to like that kind of thing however, along with other protectionist measures (e.g. tariffs, "make work" projects, and the like.) Also, the Democrats are basically owned by Hollywood.

Re:Shocking.

[The Real Dr John]

I meant corporations are pulling the strings in both parties. The corporations are pretty much in control now, just ask any politician who is grubbing for money on Wall Street. I see virtually no difference between the two major parties at this point. They spout different red meat rhetoric, but they bow to the same master.

Re:that's a shame

[ScentCone]

If you don't register a work you can never receive monetary damages from infringers, only an injunction.

No. If you don't have the work registered, you can only go for the injunction, and for your customary rates/invoicing on the work in question. What having the work registered does is allow you to take the infringement case to federal court, and to seek punitive damages.

Re:The next great copyright scam

[suutar]

but if it doesn't make that back in 14 years, is it ever going to?

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.

Are we reading the same US code?

[Xenographic]

No, if you haven't registered the work, you're only able to get actual damages (which is something like your 'customary rates' but it depends on what you can prove) rather than statutory damages and attorney's fees. Actual damages are close to what you said, but statutory damages are not "punitive" damages at all.

But don't take my word for it, read the actual law on the subject.

Oh, and it so happens that you can register just before filing suit, but a registration that isn't timely doesn't have the same presumption of validity that it would if you were registering long before there was a lawsuit close on the horizon.

Re:The next great copyright scam

[davester666]

Some francise-oriented work goes on for 14 years. Not a lot.

And they aren't going "well, this first one bombed, but we'll go ahead with the other 6 anyway".

The first one makes a jillion, then they go ahead with #2. And sometimes, if #1 is a really huge hit, they'll go ahead and film #2 & #3 at the same time, particularly to make the movies cheaper and retain the characters at the same age. If #1 bombs, the rest don't ever see the light of day.

The VAST majority of the money received for 99.99% of all movies are received in the first couple of years after the movie is released.

Past that, for movies, music and books, it's a lottery ticket. Every once in awhile, it winds up being popular for longer than that, or it comes back into vogue. Basically a fluke.

Nobody OK's a movie based on the financial returns of a 90 year copyright term. They go ahead if it projects to making a good profit inside a couple of years. After that, it's straightup gravy.