The Orphan Works Bill isn't against artists who want to protect their work. However it does allow art which has no known originator to be used publicly. Why would an artist not sign his work?
Maybe the art was created before copyright laws were ever considered. Historic art has many evidences of this.
Maybe the art was confiscated or the artist's name removed. Human's are cruel creatures, especially to each other.
Maybe the artist just can't be reached. To think that our American reach is so vast that we can track a starving artist in some small town in a country whose name most of us couldn't even pronounce, just to ask permission to use their work is not only ignorant, it's egotistic.

Should we allow art with no known originator to vanish in obscurity? Who will safeguard the ancient Greeks' art for the next generation to appreciate? Is a frightened child's Holocaust journal writings not worthy of publishing because she didn't ask her ruthless captors to guarantee her artist's rights before they tore her body apart? I fully understand dA is a website smeared with the stink of popularity. You, who sign petitions and follow the droning of the mass collective, will you denounce the public use of art strictly because the artist is unknown? You, who put an obscene price on artwork strictly due to that artist's name, are you not propagating biased standards? And you, who raise your voice loudest against art theft, are you not the primary emulators of the current trend of popular artists, content in your style as it stagnates in the world of constantly changing art?

Is not the very nature of Art freedom of expression? Does not this Bill give strength to the aesthetics of the artist by letting it free for everyone to view?

Here's the link to the 2005 orphan works bill: [link] Some of you wouldn't understand any of the bills, 2005, 2006 or 2008, unless someone else told you what your thoughts were on it.

The copyright law of 1976 clearly states that you don't have to formally register your work:
Today, copyright subsists the moment an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible form--it need not be registered with the Copyright Office or published with notice to obtain protection. While registration of claims to copyright with the Copyright Office is encouraged and provides important benefits to copyright holders, it is not required as a condition to copyright protection.

Still, put your signature or copyright on your works before you upload it. All the cool artists are doing it! _yeah!
A simple watermark or signature is sufficient to show ownership. dA is pretty good about putting multiple proof of registration (time stamp, watermark and copyright). Artists, when you create work on your computer, it puts time stamps AND user information on those pictures and stories. If you upload them onto dA, it puts another time stamp, copyright and artist's name. And yes, for you conspiracy theorists, your mommy and daddy, the government and ALF are using all that information to keep dibs on you!

Member of :
, , , , , , ,