What I would like to know is how you got all that from this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5439: Which is the ACTUAL Legislation and says absolutely nothing even remotely close to what it posted here in this article.

THIS IS HORRIBLE! HOW COULD THOSE SCUMMY PEOPLE DO THIS TO US ARTISTS?! THIS MUST BE STOPPED! THIS IS UNETHICAL OF THE LARGEST MAGNITUDE! THIS I CREWL AND IT MUST BE STOPPED? HOW CAN OTHER PEOPLE JUST IGNORE THIS? ARTISTS DESERVE THEIR FREE ABILITY TO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS! THOSE SCUMMY PARACITES MUST PAY FOR THIS! SOMBODY DO SOMTHING! WE NEED TO STOP THESE HORRID PEOPLE!!

This is outrageous, and yet another example of our so called democracy, gradually eroding away our freedoms. It is already enormously difficult for artists to keep afloat, and this can only lead to many of us just packing it all in. On a lighter note, if this bill comes in, will we be able to reproduce the dollar?

Thank you for everyone who is sending me e-mails about this. Your support is FANTASTIC! I've added more information on what you can do to help on the audio interview page I've set up, http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html. Please also make comments here so others can know they are not alone in their anger in wanting to defeat this Orphan Works bill. We can win this together! Thanks. Mark Simon marksimonbooks@yahoo.com

Wow, I’m completely disgusted. I am an artist, and a poor one at that. There is no possible way that I could register all my art. All my ideas, stories creativity. The big companies are trying to reach their greedy overpaid hands and steal the very creations from my head, my hand, and my heart. If this is not a crime, then I truly don’t know what is. Again its whoever has the biggest pocket book wins, it not a matter of the “Right thing any more.” And that’s what scares me the worst….This will be disastrous if its passed.

if this bill is passed, what effect will it have for the rest of the world? could an American company steal my works as well if i were to post them on the internet? am i still protected by international law?

this pisses me off!! that is the biggest load of bull that has ever been done! how. the.hell can THAT be legalized...the'd better not..jackasses. if they do that then they might as well legalize identity theft. videos and pictures are art too right? that just gives people the right to go into others homes and copy their personal pictures and home videos (like cosplays and such) and then do whatever the hell with it! it's not right! and with art..actual art... if someone draws something then it is natrally theirs!!! tck! orphan art?! that is the biggest crap ever! the only wy they should ever call something orhan art is when the artist dies if that is how they label children as orphans...then our art. our babies. our hard work, cannot, will not, and shall not be labelled 'orphans' until we are damn well dead and rotting in the grave! whoever is stupid enough to pass this bill, youre a complete smush brained jackass. to the smush brained jackass- maybie we should take your photos and put them into something like a porno magaine... how would you like that!? after all...the art won't be yours now would it?...jackasses with lots of sarcastic love - someone that hates you stupid ass something really needs to be done...a petition...protest?...WAR! somthing (war sound good...paint brushes vs calculators)

Hey this whole fiasco has made me livid. now, i'm in Australia and i want to know what i can do from here tostop this "legislation" before it turns into what can onl be called highway robbery! i want to do my part!

To whom it may concern, I don't want to sound angry, but I find it hard to not be offended. First of all, the writer of this article skirts around what current copyright laws we have in place. Current copyright laws state that while we do have protection when a work is created, "You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work." (see: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register). In other words, your works are your own, but if a big-name company decides to take your work... good luck getting it back. The only way a big name company is going to listen to you is through lawsuits, and if you're not registered, this poses a problem. Second: the creator of this article failed to do a substantial amount of research and instead decided to go into hysterics. You do not register a copyright through a private corperation. You literally put all of your stuff into an envelope, fill out a form, give $30 to the government and mail it off to the Library of Congress. Unless you pay for a middle man, you don't have to go to anyone to get your stuff registered. Third: The creator of this article spent a small paragraph on what the Orphan Law is actually about. A quick glance at Wikipedia will tell you that this law is about the problem people have been running into regarding actual orphaned works (an example of this is abandonware). Nobody claims them because the owners are missing, and so they just become this sort of untouchable piece. Not to mention, on a different note, that the Orphan Law was brought up in 2003 and was not passed. It has been brought up again because apparently people have been running into the same orphaned works problem. Fourth: The sheer amount of bias is incredible. Just because Corbis happens to be run by Bill Gates does not mean that it is a terrible corperation. It is a photo website and a great reference resource for artists. It is not some sort of inexpensive thievery den. Corbis has actual run into current problems with the copyright law where their own works have been stolen and, because of lack of registration, they have been able to do nothing about it. I would probably not be so upset about the content of this article had it not spread around half of the internet and caused people to be in an uproar. It sounds (and I may be wrong) as if the creator of this article merely heard by word of mouth and decided to freak out. If I am wrong about some of my points, I would appreciate at the very least that the writer went into more detail of why the government decided to pass a bill such as this, rather than give such a biased response. Thank you, Emiley Flowers

As both someone that is aware of the current issues surrounding copyright law in general, and orphaned works specifically, I don't know where to start with this error-riddled article. First of all, Mark's definition of orphan works is wrong. An orphan work is a creative work where the original copyright owner cannot be located or identified. What he is describing as "orphan works" is, in actuality, the public domain. (Though, improper registration only applies to works from before when the Berne Convention was ratified.) (See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Orphan_works) Second of all, there is no current legislation before congress regarding orphan works. The Public Domain Enhancement Act was the last bit of legislation regarding copyright and orphan works reform, and died after being referred to committee in 2006. You can confirm this yourself by searching for "orphan works" at the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/110search.html). Third of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act doesn't legalise theft any more than copyright expiration legalises theft. Copyright is supposed to be a short, fixed term exclusive right that encourages the production of new creative works. Copyright was not intended to allow Disney to continue to make money on cartoons created 3 generations ago, or for John Lennon's wife to get rich off her dead husband's estate, but that's how it is today thanks to the large media conglomerates. (For someone that's spending so much time railing against corporations, Mark seems to spend a lot of time not talking about how the major film and music studios have pressured Congress to extend copyright terms 11 times since the original 1790 copyright act.) Fourth of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act requires a token payment of $1 every 10 years, ONCE THE COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT ALREADY FOR FIFTY YEARS. That means, the first 50 years of copyright are still free, even under the proposed Act. Fifth of all, Mark is wrong about current registration requirements. In order to file ANY copyright infringement suit, not just one for statutory damages, you have to register the work with the copyright office. Statutory damages can only be claimed if the registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work. All this information is easily available from the Copyright Office's Web site (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr) so there's no reason for him to get it wrong. Sixth of all, I'm very interested to learn how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes Bill Gates money, since Mark claims that Bill Gates doesn't "do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money". I'm even more interested as to how Mark thinks that Bill Gates stepping down as chairman of Microsoft to move into philanthropy will make him more money than continuing to run the largest software company on earth. Finally, the most important thing. The point of orphan works laws, which is COMPLETELY missed by this three page comedy of errors, is NOT to make it possible for people or corporations to steal your work. In fact, most of the orphan works legislation has been pioneered by people such as Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred -- people that are TIRED of big corporations continuing to steal from the public domain by pushing forward copyright term limits. The point of orphaned works laws is to make it possible for people to use works whose owners cannot be found, thereby preventing these works from fading into oblivion and creating a new surge of creativity built on these freely available works. Under the current system, even if someone is willing to pay for license to use a work, if they can't find the original copyright holder, they can't risk using the work in case the original copyright holder or a heir surfaces later and sues them. With the proposed US orphan works law, after 50 years, if the copyright holder does not pay the $1 tax to continue their copyright ownership, the work enters the public domain. How fifty years of exclusive rights is not enough for Mark, I don't know. It's still FAR more than the original 28-year term set back in 1790, and still FAR more than is needed to make money on a work. Any potential legislation that works to reduce copyright terms is a VERY GOOD THING for all creatives today. Hey, it even means that once Corbis's library enters the public domain, you won't need to pay them to get copies anymore. Regards,