This is so not okay.
If any of you ever spot my artwork up for sale like this, please do me a solid and let me know.
Personally I’d be fine with people using my work to make money, especially if they give credit. But many artists don’t, and that should be respected.
Yeah im pretty much a puddle at this point in the posting, so enjoy the double ended dildos :D -Neko
Like a picture? want to know about it? all pictures are kept here! https://e621.net/user/show/119288 Favourites are added every time a post is made by Neko! under the tag on tumblr LFBneko
Remind me to find more of this kind of thing.
(#2: RULES VIOLATION. Bondage. Speaking of which: How are they going to get down from there?)
Strap-ons are great when the harness holds up hehe -Neko
Like a picture? want to know about it? all pictures are kept here! https://e621.net/user/show/119288 Favourites are added every time a post is made by Neko! under the tag on tumblr LFBneko
Awesome!
I read over that list and it sounds like barely anything, if anything, is changing. It sounds another control freak artist trying to put a scary spin on this because Heaven forbid art be anything other than a means to get them and them alone fame and fortune.
An “orphan work” is “a copyright protected work for which rightsholders are positively indeterminate or uncontactable”. According to what I’m reading about this new law, under the current law “anyone using an orphan work runs the risk that the copyright owner may step forward and bring an infringement action for substantial damages, attorneys’ fees, and/or injuctive relief unless specific exception or limitation to copyright applies”. Even if you acted in “good faith” (i.e., made an attempt to contact the copyright holder), the copyright holder could just pop up years later and sue you if it’s not officially in the public domain yet.
Or, y’know, your YouTube video might get DMCA’d by a copyright patrol bot.
Because people can get sued/DMCA’d/C&D’d/etc. just for using a thing that’s been “orphaned”, orphan works are problematic. For example, take public libraries. There are all these old books, anyone can read them for free. But if someone owning an orphan work pops up and demands that their book not be available for free in libraries, then there’s complications.
The original post is full deliberate cherry-picking and convenient half-truths. The only people who really benefit from orphan works are corporations. Take a look at how video game companies are reselling old games on the digital market. If the Orphan Works Act had been passed years earlier, all those games might very well be subject to public domain. Of course, as SOPA and ACTA proved, everyone hates copyright laws when they clearly benefit Big Business, so corporations spread this idea that “artists” are the ones that lose out here. Tumblr’s full of gullible control freaks, so naturally they took the bait.
From Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Copyright holders do not have absolute control over their works (all you fan artists would get C&D’d left and right if that were true) and they do not get to hold on to their copyright forever. The only thing the Orphan Works Act actually does is put a tighter restriction on how long you can abandon a work before it goes into the public domain.
I recommend everyone read this thing here about orphan works, specifically “Consquences of Orphan Works”.
I have some issues with this:
1. All articles about this issue come from one source. And it isn’t in any way NYT, but “Journal of Biocommunication”. Whatever biology has to do with copyright for artists - I have no clue.
2. “The Next Great Copyright Act” is not a name of the bill, neither official or used by media. In fact, it’s a title of a lecture given by Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante. Not a bill, a lecture.
3. This text is full of emotionally charged vocabulary. Putting words like “privilege” or “pressure”, or making sweeping claims about a bill that doesn’t even exist doesn’t make it a viable source.
4. This works both ways. CGP Grey explained it well - remix is not an infringement. And change which would make any form of fair use banned will hurt people like you most. After all, if not laws we have we could be talking about Star Wars remakes made out of art that is in public domain, or: for all of us.
5. Unregistered work is orphaned anyway. Orphaned in this case means that one is unable to find copyright information regarding such piece.
6. This law can’t replace all copyright laws there are, because NO SUCH LAW EXISTS!
In fact, there is a site which has all the information about copyright law review: http://copyright.gov/laws/hearings/
All of that is at the moment a fear-mongering campaign to scare artists into a law which will hurt everyone: from old artists to new artists to public. Fair use, because that’s what apparently fuss is about, allows people to create stuff without worrying about being sued. And now apparently that is something bad.
And a tip: if you don’t want your art to be used in wrong ways, mark under which license the piece is.
How do ya like ‘em c:?
So yummy
The more boobs the better amirite?????
-Meadow
Nice view.