it's a real bill, but I agree that it's not that much to fuss about, but it does mean that once you or i reach a level when people want to use our work, they can if there is no contact or copyright on it. It also means if the artist is dead and the new copywrite holders aren't established- products deisgners cna use that peice of art without opermission.

This affects photographers mainly and very effective artists. It's doesn't mean that people can just use anyone's art, but it does make it easier for companies to use images without permission.

I still dislike the bill because it doesn't benefit artists and it means artists have to spend longer keeping every where they keep their art up to date and will correct contacts and watermarked etc.
True it's not a big issue, but it just doesn't benefit artists and it's going backwards somewhat. It was only in the 80's that we were able to upload art and have no fear of it being stolen.

For me- I only have to worry about my wallpapers I've designed for people and my photos since they're the only things I have seen people saving and wanting to use before. But once I start becoming more professional (which may even start next year!), I'll have to make sure everything has a copyright or contact on everything. I'll have to double check to see if I myself have to actually buy a copyright licence on my work.

--
/ \
\
\ / |-|Ad0\/\/ .EXE ...Data not found

I just don't like the whole "BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES, THEY'RE COMING TO STEAL YOUR ARTWORK WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!" sort of thing. And people getting all worked up thinking they shouldn't and couldn't post anything because they think someone can take it and use it for almost any purpose without their consent.

And the whole "OMG ITS MAKIN ART THEFT COMPLETELY LEGAL!!!!11!" from under informed people, thinking that this guy who has written a similarly under informed three page essay of sorts on the bill is somehow the authority on the subject.

I do agree with you that the bill itself does seem to have been made in favour of the infringer, not the person whose copyright has been infringed.

I suppose if the more professional artists out there are careful about taking out copyright licenses on their work they should be able to take legal action against anyone who uses it without permission. As I said before, I just really didn't like the fact that there was such a humongous outcry and panic over some article someone had written. :/


By the way, the only bill I've seen is the 2006 American one, so I'm not sure how it would effect us in Britain and Europe.


Oh and thanks for replying to the journal

--
"Three blokes go into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability."
~Bill Bailey

true, it's not the end for art it's just more of an insult and its there to cause more legal battles. It just makes life a pain for artists and lazy companies and graphic designers the rights to just use images they think is orphaned. and yes, this bill is gong to be in effect in Britain as far as I know.

it just sucks. I don't think it's the end of the owrld, it's just that people ened to be aware of it. people like me going into the businesses of animation espcially needs to know it.

--
/ \
\
\ / |-|Ad0\/\/ .EXE ...Data not found

oh no's i hope you feel better soon!!!
> i agree that the mark simon dude is full of BS ....so much i can smell him from here...and thats saying alot especially since i lost my sence of smell years ago!!!

--
Beautiful music may calm the savage beast....but so can a quick brick to the head
--
\\|// "love and peace"
^_^.