orphan works law controversy

April 16, 2008

current law protects a piece of art as soon as you create it. it is yours, and if anyone else wants to use it, they must do so with your permission. generally, if you paint a picture and someone puts it on a t-shirt, book, magazine, etc. to sell, they need to credit you and pay you (or create a mutual agreement). you own your piece, unless you sign a document that says otherwise.

however…in what appears to be its current form, this “orphan works” bill allows a “pass” for someone to publish (and exploit to financial gain) a visual work created by another artist without crediting or paying that artist for their work, as long as they have done their best to search out the original creator. they’re saying, “if you can’t find the creator, then the art is an ‘orphan’ and you can do what you like with it.” it seems to be a slight twist on the law that favors the publisher (or bootlegger), not the artist.

the law apparently puts emphasis on registering every work with the US copyright office, which to some may be a costly and time consuming process.

not sure what i think…what do you think?

here is an interview with (amazing artist) brad holland about it:


more documentation about the different phases in the evolution of the bill:






  1. ArielCahen on April 24, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    It’s kinda abusive – probably just to force people to pay and register their stuff on copyright. Plus, it would stimulate and legitimate plagiarism.
    And, I’m not sure, but i think there is a copyright law that turns ‘everything copyright’ into ‘public domain’ after 20 years or so. Isn’t it enough?

  2. SimplyMode on April 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Personally I think that is some messed up shizz. Probably this bill will pass which sucks!!. I mean its basically like writing a song and someone else sings it and to make things worse that song becomes like a major hit.. Nahh I dont think its right or fair to be honest. An this “search” for who ever the artist maybe who makes sure its done “properly” I dont know. I know my arguments weak but come on…

  3. Fishgoingwest on April 23, 2008 at 7:14 am

    I think maybe adding a self logo on the illustrations can be a way to protect your rights.So that all the people who want to use your designs can know your name or allia.

  4. navee on April 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    its fair… i mean you kickyourself making that art from you own brain!! and is fucked up if someone else gets the credit… unless u wanted so i got my art and i started to work with a local clothingline i dont get the money cuz i didnt wanted to as long as i see that tshirt in the city is good for me when we get as bigger like DC, VOLCOM, or FAMOUS than i want my check!

    but bills are always fucked up… i think this is more about respect and admire someone elses art i wouldnt use some elses design for my convenience cuz is his but sometimes people doesnt get that pfff…it shouldnt be on the goberment hands this is more and artist issue…

  5. YourConscience on April 21, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Must… Resist… Commenting…

    (falls sideways out of bed and onto floor in overdramatic fainting motion)

  6. lynndarwinharris on April 21, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    “reasonable search”? How do they define a reasonable search? Give me a break!!! This is a bunch of bulls#*t!!!!

  7. Ezza on April 21, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    dude that bill is fucked up! big buisness geting in the ear of government again! we all know that they wont try to find the original artist that would eat too much of their presious profit or ceo bonus….that makes my blood boil..u dont have to worry too much because of who u are mike but me and all the other ppl round the world that paint for a hobbie and pocket money,we dont have the money to fight some mutinational for the rights and finacial benifit for our work, protect the little ppl!!!!

  8. TaylorKenjiLP on April 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    wow, so is america getting cheaper or lazier? if the artist created the art, why should they be the ones that have to go through the legal hassle afterwards? that makes no sense. were too cheap to pay for it, and were too lazy to come up with anything else, so you just do a insignificant little search and your good? dont agree, dont agree……….

  9. asianotter on April 21, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    i am sorry i think this is bulls#*t! to think that someone who claims the conducted a “reasonable search” would be able to use something that someone created is friggin’ insanity!

  10. cuz on April 21, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    hmmm i’m not ure… but it doesn’t look good. who will decide that the search was good enough? it seems to me very unfair. no, i don’t like that bill :/

  11. nillp on April 21, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    today i saw all those links and my opinion is still the same.. this orphan works law thing, SUCKS!

  12. outlawserenade on April 21, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    While I’m at it, why not look for solutions instead of stabbing the lawmakers? My solution is to embed my e-mail to every work I made. And when I say embed, I don’t mean just a box on the corner where it can be cropped out. I mean through the artwork. You in particular have a legal copyright establishment, thus an embedded ms.com would be more than enough to find you. The rest of y’all kids, make some creative ways to embed your contact while making it artful.

  13. outlawserenade on April 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    sorry for the multiples. Coherent answer/argument can never go under 700 characters.. :p

  14. outlawserenade on April 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Rules on what constitutes a “reasonable search” for a copyright holder would be laid down, for which proof must be provided before a piece of work is deemed Orphan Work.
    If a piece of work, deemed orphan work, is used, and then the original copyright holder appears and asks for it to be taken down, the user would be obliged.
    The original copyright holder never loses copyright or control over their work.

    If you can’t read it, make a deviantart account, add me as friend, and.. *cough

  15. outlawserenade on April 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    this news article completed with the reply from James Boyle, the creator of the bill, and its progress so far. I believe this is the most comprehensive and detailed answer there is. As the article said, the must register to have rights is currently and constantly denied. The article, and answers from Boyle, summarizes as follows:

    Registering material for copyright will not be mandatory.
    This bill wouldn’t even apply to recent works, but would specify types and ages.

  16. outlawserenade on April 21, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    deviantArt was brimming to the high heavens with this a week ago.. the mass hysteria effect a biased blog brought out was.. hysterical, for lack of better comparison that is not a cussword. Your comprehension on the article is quite right, though. Although your perception on the orphan part is a tad biased.

    News article on the matter

  17. Carla on April 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    The comment posted by outlawserenade is EXACTLY what I’m talking about, regarding the “freaking out” part. I swear, all the journals I read by the members I watch on deviantART were all about it.

  18. LorenzoErr on April 21, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    This is very strange. I know the copyright process and its lengthy and costly, a large expense for any up and coming artist. I am not sure what the chance of this being past is, it would certainly be hypocritical of the government to pass this, we have all seen the ad campaigns for piracy they run. I would suggest that if you are an artist get yourself a website, a dot com preferably, and keep a pro-folio of your art on there, it isn’t illegal to place a copyright mark on your site for your work, a Trade-Mark yes but not a Copyright. Just be smart and lest all hope this bill goes away and gets vetoed.

  19. Carla on April 21, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Mike, I’m very glad it was brought to your attention as well as everybody else now. My friends and I have been discussing it for about 2 weeks or so and the basic verdict always turned out: it’s crap. Alright, I’m an artist as well and I’m very pissed at this bill. I’ve signed a couple of petitions against it and maybe you should too. (seeing as the whole internet art community freaked out that one day after we heard of it) If this is passed, then our art isn’t safe. Hopefully it is NOT passed and other countries don’t consider it. I mean…please, I have enough trouble with random art thieft when I post my works online, the government shouldn’t make it even harder for me!

  20. Madlen on April 21, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    this can be described in one word for me:stealing!this whole thing stinks and someone should really do something against this bill….making money on someone else’s back is very easy and also so illegal

  21. rockermeg on April 21, 2008 at 10:59 am

    That’s a load of crap! Just because you can’t find the original artist doesn’t mean it doesn’t have one and it doesn’t mean they won’t be pissed when you use it without their permission!

    And if they’re dead then they can’t give permission and stealing it from them is hardly considerate…YOU’RE STEALING FROM A DEAD GUY!!!

    I don’t think you’ll have much trouble with this though Mike ’cause I think they’ll know who you are if they’ve seen your work because on the internet it always says your name or ‘Fort Minor’ next to it and I don’t know where else you can see your stuff apart from the internet or in your art shows.


  22. Y_ on April 21, 2008 at 10:27 am

    thought the controversy was about years ago..but it’s getting back? so, if the bill were passed…u have to pay $ and register even for doodles on M&G tables to protest them, but if u find someone using them, u have to prove and…..ok, too many things to prove…i listened to the mp3, and found interesting names..(i’m gonna check them later…) anyway, any artwork should be protected, but at the same time artists should be artists. (if the bill were passed, how can artists who don have enough $ protect their works?)
    so..where $$$ goes is….

  23. Yuki on April 21, 2008 at 10:26 am

    “if you can’t find the creator, then the art is an ‘orphan’ and you can do what you like with it.” thats sounds like the german impression ‘wer’s findet, dem gehoerts.’ sounds like crap. soooo always use this copyright thingy.
    that really sucks..u might lose a million if u dont make it copyright-protected. which moron came up with this anyway?
    always protect ur art mike! i dont want anyone else to take it since i really adore ur art!

  24. AjsToOtEa on April 21, 2008 at 10:16 am

    Hey Mike, I wanted to ask are you going to Lithuania? in our country are some information about your concert there. 🙂 some time ago I said that my dream is to sea you alive.if it;s real information, my dream will come true. 🙂

  25. KATHYxx on April 21, 2008 at 9:32 am

    my verdict: shoot this crap law down.

    This is either going to lead people who have to feel compelled to slap a giant ugly tag on it somewhere like half the pictures on the internet already do, or just drive all the artists poor.

    Art materials are ALREADY overpriced as they are (i prefer home depot if i can get it there), and forcing people to register, which takes forever and it’s inconvenient, doesn’t help a bit.

    I really hate most copyright bills. Between the damage the RIAA/MPAA and crap like this do, I’ll be surprised if we’ll even have reasonable copyright laws at all in the future

  26. Astat on April 21, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Plus, given the current U.S. economy, I can’t help but think there’s a hidden motive in this law to help the government rack up some extra dough off of a big increase in copyright registrations. I think if this law passes, it’s going to put more focus on artists protecting themselves rather than expressing themselves, and that’s really not the way it should be.

  27. Astat on April 21, 2008 at 7:43 am

    It’s always a good idea to register your work for a copyright. However, there’s no reason you should HAVE to. This law wouldn’t be such a big deal to people who already register all their work/have the funds to do so (like you, Mike), but it would absolutely devastate the small-town, independent artists that work just as hard as anybody else. It can be pretty costly to register works, especially since most artists are creative people who produce a large body of work. The expenses add up really quickly, and the majority of us just can’t afford to register every single piece we create.

  28. ShadowerLiltani on April 21, 2008 at 6:57 am

    You know what is also very sad, Mike? You’re art isn’t safe. Someone can still lie and say they looked for you but couldn’t find you. And then your hard work gets flushed down the drain by some lazy-ass who doesn’t want to try making art themselves. Someone somewhere must be benefiting financially by a law like this. Hopefully, the public will be allowed to voice their opinions, be heard, and vote against such a ridiculous load of crap that this is. This law is also unfair. And when laws are unfair, you can’t fight them like you normally would. It means you have to be unfair too, and I don’t like that at all.

  29. shinoda_me on April 21, 2008 at 5:41 am

    YOURCONSCIENCE…Brad???? NO!!! its MIKE SHINODA or a …. president-less USA 😛 the world is about MIKE SHINODA … NOT Brad Delson … okay Brad is in LP and everything but we’re talking about Presidency not being a guitarist! okay wait.. Mike is a guitarist … but still!! …. ummm…. (searches for a valid argument) … sorry! i guess im overly obsessed with Mikey … or should i say Chuck Shinoda ? 😛 … i’d love to see CHUCKTATORSHIP in USA (credit to someone in LPMB – sorry i dont remember who!)

  30. JazzyJaz on April 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

    i think this is a pile of crap.

    so, they’re saying, “if you can’t find the creator, then the art is an ‘orphan’ and you can do what you like with it.”

    anyone can lie and say that they cant they can’t find the creator,and then end up making money off of someone elses artwork. and that’s so wrong.im completely offended by this “orphan works law” ,and i think it’s total shit, because im an artist myself.

    thank you for posting this mike. ♥ and i hope ur day is……um..splendid. (:

    xxxJazzy Jazxxx

  31. Reem on April 21, 2008 at 3:54 am

    It happens already but atleast some still think about criditing and the fact that stealing it is illegal,so changing that isn’t going to be fair at all,as in making the whole thing seem okay and no longer be illegal,people won’t appreaciate art as much i think,cos eventully therewould hardly be any original stuff out there,i draw,don’t sell or anything,but seriously hate it if it gets copied with no permission so i guess if it gets to apoint where it’s okay then i might get to a point where i won’t longer share it sort of thing,now some might act that way too,yeah this doesnt sound right,hope it doens’tget any approve,thanks for sharing.

  32. Heshotmedown on April 21, 2008 at 2:50 am

    And there was really a guy that has stolen a header I made for a message board of mine, put it into his own and shared this message board code with the world to use. So a lot of ppl are using my header right now in a message board, without a chance I could control that, without a chance to say: hey, you can use it, but just ASK and give some credit! And that’s the point where you say: I love doing stuff for ppl (like signatures for other LPU members, or iPod Covers that everyone can save and use from my LPU profile), but ppl like this guy make it hard for a person like me. ‘Cause there’s always a chance someone could steal your work again.

  33. Heshotmedown on April 21, 2008 at 2:50 am

    I think it’s sad that you have this copyright problem all over the world. Not only with paintings. I’m doing digital art since a few years, made layouts for ppl to use, stuff like wallpapers or even iPod Covers. I had always that problem with ppl that don’t give a damn about the really hard work you put into this things and just steal and use it without permission.I don’t care about this money thing, but if someone steal my work and say something like “yeah, I did that, nice eh?”, it’s not funny anymore.

  34. maria on April 21, 2008 at 1:00 am

    Hi Mike) It’s a topic issue. I think that it’s better to execute a document in the attorney’s presence so that it can assure you that your rights will be defended and observed. And aslo before endorsing anything by signature you must read it very carefully. And if you some treaty provisions raise doubts just ask the attorney to elucidate it it to you or just you can postpone signing it) or just put it off) (put off is the synonym of postpone) I’m just saying it if you don’t get the meaning because in the dictionary I found that in american english you can postpone a date or a business affair). Have a nice evening)

  35. soyuneik on April 21, 2008 at 12:01 am

    PS: You may want to change a few lines of that letter, especially if your not an artist. But, It doesn’t matter.. You don’t have to be to disagree…and they spelled “unallocable ” wrong. lol.

  36. soyuneik on April 20, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    The reading wasn’t even necessary. Its bullshit. So, if you live in the US, you do have really have one right.
    The right to bitch. If enough people bitch and you get enough senators to bitch for you. The better the chances are it won’t be passed. If your unfamiliar with the political side of that, its all good… At the bottom of this first link is draft letter in which you need only to fill in the blanks. The second link is a senator contact list, simply find your senator and send the letter.

  37. nillp on April 20, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    an artist spends ‘a life time’ and works his ass off doing something, then a son of a bitch takes the work and all its profits; this law would judge it like normal..

    no, i really don’t agree with the “orphan works law” thing..!

    ps. i’m now with the biggest headache ever.. since i slept just 1h30′ last night, and now here is 3h30’am and i didn’t sleep yet.. ~i need to sleep.~ i’ll back here tomorrow to give a more compound opinion about it anyways;

    take care; love ya ~ mk’nil

  38. YourConscience on April 20, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    “The only way to keep a criminal honest, is to hide and protect your valuables…”

    (I’m sorry… I know I said I’d try to resist posting so much, but there’s SO much I can/want to say about all of this… Must… Resist… Posting…)

  39. 1voice on April 20, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Hello mike, hope this day has brought forth only good thing’s. In response to your question, in 1 word – { GREED } it is so sad one would allow themselves to fall victim of such selfishness 4 their own personal gain. I am enraged 2 think this is even a consideration, in all actuality they are basically saying its OK 2 steel, take whats not yours as long as no one is looking.

  40. lp_fm_fan on April 20, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    That’s dumb, if they can’t find the artist, THEN LOOK HARDER. Use google. It finds everything.

    I’m not just saying that cuz you’re also against it, btw. I had my artwork stolen from me before. And back then I was dumb enough not to put my name on it. Got me fucking mad. However I didn’t see that they were claiming to of made it so….I didn’t say anything. They just put it to show. But if they ever, EVER said they made it, I’ll fucking break them.

    /raging artist

    anyways, Mike. We just got to v.5 in your clan. Took us about a week and 3 days? I think so…from v.4! w00t!

    Look at it, plus… I don’t see the secret message, dammit! 😛 x]

  41. YourConscience on April 20, 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Haha… Props to my girl, SHINODA_ME… All I have to add is that I (as well as so many others, I know) would vote for you… =D Or Brad! Haha. Yeah, tell Brad to run. I’d love to have a president that’s so nerdy he’s cool. =D (the way Brad answers interview questions, though… could you imagine the press confrences?! haha)

  42. RiseUp on April 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    that’s all i got.
    just goes to show you that there are no intelligent people, i.e. ARTISTS, working on Capitol Hill.

  43. cDizzle185 on April 20, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Hey Mike i dont you dont like when people spam sorry i just had to post this again cuase i really just want you to hear some rough music ive been workin on iam 18 from california i dont want anything i dont want you to post about i dont want you to get me famous alls i want you to do is just listen IAM A KID WITH A DREAM JUST LIKE YOU WERE names chris by the way








  44. akitagirl on April 20, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    As an artist – I am sooo against this passing – Thank you Mike for bringing attention to this. It is already too hard these days for artists, it seems this will really help stack the deck against us. This CANNOT PASS!!

  45. shinoda_me on April 20, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    the time i saw you playing HANDS HELD HIGH – LIVE , i was like ‘this guy would make a good politician!’ … it was like an entire speech the way you delivered it (gestures and everything about it! – best speech!) and now you’re literally on..!!! XD who knows, you might just be the next president of USA 😛 about the bill again, i guess you should be more ‘find-able’ 😛 😛 …. “MIKE SHINODA RESIDENCE – I’LL FUCK YOU IF YOU STEAL MY ART!” … (hopefully, peolple wont take that for an invitation.. haha!)

  46. shinoda_me on April 20, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    what in the world is this shit! i get cooked up seeing crap like this!
    what if i could sell ‘shh’ claiming i couldn’t ‘find’ MIKE SHINODA? grrr… law makers are assholes … clearly!
    what are they trying to do? get artists to the streets? if you cant find the artist who made something that you wanna sell, leave that piece untouched! thats what i think… there’s no way you have a right to pull through it like its yours … its not fair… X-(
    (neither am i an artist nor do i reside in the USA … but that doesnt stop me from firing up anyway)
    AND THANK YOU FOR POSTING AGAIN!!!! you need to show signs of breathing more often sweety XD

  47. StrangeGirl1 on April 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Hmmm artwork leeches….it’s like a new form of greed.

  48. YourConscience on April 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    P.S. I might have to stop comming to this site if you post more controversial blogs! Haha. I get so fired up, and I’m ready to research and debate and write a novel of a letter to someone about it all, but I only get 700 characters or less! Haha. Look at me… I’m jazzin’ now. I promise I’ll try to resist posting more than I already have… Haha.

  49. YourConscience on April 20, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Now, AMANDUH mentioned altering the work of art until it was unrecognizable as the original… But my understanding of copyright law is that you can’t sell something as your own if any part of it is the same as the original. (i.e. I can’t take a Mrs. Field’s peanut butter fudge recipe, add marshmallows, and sell it as my own) You’d have to alter that art so much that it’s copying the idea, not the piece.

    There is so much more I could say about this, but I know I don’t have enough room here. (yes, I’ve actually been holding back!!! Hahaha) It’s times like these that I wish I had your e-mail so I could send you my full-on opinions – but you’d probably never read it all! =D

  50. YourConscience on April 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    (weird how I was the first to post on a blog that was four days old and now it’s blown up…)

    Real quick, props to REESE… =D

    Okay, SOYUNEIK mentioned music being a form of art… This is part of where my whole thing about SHARING and NOT SELLING comes in. There are a couple of websites that I’ve been going to for the past decade to learn how to play music; in the past few years, they’ve been shut down for copyright infringement. Which is ridiculous to me, because no one was trying to sell their interpretations – they were trying to share them with fellow music lovers! By this logic, they could just as well shut down schools…

  51. paradoxofsyke on April 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    I guess it is the scenario in which this takes place. I mean (without reading the entire drafted bill) it sounds like they are trying to make it if you can’t find the artist you can use it, but not make any profits on it. Some cases that might be fine, but then you get into controversies of a piece of art being used for something that, while not being used to make profits, the artist might not support or want to be associated with, especially with the “uses that produce revenues and that are ancillary to exhibits.” And then of course you have like SUKKA3 said, I go outside and yell “mike shinoda” and you don’t answer, can I use your work, or did I not try hard enough to find you?

  52. Doggie24690 on April 20, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    I really disagree with this proposal. It’s going to far in terms of not enough copy right. It’s like them saying it’s O.K. to rip off someone’s painting but it’s highly unethical to do the same to music. Plus, it’s one more way for the government to collect money from it’s citizens. I just don’t see it being beneficial to the stereotypical starving artist. (of course that’s not how it always is. FE, you. Haha.) Thanks for the news man.

  53. Sukka3 on April 20, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    ya know it all depends on how its executed. Example-if its like sayounek said below; “I walk outside and yell “MIke Shinoda” you don’t answer and then I can make money off your $h!t ” then obviously theres a problem, but maybe if its put out w certain limitations. maybe a grace period for an artist to show up and prove its his and if found, forcing the person or company using it to pay him/her the royalties due then… maybe it could be a good thing, it could even expose some artists out there… imagine how dope it’d be to be that guy whose paintings were used by a certain band or a multi million dollar company?
    xenith… it doesnt sound like lp bro… cool song tho

  54. ShadowerLiltani on April 20, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    A few journals were floating around deviantart.com about this. Honestly, I don’t want this bill to pass. The courts would be so full of lawsuits and angry artists. It’s like they are trying to make “finders keepers, losers weepers” logical. My thought is, just because you can’t find the creator of the piece, doesn’t mean the creator doesn’t exist. The gov’t is making a law that contradicts another law, don’t steal. Makes me feel like I need to put my art under lock and key in fear that some jackass might try to take it. I shouldn’t say this, but, why were Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy shot, and not George W. Bush?

  55. diceman on April 20, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    I made an account just to comment on this. I disagree, this should not be allowed. As it’s already been said, it’s already hard as an artist to make money, but under this bill it would be almost impossible. The company does not really have to try to contact you, all they have to say is “Well we tried, but couldn’t…” That would also make websites like deviantart a complete waste for artists, because companies would just abuse it to find free art. That’s not fair! I really hope something is done about this.

  56. Seal on April 20, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    Personally, I’m really hoping the bill doesn’t pass because that could make it even harder than it already is for an artist to make money off their works, especially if someone can just steal the thing and use it if your signature isn’t visible. So, I’m just thinking that if it passes, people will have to be more weary about when they choose to put their artwork on the internet, and just make sure they put a visible signature on.

    But then there’s those people that edit the signatures off. 😦 I just hope it doesn’t pass. Being an artist myself, it could make the future very difficult for me.

  57. Xenith on April 20, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Only exhibit in the uk. Laws prohibit that crap here.


    Its now 00:04.. being an artist myself (all be it web designer and graphic) I do feel strongly about this so will post tomorrow.


    Mike if you do get chance please visit http://www.NoRoadsLeft.com

    Total Signatures to Date = 483

  58. Malaiyas on April 20, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    i don’t like that at all. art theft is already an issue as we know it, and i feel like they’d basically be giving thieves the right to steal it. it’s not right that someone can take someone else’s art, display it elsewhere and claim that, because they couldn’t find the original artist, it was “orphaned” and that gave them permission enough to do what they wanted with it. for that you might as well just say “go ahead, steal art!” real nice. that’s wholly unjust, in my humble opinion.

  59. cuz on April 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    hi Mike ^___^ unfortunately i have to go sleep now but i’ll read those articles tomorow 🙂 i see a secret message ;D thanks for keeping us updated. have a nice day 😀

  60. soyuneik on April 20, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    law gets passed I walk outside and yell “MIke Shinoda” you don’t answer and then I can make money off your shit..right.. sounds fair

  61. analoggirl on April 20, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Oooh, I like it when you get all political. 😉

    Will you try to defeat the bill? Are you part of a special interest group?

  62. reese on April 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    orphan works bill: trying to make the phrase “starving artist” a reality since 2005.

  63. vanessa_6487 on April 20, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    by the way i forgot to ask u something…. IF U HAVE TIME!!! …PLEASE I would love to know ur own personal opinion on this issue… i know that many of us would love to know it…. i love you n take care ;]


  64. Yahali on April 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    OK _ …i read this, and its totally foolish!

  65. withyou on April 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    yeah that’s sounds a bit shady to me. I don’t think anyone should have the right to do that.I think that this bill is paving the way for FRAUDS to take credit for something they had nothing to do with, leaving the true creative artist in the dust and that’s @#$%ed up.

  66. NoFace on April 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    however, I would love to see a new contest rule (indeed it was there but it’s not that obvious for everyone to see) forbidding people to use fonts/textures/brushes that are not free for commercial purposes, or ask the artist to credit all the features he/she uses. Maann, think about how people will cope with that. xD. People seem to object this law a lot, ah..

  67. AmanDUH on April 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    the whole “orphan works law” is absolutley LAME! I think the artist who created an original work of art deserves complete credit and deserves the right to keep their artwork to themselves and not have anyone make mass production of that piece and get all of the credit just because they didn’t know who the artist was. however, if this person were to alter a work of art by an artist to the point where it is not recognizable as the “original design” i think it would be ok.
    If someone wants to use some art they didn’t create they shouldn’t “steal” an artist’s property, they should just use stock images or footage. or simply FIND the artist or not use the work of art at all.

  68. ColorScheming on April 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    The people in the higher up positions of creating such laws. obviously dont have a creative bone in their body, so of course they wouldnt understand. If this bill passes, im sure that a lot of internet art and photography that is out there now, will magically stop in fear of their/our work being taken by another person. Screw this law. And screw the assholes who take other peoples work and then use the excuse “well i looked for them”. bullshit if your an artist create your own damn shirts, art, paintings.

  69. ColorScheming on April 20, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I think this law is a bunch of bullshitt, in an attempt to get people to spend more money to the state and congress. As an aspiring photographer. I post my pictures here, among other sites. And because i dont post my first and last name for safety reasons, that would technically mean my work would be orphaned. Due to someone searching color scheming and not finding a real person (cant imagine why).

  70. yanTyan on April 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    after reading Mikey’s memo……

    starting to begrudge the ppl in “the past tense”->Vincent van Gogh

  71. NoFace on April 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Maybe I’m seeing things, but man, this is like the answer for our concerns on the LPU8 logo design contest. I just posted something today on the LPU MB about the permission to use other artists works and your newest blog post is about this. If there’s any problem with the third party issue, I will blame you, hahaha. Thanks a lot of this piece of information. You little mischievous dood, you can always find a way to make it work, aight? me is a happy puppy today, muahaha

  72. sterilepoon on April 20, 2008 at 11:18 am

    sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

  73. vanessa_6487 on April 20, 2008 at 10:58 am

    i agree with the people that say that art is made to the enjoy… but then again this law will make “fake artist” that don’t deserved the credict.. if they can’t find the “original artist”.. then they should find another piece of art to show … or to let the people know the truth n say that it doesn’t belong to them… I know that not all the artist have the money to register every work in the US copyright office … n this would make the all those “fake artists” to take advantage of this law… For me this law is B.S. :{…. i think every artist should be recognized for their work… but in this world it will always be people trying to take advantage of others :[…

  74. Sashy on April 20, 2008 at 10:52 am

    I also think it’s STUPID that America came out with this and is going to base it on their countries views. It’s obviously going to effect the whole world via the internet.

  75. Sashy on April 20, 2008 at 10:49 am

    DeviantART had a huge uproar about this.

    I’ve read a lot of different views but it’s still pretty fucked. The system works now, don’t mess with it is my opinion.

  76. Jhuryn on April 20, 2008 at 10:48 am

    How is it possible to register every single piece of art that is created by an artist? There’s no feasibly way for everyday artists to physically or financially keep up! Does that mean that they’ll have to pick and choose which works they want to protect? Sounds like a bullshit piece of legislation.

  77. MentalisFun on April 20, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Wel, as a artist myself I try to put my name on a piece so that it is recognized. But I realise not everyone can spend money to publish or promote their work. If the person that wants to use the art (publisher, bootlegger…) cannot find the original artist, then he should just simply not use it and find something else. Period.

  78. SouthernGirlAM on April 20, 2008 at 10:06 am

    I agree with YourConscience. I think it is great to enjoy art in every form and to pass along word about it so others can enjoy it, too. However, this law will open the door for a great deal of bootlegging and financial gain to people other than the artist which is wrong. Not to mention if someone passes off someone’s art in a shirt or other form using this orphan law, people may forget about the original artist. With this “open door” for people to use art by saying they “can’t find the artist” which I am sure some will do even if they know the artist name, this law could discredit the artist. So, my point is I don’t agree with the law and I appreciate you mentioning this, Mike.

  79. Anstice on April 20, 2008 at 10:06 am

    How do I feel about it? I think it’s bullshit. I know how shitty it is to go through the copyrighting process as I’m a writer. It’s frickin’ expensive and time-consuming. What the Hell? Just because someone can’t find you? No. That’s shit. Because people will use that excuse no matter what. Even if all you have to do is Google the person. Protect your art, Mike ;).

  80. Romeo4wheels on April 20, 2008 at 10:03 am

    Yes, we should keep baring in mind that we have to all the time respect to each other whenever we step across their boundary.
    Not just because being forced by something. 😉

  81. CherryRed on April 20, 2008 at 10:01 am

    I just finished reading everything this morning. I agree that it is okay to love and appreciate someone else’s artwork but not ok to steal it and make a profit of it!. The people who sell and make money off someone else art is not right at all and the people who buy from them are not right either. Many people fail to realize that constantly purchasing these items from people who make these items from anyone’s artwork without consent is why people are still getting away with it!

    Thanks for the insight on this issue! I hope that has not happened to you Mike. Take Care.

  82. bec on April 20, 2008 at 10:00 am

    I guess it depends on how much control you want over your work – people already put your art on t-shirts, posters, tattoos, etc without giving you payment, though as they are obviously fans buying it so you are getting the recognition for it.
    From the sounds of this interview you’d have to register everything you’ve ever drawn including doodles…sounds very complicated and time consuming, especially when you consider how many doodles you may have drawn and given with autographs.

    This whole thing sounds like ways of people making money from people with time and money to waste fighting legal issues.

  83. SteppinRazor on April 20, 2008 at 9:54 am

    This is so retarded I don’t even know what to say to it

  84. YourConscience on April 20, 2008 at 9:39 am

    With all of the technology that people seem to rely on these days, how could someone NOT be able to find the creator (unless the creator didn’t want to be found, in which case, why credit someone who doesn’t want it)? My feeling is this… It’s okay to love and appreciate art (in all its forms) and want to SHARE what you’ve discovered with other people. But it’s not okay to rip off someone else’s work and try to SELL it as your own. But that’s just my opinion – do what you will with it. Anyhow, thanks for bringing this to our attention, Mike. Hope everyone has a wonderful day. =)

Post Your Own Comment