Looking for advice again...
Apr. 12th, 2008 04:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tikatuGrrr. A certain Welsh TBs writer is trying to pick my brains again for his terribly AU "reimagining". I'm finding it very irritating.
But, on to the main topic of discussion.
There's been some talk about the Orphan Works legislation on the FanLib forums.
Quite a few people are up in arms about it, and see it as a way for big corporations to make money by creating registries where artists (or anyone creative, really) have to register their works - for a fee. If they don't, then the artistic person can possibly lose the copyright on their works - they would by default be considered "orphan" because they weren't registered. This would allow anyone and his/her housecat to use them without recompense or recourse... or that's what some of those against this seem to be warning about.
With all this swirling around my admittedly non-porous brain (as in, I no longer soak up information like a sponge), I made a weird connection that makes me wonder: should I change my penname at Fiction Press to what I'd like to use should I become a professional writer?
I've used "Tikatu" just about everywhere I archive my fic, whether it's fanfiction or original fiction. But I'm beginning to feel like using what I'd like my professional name to be would perhaps forestall this whole "can't find the copyright holder" orphan works business.
Maybe I'm overthinking the situation - or feeling itchy about my original work. I did do a search at Fiction Press to see if I can use it. No one else has a penname exactly like it.
Friends and neighbors, what thinkest thou?
ETA: I had done some preliminary scouting around before posting this and found that the last notices on such a bill were in 2006 - hence the sort of ambivalent tone to the post. Since then, I've discovered that there was far more recent discussion in a House subcommittee on another introduction of the legislation. And I've also gleaned - through discussions in other journals as referenced bypartly_bouncyat Fan History - that the original article is not only terribly inflammatory (which was my opinion from the start) but highly biased and inaccurate. Check out the Fan History article for a whole slew of facts about the whole shebang.
Still, despite the lack of immediate danger, I'm looking for that advice. So if you have some for me, sock it to me, baby!
But, on to the main topic of discussion.
There's been some talk about the Orphan Works legislation on the FanLib forums.
Quite a few people are up in arms about it, and see it as a way for big corporations to make money by creating registries where artists (or anyone creative, really) have to register their works - for a fee. If they don't, then the artistic person can possibly lose the copyright on their works - they would by default be considered "orphan" because they weren't registered. This would allow anyone and his/her housecat to use them without recompense or recourse... or that's what some of those against this seem to be warning about.
With all this swirling around my admittedly non-porous brain (as in, I no longer soak up information like a sponge), I made a weird connection that makes me wonder: should I change my penname at Fiction Press to what I'd like to use should I become a professional writer?
I've used "Tikatu" just about everywhere I archive my fic, whether it's fanfiction or original fiction. But I'm beginning to feel like using what I'd like my professional name to be would perhaps forestall this whole "can't find the copyright holder" orphan works business.
Maybe I'm overthinking the situation - or feeling itchy about my original work. I did do a search at Fiction Press to see if I can use it. No one else has a penname exactly like it.
Friends and neighbors, what thinkest thou?
ETA: I had done some preliminary scouting around before posting this and found that the last notices on such a bill were in 2006 - hence the sort of ambivalent tone to the post. Since then, I've discovered that there was far more recent discussion in a House subcommittee on another introduction of the legislation. And I've also gleaned - through discussions in other journals as referenced by
partly_bouncyat Fan History - that the original article is not only terribly inflammatory (which was my opinion from the start) but highly biased and inaccurate. Check out the Fan History article for a whole slew of facts about the whole shebang.Still, despite the lack of immediate danger, I'm looking for that advice. So if you have some for me, sock it to me, baby!
