So, if I'm reading that correctly, it just affects those pieces of artwork that can't be tracked back to someone who either owns the rights to it or created it?
I apologize to those who felt offended with my previous post. What I wanted to say is that the romantic point of view of things will not bring you money. But if you do it as a hobby, I guess it's ok.
All of the artistic endeavours I ever had a hand in, my music and my paintings, were created "out of the blue" and not for a paycheck. They were created out of passion, and I see that as more than a hobby, I see that as being an artist. If I were getting paid for performing, say, Metallica songs, I would not see that as artistic. For me, art /= money
Not to sound like an @$$-kisser, but if Matt says there's nothing to worry about, I'll believe him. He's got more art online than I do, not to mention the writing he did for his strips (the characters may be created by someone else, but the jokes are all his). If he's not worried, I don't see why I should be. Thanks for chiming in, Matt.
The big point being misinterpreted here is the process of declaring a work to be orphaned. If somebody mistakenly declares a work to be public domain, that doesn't negate the copyright. All it takes is for the copyright holder to say "Hey, that's mine. Quit it." With all the good that is going to come out of this bill, this kind of paranoia is disgusting.
The points in dispute with a lot of the artists I've talked with is the one that sets up the databases for the copyrights. While they are trying to get it set up free service by an amendment to the bill, it's not on the bill yet. IF the bill passes without the service databases being free, that's where a lot of artists see the problems coming into play. Which is admitted to in Matt's article.