Reply #26: This sentence of yours is problematic for me:

[robinlynne]

I.e. the federal government and site owners would be empowered to censor or demand payment from users for submitting videos of themselves singing a cover song, posting a clip or screencap or art based on a derivative work -- 99% of fan created art on the web.

It is currently against the law to create derivative works without consent of the author. So if I take your photo and create a collage that IS illegal, unless I ask for your permission first. It always has been. I'm not sure about singing a cover song. I believe the issue is whether or not you make money doing it.


What is extremely concerning is the "ability to shut down sites". Obviously that can be used to create censorship. And corporations will have the means to enforce their copyrights (They already do now.) , while individual citizens have not even filed for copyright. I do not copyright my DU posts, but professionally, as a photographer I copyright. I do not want the nazi party able to sue an image of mine, period.

Internet censorship is extremely dangerous. I do not have an answer. I think a video of someone singing belongs to that person and that person can distribute it wherever she wants to. Otherwise it could become illegal to sing. I think anyone earning money by singing someone else's song should pay the appropriate royalties.

BIG difference between for profit and not. But again, if the nazi party wants to use my image not for profit, I will not tolerate it. We have to have that choice.
Public figures, i.e. photos of events in public, or politicians are public. BUT if you use one of these photos FOR PROFIT, or alter it's meaning, or even alter it, that is illegal. When someone creates a photo of Obama with a mustache, it is not legal, unless the photographer gives consent for that usage. It may also be defamation.