EDIT2: so I'm wrong. I've been misled and I only helped mislead people. No this bill isn't going to take every single artist's rights away, but it's still not right. It really says that if someone finds a work of art that doesn't have any sign of who it belongs to on it, they can claim it as their own, for commercial purposes too. I'll post a little analogy I used in a reply to *drakhenliche's journal:

"this is more of a 'I found a case of money on the street, so it must be mine now' situation. most people who find things like that never search for the person it rightfully belongs to anyways. They can just simply say that they tried looking for the owner and get away with it *providing a bunch of bullcrap they made up to prove that they did search for the owner'
this can make it way easier for art theft to occur. you may already know this. It's like walking into an airport, and see that someone has left their suitcase behind. you see them walking to the terminal and you just take it instead of giving it back.
yay for analogies!
althought most people who read the bill thought worse *that anyone can take any piece of art they wanted, not true* this bill still isnt right and shouldn't be passed, because it has loopholes everywhere that theives can slip through too easily"

In another words, its just allowing people to take credit for things they didn't do. it's plagiarism of art.

If you can't help take this bill down, then at least get everyone you know to watermark their images so their art doesn't end up getting used on some porn DVD cover or on a cereal box or anything. Protect your work, even if it obstructs your art, protect it. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind, and for those that do, they have no real respect for the artist if all they want is unprotected images for them to use at the artist's dismay.

end transmission