Above are illustrations for BroadBased Communications...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Why no posts?
Due to the impending lawsuit brought on against 5 illustrators including myself by Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) I will stop posting on this site with the exception of promotional illustrations until we have cleared our names and reputations.
GRAPHIC ARTISTS GUILD SUES ARTISTS
The Illustrators Partnership of America and 5 individuals have* been served with a lawsuit by the Graphic Artists Guild, claiming damages of a million dollars and demanding that a court order IPA to cease and desist from supposedly defamatory public comments about GAG’s activities and use of industry reprographic royalties, even when IPA is merely quoting GAG’s own statements.
The Complaint alleges that IPA, by bringing together 13 diverse illustrators organizations with the goal of creating an illustrators rights collecting society, is wrongfully interfering with GAG’s current claim on foreign royalties, calling it an effort to “siphon off” money from GAG. The Complaint specifically alleges that IPA and IPA members defamed GAG by a verbatim reading of minutes from a GAG steering committee meeting at which GAG’s President reported on their organization’s use of foreign funds. IPA’s statements relied on public assertions by GAG’s officers that GAG does not have to account for its use of artists’ reprographic royalties.
Reprographic royalties are funds derived from the photocopying of material by published authors. In many other countries, illustrators receive royalties from collecting societies for the photocopying of their work. In the US, they do not, because currently, no such collecting society exists. IPA denies that its comments are defamatory, as it has relied on and reported GAG’s own statements verbatim. IPA seeks an understanding of GAG’s activities and transparency about GAG’s use of these funds. IPA has retained legal counsel and will respond to the Complaint in an appropriate manner.
• The individuals named in the lawsuit are: artist Brad Holland, Founding Director of Illustrators’ Partnership and Co-Chair American Society of Illustrators Partnership; medical illustrator Cynthia Turner, Director, Illustrators’ Partnership and Co- Chair American Society of Illustrators Partnership; Terrence Brown, Executive Director, American Society of Illustrators Partnership; Renowned intellectual property attorney Bruce Lehman, Founding Director of Illustrators’ Partnership and Counsel to American Society of Illustrators Partnership; commercial illustrator Ken Dubrowski, Director of Operations, Illustrators’ Partnership.
GRAPHIC ARTISTS GUILD SUES ARTISTS
The Illustrators Partnership of America and 5 individuals have* been served with a lawsuit by the Graphic Artists Guild, claiming damages of a million dollars and demanding that a court order IPA to cease and desist from supposedly defamatory public comments about GAG’s activities and use of industry reprographic royalties, even when IPA is merely quoting GAG’s own statements.
The Complaint alleges that IPA, by bringing together 13 diverse illustrators organizations with the goal of creating an illustrators rights collecting society, is wrongfully interfering with GAG’s current claim on foreign royalties, calling it an effort to “siphon off” money from GAG. The Complaint specifically alleges that IPA and IPA members defamed GAG by a verbatim reading of minutes from a GAG steering committee meeting at which GAG’s President reported on their organization’s use of foreign funds. IPA’s statements relied on public assertions by GAG’s officers that GAG does not have to account for its use of artists’ reprographic royalties.
Reprographic royalties are funds derived from the photocopying of material by published authors. In many other countries, illustrators receive royalties from collecting societies for the photocopying of their work. In the US, they do not, because currently, no such collecting society exists. IPA denies that its comments are defamatory, as it has relied on and reported GAG’s own statements verbatim. IPA seeks an understanding of GAG’s activities and transparency about GAG’s use of these funds. IPA has retained legal counsel and will respond to the Complaint in an appropriate manner.
• The individuals named in the lawsuit are: artist Brad Holland, Founding Director of Illustrators’ Partnership and Co-Chair American Society of Illustrators Partnership; medical illustrator Cynthia Turner, Director, Illustrators’ Partnership and Co- Chair American Society of Illustrators Partnership; Terrence Brown, Executive Director, American Society of Illustrators Partnership; Renowned intellectual property attorney Bruce Lehman, Founding Director of Illustrators’ Partnership and Counsel to American Society of Illustrators Partnership; commercial illustrator Ken Dubrowski, Director of Operations, Illustrators’ Partnership.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Download self-promotional mailer
A here is the second promotional mailer in my more traditional, classic style...
New Downloadable Self-Promotional Mailers
The following two posts are for art directors who wish to download a sample of my illustration work.
The first image is my current editorial illustration work which is done in my newer media style. My web will have a collection of these new images available for your review in the coming weeks.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
What Would Ben Franklin Think About Orphan Works?
The temporary defeat of the Orphan Works bill was stated on the Library Journal's blog as coming from the hands of "... a fear inducing campaign".
This is not an accurate account, in fact the defeat came from the growing consensus of a grass roots movement that saw the bill for what it truly is, artistic socialism.
Websites that openly support the Orphan Works bill have stated the passage of this bill is one of the six needed steps to overturn copyright and the protection it holds artists.
Artists and photographers already have their work protected by US copyright law but this end around to copyright would have forced every image that an artist has, to be scanned and registered at great expense to as yet created orphan works registries. These registries could range from organizations which see this as an opportunity for new revenue to businesses that have already "spidered" and collected digital images in the millions and are waiting to deliver these images for usage provided artists cannot afford the expense. These for-profit orphan registries, see this as an new business model, much like the creation of web hosting or domain name registries but on a much larger scale, to provide income for search engines and start up businesses/ companies.
The money we are talking about here is huge for businesses.
But the need for artists to maintain and monitor their work will become so cost prohibitive that most artists will likely fall into non-compliance. A current example to the dangers is that of people who have seen their own domain names bought out from under them or watch them expire and sold to companies as a form of commerce.
The same can happen very easily as images will become commerce for start up businesses. If artists do not comply, they risk losing their images to these new for- profit digital registries as "new orphans" and risk having to compete against their own works which could be redesigned and manipulated and resold as new images without an artist's consent. This is not a scare tactic as suggested by Library Journal's blog but a business reality artists face.
Libraries can and should work to remain as they were intended by it's creators, a vestibule of knowledge / a collection and protector of information. Not as a pawn for businesses to suggest the public does not have access to information.
From the Illustrator's Partnership website is a solution for libraries and one that makes the most sense:
"Digitizing the Collections of Libraries and Museums Digitizing someone’s work is an act of reproduction and is therefore subject to the authorization of the copyright holder. But to let accredited libraries and archives bypass these authorizations, the law could grant them certain exceptions to reproduce works without the prior consent of the rights holders, mainly for preservation purposes. To avail themselves of this privilege, institutions could file a notice of intent to infringe with the Copyright Office, documenting that they’ve made a reasonably diligent, but unsuccessful effort to find the copyright holder. These exceptions should not be extended to cover reproductions on a mass scale, because that would clearly conflict with the artists’ own exploitation of their works and that would prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright holders, a clear violation of the 1976 Copyright Act, the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS agreement, to which the US is a signatory. This proposal is consistent with the submission of the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations (IFRRO) to the European Union’s i2010 Digital Libraries project. This means our proposal would meet the needs of libraries, museums and archives, harmonize US policy with our trading partners overseas and win wide praise from the creative community in the US, who would not see the rights of their own work put at risk."
Finally, as a freelance artist I support that stated position of a true Orphan Works bill that allows for libraries to work with copyright holders, allow those who visit libraries to have access to these images for their own education and pursuit of knowledge. I do not support any bill that puts undo financial pressure on people or artists especially in these hard times.
Libraries should be in the business of what is best for the public and not what is best for business.
"The first mistake in public business is the going into it." Benjamin Franklin
This is not an accurate account, in fact the defeat came from the growing consensus of a grass roots movement that saw the bill for what it truly is, artistic socialism.
Websites that openly support the Orphan Works bill have stated the passage of this bill is one of the six needed steps to overturn copyright and the protection it holds artists.
Artists and photographers already have their work protected by US copyright law but this end around to copyright would have forced every image that an artist has, to be scanned and registered at great expense to as yet created orphan works registries. These registries could range from organizations which see this as an opportunity for new revenue to businesses that have already "spidered" and collected digital images in the millions and are waiting to deliver these images for usage provided artists cannot afford the expense. These for-profit orphan registries, see this as an new business model, much like the creation of web hosting or domain name registries but on a much larger scale, to provide income for search engines and start up businesses/ companies.
The money we are talking about here is huge for businesses.
But the need for artists to maintain and monitor their work will become so cost prohibitive that most artists will likely fall into non-compliance. A current example to the dangers is that of people who have seen their own domain names bought out from under them or watch them expire and sold to companies as a form of commerce.
The same can happen very easily as images will become commerce for start up businesses. If artists do not comply, they risk losing their images to these new for- profit digital registries as "new orphans" and risk having to compete against their own works which could be redesigned and manipulated and resold as new images without an artist's consent. This is not a scare tactic as suggested by Library Journal's blog but a business reality artists face.
Libraries can and should work to remain as they were intended by it's creators, a vestibule of knowledge / a collection and protector of information. Not as a pawn for businesses to suggest the public does not have access to information.
From the Illustrator's Partnership website is a solution for libraries and one that makes the most sense:
"Digitizing the Collections of Libraries and Museums Digitizing someone’s work is an act of reproduction and is therefore subject to the authorization of the copyright holder. But to let accredited libraries and archives bypass these authorizations, the law could grant them certain exceptions to reproduce works without the prior consent of the rights holders, mainly for preservation purposes. To avail themselves of this privilege, institutions could file a notice of intent to infringe with the Copyright Office, documenting that they’ve made a reasonably diligent, but unsuccessful effort to find the copyright holder. These exceptions should not be extended to cover reproductions on a mass scale, because that would clearly conflict with the artists’ own exploitation of their works and that would prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright holders, a clear violation of the 1976 Copyright Act, the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS agreement, to which the US is a signatory. This proposal is consistent with the submission of the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations (IFRRO) to the European Union’s i2010 Digital Libraries project. This means our proposal would meet the needs of libraries, museums and archives, harmonize US policy with our trading partners overseas and win wide praise from the creative community in the US, who would not see the rights of their own work put at risk."
Finally, as a freelance artist I support that stated position of a true Orphan Works bill that allows for libraries to work with copyright holders, allow those who visit libraries to have access to these images for their own education and pursuit of knowledge. I do not support any bill that puts undo financial pressure on people or artists especially in these hard times.
Libraries should be in the business of what is best for the public and not what is best for business.
"The first mistake in public business is the going into it." Benjamin Franklin
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Lessig + Orphan Works = Artistic Socialism
Lawrence Lessig appeared on the Colbert Report as shown in the above post.
The new argument being thrown out is that current copyright law is turning kids into ..criminals...
As with the Orphan Works bill this nonsense is being exposed for what it is "Artistic Socialism".
Some websites like the following Library Journal have tried to explain the lack of support for Orphan works as "scare tactics".
Imagine that...scare tactics.
The truth is that people are not scared into opposing this bill they instead "get it" for what it is.
What's even more ironic to Lessig's comments on Colbert is that while Lessig offered to allow his book to be downloaded for free on the Colbert website, the publishers did not .
See web screen capture.
Let's hope more people get the issues and move away from forced artistic socialism and libraries getting into the business of business.
(From the Library Journal Website)
The Sad Story of Orphan Works
"...We’ve been covering efforts to open up access to orphan works for years, but in 2008, legislation came close to passage—and in dramatic fashion. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Bill of 2008passed late on September 26. As Congress headed into overtime in late September to address the troubled financial markets, a flurry of activity in the House of Representatives seemed to open the door to a passage. Ultimately, significant differences between the House and Senate on competing orphan works bills, as well as a well-organized, fear-inducing campaign against the bill by artists and photographers, and a late letter from the Motion Picture Association of America squelched any would-be deal.
Still, the issue remains vital. If passed, an orphan works bill would reduce liability for those who make use of copyrighted works provided they make, and document, a reasonably diligent effort to find the owner. For libraries, this would ease the burden on large-scale archival digitization efforts. Publishers, meanwhile, at odds with libraries on many issues in 2008, also embraced and worked on the bill.
With economic and international crises sure to command Congress’ attention in 2009, it’s questionable whether orphan works will rise again anytime soon. Nevertheless, this year’s effort, the result of continuous hard work and some masterful politicking by library groups and their allies, stands as an achievement worth noting, and at the very least establishes a benchmark for continuing efforts. "
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6626581.html
Friday, January 9, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Sowing the seeds of hate...
The McCain/Palin campaign have continued the downward trend in politics, first started with Lee Atwater and endorsed by Carl Rove by using tactics of hate and fear. Now audience members scream out "kill" and "terrorist" from these events easily and without any reserve.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
AN OPEN LETTER TO GRAPHIC ARTIST GUILD ON ORPHAN WORKS
Hi,
I was sent this by illustrator Andrea Mistretta a working illustrator since 1979 (http://www.andreamistretta.com/) concerning the Graphic Artist's Guilds support for the Orphan Works bill. Several artists have expressed a similar frustration, so I am posting this letter on my blog and asking artists to copy it and do the same, in the attempt to raise awareness.
Thanks,
Ken Dubrowski
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE GRAPHIC ARTIST GUILD PRESIDENT:
from Andrea Mistretta, Illustrator, Designer, Licensor, Small Business since 1979
Dear Mr. Schmelzer,
It has been remarkable to watch the Graphic Artist Guild steadily support and push a copyright bill that will devastate artists around the world, and now read that you disparage artists that fight to prevent the loss of exclusive rights and irreparable harm this law will cause. Now, the Graphic Artist Guild has earned the shameful distinction of being publicly praised as "enlightened' by Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, the Washington D.C. public policy maker and Orphan Works lobbyist that is committed to a 6 point plan to dismantle creator rights.
On October 6, 2008 Gigi Sohn wrote:
"At the same time, the more enlightened of those artists saw that the world around them was changing and that it was perhaps time to take matters into their own hands to ensure that their works wouldn’t become orphaned.
Here’s what the President, Mr. Schmelzer, of the Graphic Artists’ Guild had to say on that point:
'I don’t think Orphan Works is going to have a dramatic influence on how we do business, but I hope it has awakened us all to the importance of tending to business issues. If we as a community invested a fraction of the energy we’ve expended on an apocalyptic vision of Orphan Works into protecting our own creations, protesting unfair contracting practices or writing letters to low-paying publishers, we’d be in a far better market position than we are today. The fact is that we give away more in the every day practice of our businesses than the government could ever take from us.
See Fullpost: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1783
Mr. Schmelzer, I have been a sole proprietor, small business entity since 1979. I am one who has diligently registered my copyrights and spent thousands of dollars and hours over the years doing so. I already protect and manage my copyrights, responsibly negotiate contracts, uphold best business practices and understand the market.
My name is Andrea Mistretta. As a licensor of my art, the clients I serve have the security of knowing they are protected through the indemnity clauses in my contracts. My visual example in the Small Business Administration’s Economic Impact Study of Orphan Works prepared in September of 2008 is an example how my working art was“ORPHANED” by a “USER” and sold to one of the largest image banks in the world, and sold again for a fraction of its value to an agency, then sold again to my client turning me into my own competitor while all those in the chain of infringements “copyrighted” my artwork and made money while I, the originating artist received no compensation. My attorney knew he had the support of my certification of copyright to work toward justice and settlement on my behalf. Without copyright he could not have enforced my rights, and I would be out of business. There would be one less independent original thinker and artist in this country.
Under the Orphan Works law that the Graphic Artist Guild and Public Knowledge support, even with my registered copyright I would not have the power to fairly negotiate with the giant corporate infringer who cynically stole my rights. I would not be able to stop the continuing infringement. I would not be able to enforce the exclusive rights I had contractually guaranteed to my client. I would have been denied all legal fees, court costs, and damages to enforce my copyright.
Does the Graphic Artist Guild really believe this law will not "have a dramatic influence on how we do business?"
If this is the new business model Gigi Sohn refers to, there will only be users, and no artist originators. My example is not an anomaly but a harbinger of what is to come if “Orphan Works” should pass.
I believed that the U.S. Copyright Office has been the registry institution living artist generations have paid into to register their works. U.S. Copyright law provided artists the necessary protection of common law copyright law as well as statutory copyright for registered work. Now this institution has turned its back on creators.
I believe there is a place for true Orphan Works in a well defined bill. This Orphan Works bill is nothing more than a license for “USERS” to take art at will.
To change copyright law to the Orphan Works language prior to this writing, is to destroy a business model and bastion of creative thinkers to produce fresh new works that support a delicate “eco-system” – the economy system that starts with the small businesses that support the larger business in this country and abroad.
Sincerely,
Andrea Mistretta
www.andreamistretta.com
I was sent this by illustrator Andrea Mistretta a working illustrator since 1979 (http://www.andreamistretta.com/) concerning the Graphic Artist's Guilds support for the Orphan Works bill. Several artists have expressed a similar frustration, so I am posting this letter on my blog and asking artists to copy it and do the same, in the attempt to raise awareness.
Thanks,
Ken Dubrowski
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE GRAPHIC ARTIST GUILD PRESIDENT:
from Andrea Mistretta, Illustrator, Designer, Licensor, Small Business since 1979
Dear Mr. Schmelzer,
It has been remarkable to watch the Graphic Artist Guild steadily support and push a copyright bill that will devastate artists around the world, and now read that you disparage artists that fight to prevent the loss of exclusive rights and irreparable harm this law will cause. Now, the Graphic Artist Guild has earned the shameful distinction of being publicly praised as "enlightened' by Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, the Washington D.C. public policy maker and Orphan Works lobbyist that is committed to a 6 point plan to dismantle creator rights.
On October 6, 2008 Gigi Sohn wrote:
"At the same time, the more enlightened of those artists saw that the world around them was changing and that it was perhaps time to take matters into their own hands to ensure that their works wouldn’t become orphaned.
Here’s what the President, Mr. Schmelzer, of the Graphic Artists’ Guild had to say on that point:
'I don’t think Orphan Works is going to have a dramatic influence on how we do business, but I hope it has awakened us all to the importance of tending to business issues. If we as a community invested a fraction of the energy we’ve expended on an apocalyptic vision of Orphan Works into protecting our own creations, protesting unfair contracting practices or writing letters to low-paying publishers, we’d be in a far better market position than we are today. The fact is that we give away more in the every day practice of our businesses than the government could ever take from us.
See Fullpost: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1783
Mr. Schmelzer, I have been a sole proprietor, small business entity since 1979. I am one who has diligently registered my copyrights and spent thousands of dollars and hours over the years doing so. I already protect and manage my copyrights, responsibly negotiate contracts, uphold best business practices and understand the market.
My name is Andrea Mistretta. As a licensor of my art, the clients I serve have the security of knowing they are protected through the indemnity clauses in my contracts. My visual example in the Small Business Administration’s Economic Impact Study of Orphan Works prepared in September of 2008 is an example how my working art was“ORPHANED” by a “USER” and sold to one of the largest image banks in the world, and sold again for a fraction of its value to an agency, then sold again to my client turning me into my own competitor while all those in the chain of infringements “copyrighted” my artwork and made money while I, the originating artist received no compensation. My attorney knew he had the support of my certification of copyright to work toward justice and settlement on my behalf. Without copyright he could not have enforced my rights, and I would be out of business. There would be one less independent original thinker and artist in this country.
Under the Orphan Works law that the Graphic Artist Guild and Public Knowledge support, even with my registered copyright I would not have the power to fairly negotiate with the giant corporate infringer who cynically stole my rights. I would not be able to stop the continuing infringement. I would not be able to enforce the exclusive rights I had contractually guaranteed to my client. I would have been denied all legal fees, court costs, and damages to enforce my copyright.
Does the Graphic Artist Guild really believe this law will not "have a dramatic influence on how we do business?"
If this is the new business model Gigi Sohn refers to, there will only be users, and no artist originators. My example is not an anomaly but a harbinger of what is to come if “Orphan Works” should pass.
I believed that the U.S. Copyright Office has been the registry institution living artist generations have paid into to register their works. U.S. Copyright law provided artists the necessary protection of common law copyright law as well as statutory copyright for registered work. Now this institution has turned its back on creators.
I believe there is a place for true Orphan Works in a well defined bill. This Orphan Works bill is nothing more than a license for “USERS” to take art at will.
To change copyright law to the Orphan Works language prior to this writing, is to destroy a business model and bastion of creative thinkers to produce fresh new works that support a delicate “eco-system” – the economy system that starts with the small businesses that support the larger business in this country and abroad.
Sincerely,
Andrea Mistretta
www.andreamistretta.com
Friday, October 3, 2008
House trying to get Orphan Works on agenda NOW!
We are asking everyone who can to not only contact their Congressperson but
to also contact the House Leadership and key Members of the House Judiciary
Committee.
THIS needs to be done NOW as they are trying to get Orphan Works on the
agenda for this morning.
This is very important as we need to make sure they keep the Orphan Works
Legislation HR 5889 and S 2913 off the House Calendar and from being
released from the Judiciary Committee.
-------------------------------
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO NOW and get others to do across the country
We need to get to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer and ask them NOT to allow H.R. 5889 to go on the
calendar.
We also need to get to 4 critical members of the House Judiciary
Committee and tell them NOT to abandon their version of the bill and
accept the Senate version.
THE INFO:
If you have trouble getting through on their individual lines, you can
also CALL CONGRESS: 1-800-828-0498. Tell the U.S. Capitol Switchboard
Operator "I would like to leave a message for Congressperson __________
that I oppose the Orphan Works Act." They will switch you through to
the lawmaker's office and often take a message which also gets passed on
to the lawmaker. Once you're put through give the same message.
There are two letters at the end of this email that you can use/adopt:
CONTACT INFO TO USE FOR LETTER #1 FOR The House leadershipt Speaker Pelosi
and Majority Leader Hoyer:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225 4965 Fax (202) 225-8259
Phone: (415) 556-4862 (San Francisco office)
Rep. Steny Hoyer steny.hoyer@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225 4131
Fax (202) 225-4300
Phone: (301) 474-0119
(Greenbelt office)
Phone: (301-843-1577 (Waldorf office)
CONTACT INFO TO USE FOR LETTER #2 FOR key members of the Judiciary
Committee:
Chairman Rep. John Conyers, Jr. john.conyers@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-5126 Fax: (202) 225-0072
Phone: (313) 961-5670 Fax: (313) 226-2085
Rep. William Delahunt william.delahunt@mail.house.gov
Phone (202) 225 3111 Fax (202) 225-5658
Phone: (617) 770-3700 Fax: (617) 770-2984
Rep. Jerrold Nadler jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-5635 Fax: (202) 225-6923
Phone: (212) 367-7350 Fax: (212) 367-7356
Rep. Howard Berman howard.berman@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
Phone: (818) 994-7200 Fax: (818) 994-1050
to also contact the House Leadership and key Members of the House Judiciary
Committee.
THIS needs to be done NOW as they are trying to get Orphan Works on the
agenda for this morning.
This is very important as we need to make sure they keep the Orphan Works
Legislation HR 5889 and S 2913 off the House Calendar and from being
released from the Judiciary Committee.
-------------------------------
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO NOW and get others to do across the country
We need to get to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer and ask them NOT to allow H.R. 5889 to go on the
calendar.
We also need to get to 4 critical members of the House Judiciary
Committee and tell them NOT to abandon their version of the bill and
accept the Senate version.
THE INFO:
If you have trouble getting through on their individual lines, you can
also CALL CONGRESS: 1-800-828-0498. Tell the U.S. Capitol Switchboard
Operator "I would like to leave a message for Congressperson __________
that I oppose the Orphan Works Act." They will switch you through to
the lawmaker's office and often take a message which also gets passed on
to the lawmaker. Once you're put through give the same message.
There are two letters at the end of this email that you can use/adopt:
CONTACT INFO TO USE FOR LETTER #1 FOR The House leadershipt Speaker Pelosi
and Majority Leader Hoyer:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225 4965 Fax (202) 225-8259
Phone: (415) 556-4862 (San Francisco office)
Rep. Steny Hoyer steny.hoyer@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225 4131
Fax (202) 225-4300
Phone: (301) 474-0119
(Greenbelt office)
Phone: (301-843-1577 (Waldorf office)
CONTACT INFO TO USE FOR LETTER #2 FOR key members of the Judiciary
Committee:
Chairman Rep. John Conyers, Jr. john.conyers@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-5126 Fax: (202) 225-0072
Phone: (313) 961-5670 Fax: (313) 226-2085
Rep. William Delahunt william.delahunt@mail.house.gov
Phone (202) 225 3111 Fax (202) 225-5658
Phone: (617) 770-3700 Fax: (617) 770-2984
Rep. Jerrold Nadler jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-5635 Fax: (202) 225-6923
Phone: (212) 367-7350 Fax: (212) 367-7356
Rep. Howard Berman howard.berman@mail.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
Phone: (818) 994-7200 Fax: (818) 994-1050
House moving on Orphan Works bill Now.
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP
THE HOUSE ORPHAN WORKS BILL (H.R. 5889)
IS MOVING IN THE HOUSE NOW
10.2.08
Phone, fax, email these Congressman immediately
DELAHUNT Phone (202) 225 3111 Fax (202) 225-5658
Phone: (617) 770-3700 Fax: (617) 770-2984
CONYERS Phone: (202) 225-5126 Fax: (202) 225-0072
Phone: (313) 961-5670 Fax: (313) 226-2085
NADLER Phone: (202) 225-5635 Fax: (202) 225-6923
Phone: (212) 367-7350 Fax: (212) 367-7356
BERMAN Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
Phone: (818) 994-7200 Fax: (818) 994-1050
EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE AT THE WAY THIS IS BEING DONE
We've been getting assurances all day that the bill was "dead for this year."
TELL THEM NOT TO PASS THIS ANTI-COPYRIGHT LAW
* UNDER COVER OF NIGHT
* UNDER COVER OF ECONOMIC CRISIS
* UNDER COVER OF ANOTHER TELEVISED DEBATE
TELL THEM THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS WAY TO RE-WRITE THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
THE HOUSE ORPHAN WORKS BILL (H.R. 5889)
IS MOVING IN THE HOUSE NOW
10.2.08
Phone, fax, email these Congressman immediately
DELAHUNT Phone (202) 225 3111 Fax (202) 225-5658
Phone: (617) 770-3700 Fax: (617) 770-2984
CONYERS Phone: (202) 225-5126 Fax: (202) 225-0072
Phone: (313) 961-5670 Fax: (313) 226-2085
NADLER Phone: (202) 225-5635 Fax: (202) 225-6923
Phone: (212) 367-7350 Fax: (212) 367-7356
BERMAN Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
Phone: (818) 994-7200 Fax: (818) 994-1050
EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE AT THE WAY THIS IS BEING DONE
We've been getting assurances all day that the bill was "dead for this year."
TELL THEM NOT TO PASS THIS ANTI-COPYRIGHT LAW
* UNDER COVER OF NIGHT
* UNDER COVER OF ECONOMIC CRISIS
* UNDER COVER OF ANOTHER TELEVISED DEBATE
TELL THEM THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS WAY TO RE-WRITE THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Orphan Works NOT Dead!
Blogs are stating the Orphan Works bill is dead.
This is not true.
The House bill is dead. Which means the legislation is dangerously close to passing.
Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D) along with Congressman Howard Berman (D) vowed to pass Orphan Works this year. The Orphan Works bill has passed the Senate. The House has already agreed they would be fine taking up the Senate Bill as a substitution for the House Bill.
There is a high probability the House may pass the legislation tomorrow when the House is in session again.
The House will probably be operating under suspension rules again, meaning they don't have to follow the normal protocols. No one is sure how long the House will stay in session. It may go through the weekend, depending on how long it takes for them to negotiate and pass a bailout rescue.
It is believed that the Orphan Works bill is in play anytime in the House is in session.
They may also come back for a lame-duck session in November after the election.
The bill is not dead and artists need to be aware this is not over yet.
Due to the bailout bill, e-mails are blocked in some offices because they've been overwhelmed with angry constituents about the economy. Faxes are jammed. Many artists have said that they can not get through the Washington phone lines due to the large volume of calls.
Artists are trying the representatives home offices in order to get through.
Remember, every one of your Congressman is standing for re-election and it is important to remind them of that point as you call them.
The bill is not dead.
This is not true.
The House bill is dead. Which means the legislation is dangerously close to passing.
Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D) along with Congressman Howard Berman (D) vowed to pass Orphan Works this year. The Orphan Works bill has passed the Senate. The House has already agreed they would be fine taking up the Senate Bill as a substitution for the House Bill.
There is a high probability the House may pass the legislation tomorrow when the House is in session again.
The House will probably be operating under suspension rules again, meaning they don't have to follow the normal protocols. No one is sure how long the House will stay in session. It may go through the weekend, depending on how long it takes for them to negotiate and pass a bailout rescue.
It is believed that the Orphan Works bill is in play anytime in the House is in session.
They may also come back for a lame-duck session in November after the election.
The bill is not dead and artists need to be aware this is not over yet.
Due to the bailout bill, e-mails are blocked in some offices because they've been overwhelmed with angry constituents about the economy. Faxes are jammed. Many artists have said that they can not get through the Washington phone lines due to the large volume of calls.
Artists are trying the representatives home offices in order to get through.
Remember, every one of your Congressman is standing for re-election and it is important to remind them of that point as you call them.
The bill is not dead.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Artists' Organizations Unite against Hot-lined Orphan Works Bill
The Orphan Works bill is being Hotlined and with 70 organizations opposing a bill only a handful of organizations support action is needed to be sure the majority is heard. Take a good look at the mess happening on Wall Strett and ask yourself who will bail out artists if this goes through? Artists need to speak out against this projected revenue opportunity for others.
ORPHAN WORKS BILL HOTLINED
Again.
THIS MEANS IT COULD PASS THE SENATE THIS AFTERNOON
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS IMMEDIATELY
ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL:
S2913 THE SHAWN BENTLEY ORPHAN WORKS ACT OF 2008
ASK THEM TO PUT A "HOLD" ON THE BILL:
TELL THEM YOU OPPOSE THIS CONTROVERSIAL BILL
ASK THEM NOT TO PASS IT WITHOUT A FULL AND OPEN HEARING
WARN THEM THAT IT WILL DO GREAT HARM TO SMALL BUSINESSES
To find your Senators' phone numbers go to the Illustrators' Partnership Orphan Works site:
http://illustratorspartnership.capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/dbq/officials/
At the top of the home page, click on "Elected Officials"
You'll find a US map:
Click on your state,
Then "Senators,"
Then click on each Senator's name,
Then click "Contact."
This will give you their phone and fax numbers.
Please phone and fax them both immediately.
-Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
__________________________________________________
Over 70 organizations are united in opposing this bill in its current form. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.
The Capwiz site is open to professional creators and any member of the image-making public. Sample letters have been provided. International artists will find a special link, with a sample letter and instructions as to whom to write.
If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Please post or forward this message in its entirety to any interested party.
ORPHAN WORKS BILL HOTLINED
Again.
THIS MEANS IT COULD PASS THE SENATE THIS AFTERNOON
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS IMMEDIATELY
ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL:
S2913 THE SHAWN BENTLEY ORPHAN WORKS ACT OF 2008
ASK THEM TO PUT A "HOLD" ON THE BILL:
TELL THEM YOU OPPOSE THIS CONTROVERSIAL BILL
ASK THEM NOT TO PASS IT WITHOUT A FULL AND OPEN HEARING
WARN THEM THAT IT WILL DO GREAT HARM TO SMALL BUSINESSES
To find your Senators' phone numbers go to the Illustrators' Partnership Orphan Works site:
http://illustratorspartnership.capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/dbq/officials/
At the top of the home page, click on "Elected Officials"
You'll find a US map:
Click on your state,
Then "Senators,"
Then click on each Senator's name,
Then click "Contact."
This will give you their phone and fax numbers.
Please phone and fax them both immediately.
-Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
__________________________________________________
Over 70 organizations are united in opposing this bill in its current form. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.
The Capwiz site is open to professional creators and any member of the image-making public. Sample letters have been provided. International artists will find a special link, with a sample letter and instructions as to whom to write.
If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Please post or forward this message in its entirety to any interested party.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Orphan Works: Risking Our Nation’s Copyright Wealth
With some organizations like The Graphic Artist's Guild emailing artists that they support the Orphan Works bill over 70 organizations have a much different opinion. If you have not read this following email please do since it asks some very important and not yet answered questions.
Also if you have not seen this blog link below please check it out. It looks into ASMP, agendas and issues concerning Orphan Works. Remember that GAG has asked that ASMP speak to congress on behalf of all artists.
Blog Link: http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/09/asmp-orphan-works-and-agendas.html
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 From The Illustrators' Partnership of America
Orphan Works: Risking Our Nation’s Copyright Wealth
Is it wise to concentrate our nations’ copyright wealth in the hands of a few corporate databases? With the meltdown on Wall Street, this might be a good time to ask Congress that question.
The Orphan Works bill would pressure copyright holders to subsidize the start ups of giant commercial databases. The contents of these databases would be more valuable than secure banking information. Yet who can watch the ongoing failure of investment banks that were “too big to fail’ without asking why government should want to create these privately owned image banks on the backs of small business owners who neither want nor need them. Here are some of the questions we’ve raised before about this bad legislative scheme:
• Who’s to be trusted with these databases?
• Who’s to manage them and in whose best interests?
• What happens when a database is hacked?
• What happens when one fails?
• What happens when one is acquired?
• What happens when the terms of service are changed?
• What happens when registration fees become prohibitive?
• What happens when maintenance fees are piled on?
• What happens when exorbitant commissions are imposed?
• What happens to artists who can’t afford to register?
• What happens when registered artists can’t afford to maintain their registrations?
• Will artists have to register their immense bodies of work in competing registries?
• What happens to your business when your clients start calling the databases, not you, to clear rights to your work?
• Why should small business owners be forced to entrust their business information to outside business interests?
In an excellent statement prepared for the Small Business Roundtable, August 8, 2008, David Rhodes, President of the School of Visual Arts said this:
“[S]ince the expense of registering works [with these for-profit databases] will be born by the creative community, the expense of copyright protection will be socialized while the profit of creative endeavors will be privatized.”
Sound familiar? As we watch CEOs with Golden Parachutes bail out of investment banks and the government saddles taxpayers with the financial burden of propping them up, we should remind Congress that the true definition of capitalism is not a lot of big businesses trying to gobble each other up or maximize profits by cutting corners. True capitalism is a lot of small business owners taking responsibility for their own decisions and accepting responsibility for their own failures. As David Rhodes went on to say:
“Copyright protection may have impeded the creation of ever-larger image banks, but that is not a problem - that is the purpose of Copyright. In short there is no problem that this legislation will fix. Therefore, prudence dictates that nothing be done.”
– Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership
POSTED BY ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP AT 9:49 PM
Also if you have not seen this blog link below please check it out. It looks into ASMP, agendas and issues concerning Orphan Works. Remember that GAG has asked that ASMP speak to congress on behalf of all artists.
Blog Link: http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/09/asmp-orphan-works-and-agendas.html
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 From The Illustrators' Partnership of America
Orphan Works: Risking Our Nation’s Copyright Wealth
Is it wise to concentrate our nations’ copyright wealth in the hands of a few corporate databases? With the meltdown on Wall Street, this might be a good time to ask Congress that question.
The Orphan Works bill would pressure copyright holders to subsidize the start ups of giant commercial databases. The contents of these databases would be more valuable than secure banking information. Yet who can watch the ongoing failure of investment banks that were “too big to fail’ without asking why government should want to create these privately owned image banks on the backs of small business owners who neither want nor need them. Here are some of the questions we’ve raised before about this bad legislative scheme:
• Who’s to be trusted with these databases?
• Who’s to manage them and in whose best interests?
• What happens when a database is hacked?
• What happens when one fails?
• What happens when one is acquired?
• What happens when the terms of service are changed?
• What happens when registration fees become prohibitive?
• What happens when maintenance fees are piled on?
• What happens when exorbitant commissions are imposed?
• What happens to artists who can’t afford to register?
• What happens when registered artists can’t afford to maintain their registrations?
• Will artists have to register their immense bodies of work in competing registries?
• What happens to your business when your clients start calling the databases, not you, to clear rights to your work?
• Why should small business owners be forced to entrust their business information to outside business interests?
In an excellent statement prepared for the Small Business Roundtable, August 8, 2008, David Rhodes, President of the School of Visual Arts said this:
“[S]ince the expense of registering works [with these for-profit databases] will be born by the creative community, the expense of copyright protection will be socialized while the profit of creative endeavors will be privatized.”
Sound familiar? As we watch CEOs with Golden Parachutes bail out of investment banks and the government saddles taxpayers with the financial burden of propping them up, we should remind Congress that the true definition of capitalism is not a lot of big businesses trying to gobble each other up or maximize profits by cutting corners. True capitalism is a lot of small business owners taking responsibility for their own decisions and accepting responsibility for their own failures. As David Rhodes went on to say:
“Copyright protection may have impeded the creation of ever-larger image banks, but that is not a problem - that is the purpose of Copyright. In short there is no problem that this legislation will fix. Therefore, prudence dictates that nothing be done.”
– Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership
POSTED BY ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP AT 9:49 PM
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Orphan Works: Why Bet Against Ourselves?
As some artists have said, they have received an email from the Graphic Artist's Guild (GAG) explaining their support for the House version of the Orphan Works bill. Many have asked the Illustrators' Partnership to reply and the following post below details each line of the email sent from GAG.
I seriously believe artists need to read and forward this post to others right away.
Thanks,
KEN DUBROWSKI
Orphan Works: Why Bet Against Ourselves?
Several artists have asked the Illustrators’ Partnership to respond to a recent letter from the Graphic Artists Guild in which GAG gave their reasons for supporting the House version of the Orphan Works Bill. GAG’s statements are quoted verbatim. IPA responses follow.
GAG: This morning I received a number of emails related to the horrors of the Orphan Works bill. As someone who has worked for the last three years to get the best possible outcome for this legislation, I can honestly say that I wish there would be no change to our copyright law. But that’s not the reality.
Response: Artists have no way of knowing what GAG considers “the best possible outcome for this legislation” because their lobbyist has asserted attorney client privilege, saying she can’t disclose “sensitive stuff.” However, some facts are on the public record:
In 2005, 42 groups signed the Orphan Works opposition paper submitted by the Illustrators’ Partnership to the Copyright Office.
GAG was not one of those 42 groups.
GAG filed their own paper, endorsing the bill’s “legislative blueprint.”
According to mandatory disclosures filed with Congress, GAG has paid their lobbyist $130,000 to support the House version of the bill.
GAG: The artistic community just has to get real about this Orphan Works scare. Orphan Works won’t put us out of business any more than the “all rights” contract did when business reacted to the Copyright Law of 1978. And it’s quite possible that the entire episode might serve to put us on notice that art is a business and should be treated that way.
Response: Since when does “getting real” mean artists have to sit still for being robbed? And since when does treating art as a business mean making excuses for theft? Do you have to be “put out of business” before you react to harmful legislation? Over 60 groups agree that this bill violates international copyright law, undermines artists’ rights and devalues their work. If that’s “a scare,” it’s a real one.
GAG: Orphan Works will not go away, because too many stakeholders are behind it.
Response: Orphan Works legislation doesn’t need to “go away.” It needs to be fixed. Make it a real orphan works bill. As for the special interests behind this one, they’re not “stakeholders.” They’re opportunists. They want to cut themselves in on our markets, and they’ve drafted a bill that will let them. It’ll be the stockhouse story all over again – only this time, you’ll be penalized if you don’t give your work to these so-called “databases.” Who are the real stakeholders in this fight? We are - and we shouldn’t succumb to Stockholm Syndrome and embrace the logic of the bill’s backers.
GAG: Delaying passage runs the risk of getting a less sympathetic Judiciary Committee membership in the next Congress to draft a far worse version.
Response: No, opposing it in a principled manner and explaining to lawmakers why it’s bad gives us a chance to get a better version in the next Congress. Telling you to take a bad bill because the next one might be worse is like telling you to cop a plea to a crime when you know you’re not guilty.
GAG: By simply refusing to negotiate realistically within Washington circles, we could lose our seat at the legislative table to influence future issues.
Response: “Negotiating realistically” doesn’t mean capitulation. It means proposing serious amendments, as IPA did July 11:
http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html. As for having a “seat at the table,” what good does it do you if you don’t use it? If you give up the goal of protecting your rights to become part of the process, there’s a good chance you’ve become part of the problem.
GAG: For 40 years, the Guild has brought responsible leadership to the legislative table earning artists a position of respect within government circles. It would be foolish to gamble that respect on a “fight to the death” struggle over Orphan Works.
Response: If the rights to your creative work aren’t worth fighting for, what is? Protecting your rights is always a “gamble.” But why bet against yourself? As for that “position of respect” that “government circles” allegedly show us, If this bill is an example of it, maybe we should aim for the respect of being treated as worthy opponents.
GAG: The original single-page Orphan Works proposal released by the Copyright Office in January 2006 has expanded to 20 pages as the result of the many additions and concessions the Guild and other visual creators groups fought long and hard to get.
Response: It’s true that this bill is now so convoluted you’ll need a lawyer to explain it to you. That’s a big change from the current law, which protects your work by making it your exclusive property. This bill would force you to take active steps - like registering your work with a commercial database - not to actually protect it (because the database won't protect it) – but merely to preserve your right to sue an infringer in federal court.
GAG: Among the most significant victories in this three-year struggle is the exclusion of “useful articles” that prevents infringements of artwork on items such as t-shirts, dishware, wallpaper, gift wrap, shower curtains, etc., from being covered under the legislation.
Response: It’s not clear why artists, writers, photographers, songwriters and others should be grateful that “wall paper, gift wraps, shower curtains, etc.” have been exempted. Is art on coffee mugs more valuable than medical illustrations, news photos, political cartoons, book illustrations?
The textile industry asked for an exemption only for themselves. They condemned the bill, saying it would do great damage. But as soon as they got the exemption, they endorsed it! It’s easy to see why they wanted to be cut out - it’s a lousy bill. But once they got out, why try to inflict the damage on others? Was there a quid-pro-quo? Did Congress force them to endorse the bill in return for exempting them? And if you’re the party that brokered a deal like that, why would you want to take credit for it? If this bill is so bad that manufacturers have to be spared, how does anyone justify telling artists to just “get real” and take it as an object lesson?
GAG: The Guild has promoted the “Notice of Use” provision among lawmakers as being a fair compromise to exclude bad actors making false orphan work claims, and if the Notice is public, to provide artists a way to self-identify as copyright owners if a user ever designates their work as an orphan work.
Response: First, let’s translate “Notice of Use” into plain English. It means “Notice of Intent to Infringe.” An infringer would file his name and a description of the so-called orphan with an archive. As currently written, this would be a Dark Archive. That means if someone infringes your work and has filed a Notice of Use, you wouldn’t know about it unless a.) you discover you’ve been infringed; b.) you pay a filing fee and sue the infringer in federal court and c.) the infringer asserts an Orphan Works defense. Only then can you file a request to see if your work is in the Dark Archive. In other words, the Notice of Use is of no probative value to you at all, unless by sheer luck, you find out that you’ve been infringed and feel like risking a lawsuit. As for making the Notice public, what does that mean? It means you’d have to start each day by reading through hundreds of thousands of text descriptions of infringed works to see if any of the so-called orphans sound like pictures of yours.
GAG: The Senate version of the bill doesn’t include this vital clause, but the House version does, and that’s why the Guild can and does support the House version of the bill in the same manner as the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). It’s a difficult choice, but most business decisions are.
Response: To repeat: over 60 creators organizations oppose BOTH bills.http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00273
GAG:I don’t think Orphan Works is going to have a dramatic influence on how we do business, but I hope it has awakened us all to the importance of tending to business issues.
Response: If it’s not going to have “a dramatic influence on how we do business,” then why should it wake anyone up? In fact, if this bill passes, in the United States, your work can be used “legally” without your knowledge or consent. We think that’s pretty “dramatic” and it could have a dramatic effect on your business – whether you’ve “awakened” or not.
GAG: If we as a community invested a fraction of the energy we’ve expended on an apocalyptic vision of Orphan Works into protecting our own creations, protesting unfair contracting practices or writing letters to low-paying publishers, we’d be in a far better market position than we are today. The fact is that we give away more in the every day practice of our businesses than the government could ever take from us.
Response: We don’t think this is a time to lecture artists about business practices. No person or group can stop individuals from making poor business decisions. But letting government pass bad laws that will affect everyone – good business people and poor ones - is another matter. How many other businesses would sit back and surrender to a law that undermined their fundamental property rights? Dry cleaners or real estate brokers wouldn’t stand for it. Why should we? There’s no point in being an artists rights organization if you won’t defend artists’ rights.
GAG: Together, we can build a strong and vibrant industry. Orphan Works is not the first business challenge we’ve faced, and it certainly won’t be the last.
Response: We don’t see any way an “artists rights group” can build a “strong and vibrant industry” out of this bill, unless they plan to become one of the commercial databases this bill would set up. Orphan Works is the wedge issue of the anti-copyright lobby. If it’s successful, they’ll use it to widen the breach. Unless artists stand up for their own rights now - while they still have them - having a seat at the Orphan Works table won’t give anybody any clout for getting those rights back later.
GAG: We have to unify as a community to meet these challenges head on, to develop better business practices and standards, and above all, to remain engaged in the halls of government as a responsible and respected constituency.
Response: “Developing better business practices and standards” is always a good idea, but used in the context of this bill, the term is code for something else. The Orphan Works Act would set up gatekeepers for every industry. The gatekeepers would get to draw up the checklist of things infringers would have to check off before they infringed your work. Of course, the checklist will be presented to artists as an obstacle course for infringers - but in fact, it’ll be an obstacle course for YOU. Because it means you’ll have to take certain specific steps to preserve your right to sue infringers, and any clerical failure on your part, any oversight, will void your options.
There may be valid reasons for developing practices and standards for using the work of artists who have died or abandoned their copyrights; that would be a true orphaned work policy. But to warn working artists that they have to submit to new bureaucratic business practices so that potential infringers can freely use their unidentified works is a fundamental embrace of the anti-copyright agenda. That’s the truth and it should be understood as such.
Please feel free to forward these responses to any interested party.
For ongoing developments, go to the Illustrators’ Partnership Orphan Works blog: http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/
Take Action: Don't Let Congress Orphan Our Work
E-mail your Senators and Representatives with one click. Go to:
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
-
I seriously believe artists need to read and forward this post to others right away.
Thanks,
KEN DUBROWSKI
Orphan Works: Why Bet Against Ourselves?
Several artists have asked the Illustrators’ Partnership to respond to a recent letter from the Graphic Artists Guild in which GAG gave their reasons for supporting the House version of the Orphan Works Bill. GAG’s statements are quoted verbatim. IPA responses follow.
GAG: This morning I received a number of emails related to the horrors of the Orphan Works bill. As someone who has worked for the last three years to get the best possible outcome for this legislation, I can honestly say that I wish there would be no change to our copyright law. But that’s not the reality.
Response: Artists have no way of knowing what GAG considers “the best possible outcome for this legislation” because their lobbyist has asserted attorney client privilege, saying she can’t disclose “sensitive stuff.” However, some facts are on the public record:
In 2005, 42 groups signed the Orphan Works opposition paper submitted by the Illustrators’ Partnership to the Copyright Office.
GAG was not one of those 42 groups.
GAG filed their own paper, endorsing the bill’s “legislative blueprint.”
According to mandatory disclosures filed with Congress, GAG has paid their lobbyist $130,000 to support the House version of the bill.
GAG: The artistic community just has to get real about this Orphan Works scare. Orphan Works won’t put us out of business any more than the “all rights” contract did when business reacted to the Copyright Law of 1978. And it’s quite possible that the entire episode might serve to put us on notice that art is a business and should be treated that way.
Response: Since when does “getting real” mean artists have to sit still for being robbed? And since when does treating art as a business mean making excuses for theft? Do you have to be “put out of business” before you react to harmful legislation? Over 60 groups agree that this bill violates international copyright law, undermines artists’ rights and devalues their work. If that’s “a scare,” it’s a real one.
GAG: Orphan Works will not go away, because too many stakeholders are behind it.
Response: Orphan Works legislation doesn’t need to “go away.” It needs to be fixed. Make it a real orphan works bill. As for the special interests behind this one, they’re not “stakeholders.” They’re opportunists. They want to cut themselves in on our markets, and they’ve drafted a bill that will let them. It’ll be the stockhouse story all over again – only this time, you’ll be penalized if you don’t give your work to these so-called “databases.” Who are the real stakeholders in this fight? We are - and we shouldn’t succumb to Stockholm Syndrome and embrace the logic of the bill’s backers.
GAG: Delaying passage runs the risk of getting a less sympathetic Judiciary Committee membership in the next Congress to draft a far worse version.
Response: No, opposing it in a principled manner and explaining to lawmakers why it’s bad gives us a chance to get a better version in the next Congress. Telling you to take a bad bill because the next one might be worse is like telling you to cop a plea to a crime when you know you’re not guilty.
GAG: By simply refusing to negotiate realistically within Washington circles, we could lose our seat at the legislative table to influence future issues.
Response: “Negotiating realistically” doesn’t mean capitulation. It means proposing serious amendments, as IPA did July 11:
http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html. As for having a “seat at the table,” what good does it do you if you don’t use it? If you give up the goal of protecting your rights to become part of the process, there’s a good chance you’ve become part of the problem.
GAG: For 40 years, the Guild has brought responsible leadership to the legislative table earning artists a position of respect within government circles. It would be foolish to gamble that respect on a “fight to the death” struggle over Orphan Works.
Response: If the rights to your creative work aren’t worth fighting for, what is? Protecting your rights is always a “gamble.” But why bet against yourself? As for that “position of respect” that “government circles” allegedly show us, If this bill is an example of it, maybe we should aim for the respect of being treated as worthy opponents.
GAG: The original single-page Orphan Works proposal released by the Copyright Office in January 2006 has expanded to 20 pages as the result of the many additions and concessions the Guild and other visual creators groups fought long and hard to get.
Response: It’s true that this bill is now so convoluted you’ll need a lawyer to explain it to you. That’s a big change from the current law, which protects your work by making it your exclusive property. This bill would force you to take active steps - like registering your work with a commercial database - not to actually protect it (because the database won't protect it) – but merely to preserve your right to sue an infringer in federal court.
GAG: Among the most significant victories in this three-year struggle is the exclusion of “useful articles” that prevents infringements of artwork on items such as t-shirts, dishware, wallpaper, gift wrap, shower curtains, etc., from being covered under the legislation.
Response: It’s not clear why artists, writers, photographers, songwriters and others should be grateful that “wall paper, gift wraps, shower curtains, etc.” have been exempted. Is art on coffee mugs more valuable than medical illustrations, news photos, political cartoons, book illustrations?
The textile industry asked for an exemption only for themselves. They condemned the bill, saying it would do great damage. But as soon as they got the exemption, they endorsed it! It’s easy to see why they wanted to be cut out - it’s a lousy bill. But once they got out, why try to inflict the damage on others? Was there a quid-pro-quo? Did Congress force them to endorse the bill in return for exempting them? And if you’re the party that brokered a deal like that, why would you want to take credit for it? If this bill is so bad that manufacturers have to be spared, how does anyone justify telling artists to just “get real” and take it as an object lesson?
GAG: The Guild has promoted the “Notice of Use” provision among lawmakers as being a fair compromise to exclude bad actors making false orphan work claims, and if the Notice is public, to provide artists a way to self-identify as copyright owners if a user ever designates their work as an orphan work.
Response: First, let’s translate “Notice of Use” into plain English. It means “Notice of Intent to Infringe.” An infringer would file his name and a description of the so-called orphan with an archive. As currently written, this would be a Dark Archive. That means if someone infringes your work and has filed a Notice of Use, you wouldn’t know about it unless a.) you discover you’ve been infringed; b.) you pay a filing fee and sue the infringer in federal court and c.) the infringer asserts an Orphan Works defense. Only then can you file a request to see if your work is in the Dark Archive. In other words, the Notice of Use is of no probative value to you at all, unless by sheer luck, you find out that you’ve been infringed and feel like risking a lawsuit. As for making the Notice public, what does that mean? It means you’d have to start each day by reading through hundreds of thousands of text descriptions of infringed works to see if any of the so-called orphans sound like pictures of yours.
GAG: The Senate version of the bill doesn’t include this vital clause, but the House version does, and that’s why the Guild can and does support the House version of the bill in the same manner as the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). It’s a difficult choice, but most business decisions are.
Response: To repeat: over 60 creators organizations oppose BOTH bills.http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00273
GAG:I don’t think Orphan Works is going to have a dramatic influence on how we do business, but I hope it has awakened us all to the importance of tending to business issues.
Response: If it’s not going to have “a dramatic influence on how we do business,” then why should it wake anyone up? In fact, if this bill passes, in the United States, your work can be used “legally” without your knowledge or consent. We think that’s pretty “dramatic” and it could have a dramatic effect on your business – whether you’ve “awakened” or not.
GAG: If we as a community invested a fraction of the energy we’ve expended on an apocalyptic vision of Orphan Works into protecting our own creations, protesting unfair contracting practices or writing letters to low-paying publishers, we’d be in a far better market position than we are today. The fact is that we give away more in the every day practice of our businesses than the government could ever take from us.
Response: We don’t think this is a time to lecture artists about business practices. No person or group can stop individuals from making poor business decisions. But letting government pass bad laws that will affect everyone – good business people and poor ones - is another matter. How many other businesses would sit back and surrender to a law that undermined their fundamental property rights? Dry cleaners or real estate brokers wouldn’t stand for it. Why should we? There’s no point in being an artists rights organization if you won’t defend artists’ rights.
GAG: Together, we can build a strong and vibrant industry. Orphan Works is not the first business challenge we’ve faced, and it certainly won’t be the last.
Response: We don’t see any way an “artists rights group” can build a “strong and vibrant industry” out of this bill, unless they plan to become one of the commercial databases this bill would set up. Orphan Works is the wedge issue of the anti-copyright lobby. If it’s successful, they’ll use it to widen the breach. Unless artists stand up for their own rights now - while they still have them - having a seat at the Orphan Works table won’t give anybody any clout for getting those rights back later.
GAG: We have to unify as a community to meet these challenges head on, to develop better business practices and standards, and above all, to remain engaged in the halls of government as a responsible and respected constituency.
Response: “Developing better business practices and standards” is always a good idea, but used in the context of this bill, the term is code for something else. The Orphan Works Act would set up gatekeepers for every industry. The gatekeepers would get to draw up the checklist of things infringers would have to check off before they infringed your work. Of course, the checklist will be presented to artists as an obstacle course for infringers - but in fact, it’ll be an obstacle course for YOU. Because it means you’ll have to take certain specific steps to preserve your right to sue infringers, and any clerical failure on your part, any oversight, will void your options.
There may be valid reasons for developing practices and standards for using the work of artists who have died or abandoned their copyrights; that would be a true orphaned work policy. But to warn working artists that they have to submit to new bureaucratic business practices so that potential infringers can freely use their unidentified works is a fundamental embrace of the anti-copyright agenda. That’s the truth and it should be understood as such.
Please feel free to forward these responses to any interested party.
For ongoing developments, go to the Illustrators’ Partnership Orphan Works blog: http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/
Take Action: Don't Let Congress Orphan Our Work
E-mail your Senators and Representatives with one click. Go to:
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
