A friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
" Ahhh, were it that simple.
Returning these royalty funds to artists should be THE goal. If not the goal, then organizations receiving this money should be transparent about what money they're receiving AND how they're spending it. OTHERW ISE, it can easily appear that this money is being used to hire lobbyists and lawyers who -in the end- are working against the long-term financial interests of the very artists who've been generating the funds.
Sounds crazy, but that's my take on it. I'd LOVE to be PROVEN wrong, but when silence and lawsuits are what results from questions being asked it just looks really bad. REALLY bad..."
This is correct it is both crazy and very wrong.
When news broke that GAG received 1.5 million in foreign money, I have read that GAG members in their local chapters who have been told they only get a few thousand a year reacted that GAG had clarified what the money is being used for in their appeal notice. No they did not.
On GAG'S WIKI page they list under "ADVOCACY" the action of suing artists who have tried to return money to artists as a proud moment in their history. I understand that the followup that shows the case being dismissed keeps being removed, so I don't know if it will be up there when people who read this check on it.
The issue is not if I believe that GAG thinks suing artists is some type of misguided advocacy. Being one of the individuals sued by GAG you can understand what I think of that nonsense. The point is that large sums of money (1.5 million) were used not to help artists but used to support Orphan Works. It was used to hire a lobbyist who supports the formation of a registry which would costs artists large sums of money to protect their work. It was used to hire lawyers to ensure these orphaned royalties remain within the organization and sue artists who told the truth with a false claim of defamation. To me this says much about GAG that is not listed on WIKI but also it says something about those GAG members who sat silently while all this was going on and still do so.
I believe, that any artist's organization that receives this money should be held accountable. These organizations have a moral responsibility to tell artists how much they received and for what it has been used for. The number one goal is not using these royalties as a private little savings account to fund actions that hurt the industry like Orphan Works but instead go to "help" artists. Instead of using the money and claiming it as a chartable donation, organizations need instead to help in the formation of a collection society to RETURN THAT WHICH BELONGS TO THEM. Their own earned income!
Imagine if any organization who has been receiving these royalties took the lead and announced they would use these orphaned royalties from ACA to help in the formation of a collection society. I wonder what would happen.
Instead of using the royalties to offset dwindling membership dues or try to protect a continued revenue stream, these people who sit on these boards need to look out for the artists they claim they represent. They need to see a dwindling industry and realize they made the wrong decision.
There is no shame in that.
These people need to ensure that those in the field who need these royalties see a return for their efforts. And if these board members refuse they need to be replaced by individuals who have artists best interests.
It is not to late to be a hero here.
" Ahhh, were it that simple.
Returning these royalty funds to artists should be THE goal. If not the goal, then organizations receiving this money should be transparent about what money they're receiving AND how they're spending it. OTHERW ISE, it can easily appear that this money is being used to hire lobbyists and lawyers who -in the end- are working against the long-term financial interests of the very artists who've been generating the funds.
Sounds crazy, but that's my take on it. I'd LOVE to be PROVEN wrong, but when silence and lawsuits are what results from questions being asked it just looks really bad. REALLY bad..."
This is correct it is both crazy and very wrong.
When news broke that GAG received 1.5 million in foreign money, I have read that GAG members in their local chapters who have been told they only get a few thousand a year reacted that GAG had clarified what the money is being used for in their appeal notice. No they did not.
On GAG'S WIKI page they list under "ADVOCACY" the action of suing artists who have tried to return money to artists as a proud moment in their history. I understand that the followup that shows the case being dismissed keeps being removed, so I don't know if it will be up there when people who read this check on it.
The issue is not if I believe that GAG thinks suing artists is some type of misguided advocacy. Being one of the individuals sued by GAG you can understand what I think of that nonsense. The point is that large sums of money (1.5 million) were used not to help artists but used to support Orphan Works. It was used to hire a lobbyist who supports the formation of a registry which would costs artists large sums of money to protect their work. It was used to hire lawyers to ensure these orphaned royalties remain within the organization and sue artists who told the truth with a false claim of defamation. To me this says much about GAG that is not listed on WIKI but also it says something about those GAG members who sat silently while all this was going on and still do so.
I believe, that any artist's organization that receives this money should be held accountable. These organizations have a moral responsibility to tell artists how much they received and for what it has been used for. The number one goal is not using these royalties as a private little savings account to fund actions that hurt the industry like Orphan Works but instead go to "help" artists. Instead of using the money and claiming it as a chartable donation, organizations need instead to help in the formation of a collection society to RETURN THAT WHICH BELONGS TO THEM. Their own earned income!
Imagine if any organization who has been receiving these royalties took the lead and announced they would use these orphaned royalties from ACA to help in the formation of a collection society. I wonder what would happen.
Instead of using the royalties to offset dwindling membership dues or try to protect a continued revenue stream, these people who sit on these boards need to look out for the artists they claim they represent. They need to see a dwindling industry and realize they made the wrong decision.
There is no shame in that.
These people need to ensure that those in the field who need these royalties see a return for their efforts. And if these board members refuse they need to be replaced by individuals who have artists best interests.
It is not to late to be a hero here.
1 comment:
Ken, you are so right. The stakes just get larger with the threat of "Orphan Works" legislation. First we lose our royalties, then our copyrights. What's next?
Post a Comment