FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP:
Wired Magazine has posted an article:
"Orphan Works' Copyright Law Dies Quiet Death"
Well, we can hope.
But we're dealing with a.) a fluid situation in Washington; and b.) special interests determined to pass this bill. So our assessment: It's not dead till it's dead.
According to our DC sources, the most efficient way for Congress to pass this bill now would be for the House to scrap their own version and adopt the Senate's. There are procedural ways they can do this. Some say they will; some say they won't. It's enough to know they can.
There are special interest groups promoting the House bill now: big stock houses, for example, like Getty and Corbis, and groups working with them. They want an infringer-friendly "dark archive," a privately-owned "entity" sanctioned by the Copyright Office where infringers would file a notice of intent to infringe a work.
Since artists would not have access to this dark archive, the "sanctioned entity" would be of no use to us until our work has been infringed and we've filed a case in federal court. And then it would mostly serve the interests of infringers - letting them prove in court they had done the minimal necessary paperwork before they infringed.
The important thing to remember about the House bill is that there is no protection for artists in it. It would simply give more middlemen a chance to profit from this gutting of copyright law.
We know it's hard to ask Congress to focus on copyright law with a financial crisis looming. But we didn't pick this fight and it's our rights at stake if we don't. There is no national emergency for orphan works that requires Congress to pass this bill - which was drafted in secret - in the dark of night.
Please contact your House Representative today. Tell them not to pass the House bill. Tell them not to adopt the Senate's.
- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
Over 75 organizations oppose this bill, representing over half a million creators. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.
EMAIL CONGRESS: Send email now
2 minutes is all it takes to tell the U.S. Congress to uphold copyright protection for the world's artists.
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." The switchboard operator will patch 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, tell your Representative the message again.
INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS
Please fax these 4 U.S. State Agencies and appeal to your home representatives for intervention.
For more news and information: Illustrators' Partnership Orphan Works Blog
To be added to their mailing list, email illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Seems to me if artists insisted on the use of credits and/or copyright notices when their works are published, then those works would not be orphaned and the problem would diminish. Dropping the legal requirement of using a copyright notice, which had been in effect for decades, seemed like a good relaxation at the time. However it has had unintended and unanticipated consequences. So maybe artists could, in effect, voluntarilty reimpose the old copyright notice requirement.
The House looking to hold a lame duck session, so we should all be vigilant this month.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-gENT7GyBLgKEZWNC-abt69PwtQD94908R81
Google has simply bypassed Orphan Works legisation by scanning an enormous number of copyrighted works, which Google is not asserting the right to sell, both entire and as portions (including illustrations). Their definition of "orphaned" is a book out of print for _one year_--and Google, not the publisher or copyright holder, gets to define "in print." See
http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html
The essential documents to read on this site are the Class Notice and
the Settlement itself (forget the press releases). Even though the
Settlement is over 300 pages, I think it is important to not only read
it but to consult a copyright lawyer before making your decision
(which is, take it or leave it). The Settlement imposes an ongoing
business relationship with Google-as-your-publisher, going far beyond
the terms of the original lawsuit (which was about using
the "snippets" of copyrighted books currently in Google Book Search).
It imposes fees on copyright owners, as well as financial rewards.
For a good breakdown of the finances, see:
http://www.authorlink.com/news/item/1880/google%20settlement%20aap%
20authors%20guild
Two copyright lawyers I believe to be familiar with the terms of the
Settlement are:
Jonathan Kirsch
http://www.jonathankirsch.com/law.html
I believe that Mr. Kirsch is analyzing the Settlement for the
Independent Book Publishers Association, which is also collecting
comments and concerns from their members.
and
Ivan Hoffman
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/
Why is this a big deal? The bill specifically says having it registered with the copyright office counts. something you should be doing any ways.
Have a website with the work counts..in fact any reasonable way to track the work back to you counts.
This bill specifically address what is says. Orphaned works. In fact it is surprisingly clear and direct.
It takes pains to protect you. Look at this:
"`(iii) LACK OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION- The fact that a particular copy or phonorecord lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner of the infringed copyright is not sufficient to meet the conditions under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I)."
Isn't this the Bill?
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5889/text
Or is there another one I have missed?
Hi,
I'm the Senior Editor for www.myartspace.com. I oppose the Orphan Works bill in its current form. The rights of artists must be defended. I invited Brad Holland to respond to an interview I had with Alex Curtis of Public Knowledge. Feel free to post excerpts if you wish. It is a very long post-- but is worth the read.
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/brad-holland-responds-to-public.html
Warm regards,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor / Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog
Please make a stand against Shepard Fairey and the Fair Use Project. The 'AP bullies an artist' scenario is total bunk. He is just trying to provoke support. Look at the facts. Shepard Fairey is being represented by the Fair Use Project. Lawrence Lessig and Anthony Falzone are both involved with FUP and both were strong supporters of the 2008 orphan works legislation which would have truly bullied artists if it had passed.
Lessig once served on the board of Public Knowledge-- an organization that supported that legislation and challenged the viewpoint of over 60 art organizations and thousands of concerned visual artists in the United States. That should tell you something.
These are people who desire to see your rights as an artist taken away while they wave the banner of 'creative freedom' in order to gain support from artists who don't know any better. If they have their way don't come crying to me when Walmart makes a huge profit off of your images.
Some links with info about this:
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/shepard-fairey-obey-copyright.html
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/integrity-lost-lawrence-lessig-helps.html
Post a Comment