Mind Your Business: You Will Lose All The Rights to Your Own Art

[Tommy L]

I'm signed up for the email updates and now I think its just about keeping informed and aware. Theres really nothing that can be done until this bill has a number. There are so many (powerful) interested parties on both sides that its difficult to seperate the news from the spin right now.

 

One thing I was wondering, does this apply to architects? Are their drawings going to be subject to this abuse of creative copyright?

[maikukaiza]

I suggest that everyone do their own research and not take the word of Mark Simon, Brad Holland and the Illustrators' Partnership of America. From everything I've read they are spreading false information. I think I'll take the word lawyers who live and breathe copyright law over Brad Holland, illustrator for Playboy and Penthouse.

 

Here's what lawyer Jerry Brito has to say,

 

From Illustrators’ Partnership: “This legislation jeopardizes visual artists’ copyrights and robs artists of income.” I don’t see how this is the case. The whole problem with orphan works is that they go unused if an author/owner can’t be found. If they go unused, authors don’t get a royalty. With this legislation in place, potential users will have to diligently attempt to find the owner. If they find the owner, they must pay for a license. If they don’t find the owner because they didn’t conduct a diligent search and they nonetheless use the work, then authors are no worse off than they are today because they’ll never know of the infringement, or, if they do find out, they will be able to successfully sue in court and recover damages. If the would-be user doesn’t find the owner after conducting a diligent search, under the new proposals, they will be able to use works that they now can’t use without facing severe penalties. In a sense, this is a loss of authors’ rights, but certainly not of income.

 

That works go unused today does not benefit artists because unused works do not generate income. What authors who fail to adequately identify their authorship on their works do lose under these proposals is the right to refuse permission to use the work. But as my co-author Bridget Dooling has pointed out, the Supreme Court has quite rightly held over and over again that “the primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors but ‘to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.’” Orphan works legislation will give authors an incentive to take steps to assure that their works will be traceable back to them, and this in turn will create new information in the world about copyright ownership that we now lack. That is good for everyone, including copyright owners.

 

More here...

http://kynn.livejournal.com/799971.html

http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/16/wonks-and-librarians/

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyright_policy_orphan_works.html

[aaron-cds]

I suggest that everyone do their own research and not take Jeff Mottle's word for it. He seems to be firmly on the side of Mark Simon, Brad Holland and the Illustrators' Partnership of America. From everything I've read they are spreading false information. I think I'll take the word lawyers who live and breathe copyright law over Brad Holland, illustrator for Playboy and Penthouse.

 

Don't shoot the messenger. Who do you think you are by the way? Jeff is simply passing on information. To say otherwise is simply ignorant. Try reading before typing.

 

I thought I would pass along some links that should be of great interest to EVERYONE on this forum. Please take the time to read all of this and view all of the links.

 

Here's the post where Jeff shares the other side http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/202954-post16.html

 

This thread is great. We're getting a idea of what both sides are about. Personally, I don't know who to believe. All I know is that none of this is coming from Jeff so leave his name out of your mud slinging, at least while you're visiting the forum he created. Show some respect.

[maikukaiza]

All I know is that none of this is coming from Jeff so leave his name out of your mud slinging, at least while you're visiting the forum he created. Show some respect.

 

Who do I think I am? To question something I think is total FUD? Oh sorry.

 

I removed any mention of Jeff from my previous post. It was unfair to include his name. But I still contend that by placing this on the CGArchitect front page he is helping these guys spread some of the misconceptions surrounding this topic.

 

Oh, and that link you posted, I sent that to Jeff. I'm not saying I'm the only one who sent it to him, but I did email that to him yesterday. I do appreciate the fact that he posted it, but then he posted a rebuttal from the same organization that's spreading the false info to begin with. This reminds me of the evolution vs. creation debate. On one side you have facts from experts and on the other you have opinions from people who aren't. In this debate, I'm going with the experts in copyright law who fight for our rights, not a group of illustrators who think the sky is falling.

[aaron-cds]

Ok, I know who you are. You're right it was stupid of me to say. You're the Mark Simon on the other side of the fence. Look I found the CAPS LOCK! BWHAA HAA HAA!

[aaron-cds]

Who do I think I am? To question something I think is total FUD? Oh sorry.

 

I removed any mention of Jeff from my previous post. Happy?

 

Well, at least now you make sense. Game on.

[Jeff Mottle]

Who do I think I am? To question something I think is total FUD? Oh sorry.

 

I removed any mention of Jeff from my previous post. It was unfair to include his name. But I still content that by placing this on the CGArchitect front page he is helping these guys spread some of the misconceptions surrounding this topic.

 

Given I also posted the article YOU sent me yesterday with the opposing opinion, I think I've been more than fair to both sides. You are of course allowed to voice your own opinion here, but as Aaron pointed out, I'm only the messenger and if you want to sling mud find another forum to hang out on. I'd of course love to hear your side of the story as well. If there really are falsehoods being propagated, then this is definitely the place to discuss them. The only requirement is that you be civil. As passionate as you might be about your opinions, it does not excuse rude behavior, mudslinging or the like.

[Jeff Mottle]

Oh, and that link you posted, I sent that to Jeff. I'm not saying I'm the only one who sent it to him, but I did email that to him yesterday. I do appreciate the fact that he posted it, but then he posted a rebuttal from the same organization that's spreading the false info to begin with. This reminds me of the evolution vs. creation debate. On one side you have facts from experts and on the other you have opinions from people who aren't. In this debate, I'm going with the experts in copyright law who fight for our rights, not a group of illustrators who think the sky is falling.

 

So you would rather I only post links to your side of the story? I'll post whatever info is passed to me, I don't care who it comes from. Feel free to post your own links as well to support your position. Last time I looked both the US and Canada had free speech laws and as far as I can tell I've been nothing other than accomodating to both camps and will continue to do so. I'm not sure why you are so pissed off at me personally, but you're wasting your energy. Let me confirm to you again I AM ONLY THE MESSENGER. I posted the Illustrator groups side first as that was the news that came to me first. Some times I just have to shake my head...

[aaron-cds]

In this debate, I'm going with the experts in copyright law who fight for our rights, not a group of illustrators who think the sky is falling.

 

Who are the experts? Who are the people you refer to when you say "our" rights? The artists? Aren't the artists represented by the group of illustrators?

 

What is your background? Do you wish the orphan works made it through in 2006 or are you just bothered by the hype that it's getting before there is a bill?

[AJLynn]

I think I'll take the word lawyers who live and breathe copyright law over Brad Holland, illustrator for Playboy and Penthouse.

 

Why wouldn't somebody take the word of an illustrator for Playboy? They have some of the most accomplished illustrators around.

 

BTW, who are you?

[aaron-cds]

BTW, who are you?

 

He seems to be one of us http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/12494-high-rise-apartment.html?=#post85996

 

I thought he was the vp at Corbis

[maikukaiza]

OK, hold on a minute guys. I know it's fun to attack the guy who doesn't agree with you but let's lay off the personal attacks and get back to the topic at hand, copyright and the orphan works legislation.

 

Joking that I might be a VP from Corbis just shows that you're missing the point. I am on the opposite side of the fence from a Corbis VP. Maybe read the link Jeff posted, the one I sent him. It debunks Mark Simon's article but it certainly doesn't do so in a way that sides with the corporations. This issue isn't black and white. It isn't just artists against corporate thieves. There is a big gray area surrounding orphan works and what should be done about them. Read about "Eyes on the Prize" and all the work they had to do to be able to secure the rights to footage in the film, footage that should belong to the public record. A balance needs to be struck between rights holders and the public good. I am afraid that legislation will be passed that locks the public out from their history. For example, legislation that is too restrictive could keep an old blues recording from ever seeing the light of day because the rights holder can't be tracked down or doesn't exist.

 

Jeff: I'm not pissed off at you personally and I'm sorry you took it that way. I am just disturbed your decision to post "whatever info is passed to me, I don't care who it comes from." This is your site and you really should care where your info comes from, especially when that info has people up in arms over things that aren't really true. I liken the Mark Simon article to one of those emails you get that need to be fact-checked on Snopes before sending it on to others.

 

aaron-cds: No, "the artists" aren't being represented by a group of illustrators. This group of illustrators have an opinion in the matter but they hardly represent "the artists". There are plenty of artist/copyfighters who feel vastly different from the opinions of the Illustrators' Partnership of America. If you side with them, that's fine, but do your research and know what you're getting yourself all worked up about. Oh, and who are these expects you ask? For starters I really like Lawrence Lessing's and Cory Doctorow's ideas on copyright. I'm firmly on their side of the fence. I'm for legislation that strikes a balance between artists rights and the public good.

[aaron-cds]

The vp at Corbis remark was tongue in cheek, hence the . I'm not worked up over this issue. I'm confused at the moment. I really don't know who I'm supposed to believe. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if a bill comes up for legislation. My comment about you being on the other side of the fence of Mark Simon is me telling you that you're providing just as much hype as he is, from my point of view. If you don't like his tactics, stop stooping to his level. That's something you should have learned in 4th grade.

[Sawyer]

Michael Have you watched the judiciary conference video where they talk about the new law they are proposing? Watch it. Please. I think what everything comes down to is what is in that meeting not what is being said on every artistic web board in the country now. I have watched it really sounded like they are talking about a big change.

[Jeff Mottle]

Jeff: I am just disturbed your decision to post "whatever info is passed to me, I don't care who it comes from." This is your site and you really should care where your info comes from, especially when that info has people up in arms over things that aren't really true. I liken the Mark Simon article to one of those emails you get that need to be fact-checked on Snopes before sending it on to others.

 

I present the info that is circulating, if I edit or form a bias one way or the other, then it's hard for people to make an educated decision. I'm not a copyright expert or lawyer, nor does it appear you are, so neither of us is qualified to determine "the" answer and what is right and wrong. We can simply make our own educated decisions. People are not stupid, if you present them with both sides, educated people can usually come to the right decision or at least one that works for them. If I only post the issue as you see it then, that is equally biased. If you don't like it...well you're free to start you're own forum. While I run this one, I'll present whatever info it out there. It's not like the illustrators collective is made up of gun toting freeks from some cult in the hills. It's backed by nearly every major illustration group in the world. Are their facts wrong, misleading, incorrect? Maybe, I don't know. But the same could be said for the "your side". People can do their own research and form their own opinions. I present the information and people can post their opinions, links, or fact to support whatever they choose.

[maikukaiza]

aaron-cds: 4th grade? This is from someone who's last four posts were the internet equivalent of poking me with a stick? I guess it is much easier to make comments like that than to talk about the actual topic. Anyway, if you are confused on the issue, Google it. If I'm hyping anything I apologize. My point is no issue is black and white and don't take everything you read on the Internets at face value. If I see someone lying about something that affects my livelihood, I'm going to speak out about it. If that's "hype" then I'm guilty.

 

 

Sawyer: Thanks, I'll watch the link. But in the mean time, for everyone who doesn't take the time to watch it, can you surmise it for us? Are these big changes good or bad?

[aaron-cds]

equivalent of poking me with a stick?

 

I just call it how I see it. I'm sure a lot of people here would agree with me that you are way out of line.

[Sawyer]

Ok here is what I took from watching the March 13 meeting:

 

 

"There is a problem of Orphaned Works. There is a new bill being drafted to address this issue that is based on the old 2006 bill.

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/HR6052.pdf

 

That is the link to the old bill. I have not read the wording of the old bill.

 

The problem of Orphaned Works is that no one knows if its ok legally to use this work. So know one knows the status of the copyrights and ownership.

 

The solution that is being proposed is to make everyone register all of their work with a database. This database uses new technology so you can search images and find some sort of identifying info so you can track down a copyright holder. AND if there is no owner at the end of the search you MAY use the image for commercial work."

 

That is the synapsus.

There were a few witnesses 1 museum curator (or similar) and a woman from the copyright board who were for the bill. There was 1 person who represented artists and woman who represented textile workers. There was also a rep from a company that makes image recognition software that would be used to match images with owners.

The museum person was for the bill and was telling stories of documentary movies that couldn't be made because they could not find copyright owners of specific images and of this large body of work that came from holocaust survivors that can't be displayed because no-one can locate the owner of the image or the song that was written etc. The artist rep and textile rep on the other hand were pretty concerned. One the witnesses, Mr Perlman, is the head of ASMP. He is also a lawyer who seems to specialize in photography copyright issues I posted his link on this subject before but here it is again:

 

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

 

He said at one point "What we have here is a carve down in owners rights. Thats what the legislature is all about" (1h:13min)

 

Now my take on this is that this has much more ramifications than Orphaned works. And the outcome would be bad for us. But horrible for photographers.

(MI keep wondering if this may open up all of the millions of photo albums that are sitting on the web for mining.)

 

What I come away from when I watch this is that they are talking about changing copyright law. Now it is assumed a work has a copyright owner but with this an owner would have to be found to call it copyrighted. This is what I see.

[AJLynn]

So what you're saying is, the photo store workers who have been keeping copies of all the pictures of naked people they've developed over the years will now be free to publish them for a profit unless everybody posts a picture of themselves naked on a copyright database? I think I just figured out how to get the senators to kill the bill.

[aaron-cds]

This might sound like too simple of a solution, but here it goes.

 

Add an amendment to the current copyright law that provides protection to non-profit organizations or to individuals who are using percieved orphan works for non-commercial use. Basically, if someone does come out to claim copyright infringment, the offender would not be held liable unless they made a profit from someone elses work. I mean, if this is really about some museum not wanting to get sued, then why drag the whole commercial realm of art into this?

 

Why does a new law have to create a back door for piracy? Not to mention, should we really be required to pay to have ownership of anything we create, or risk creating an orphaned work? Or is that a myth of the proposed orphan works bill?

[Sawyer]

This might sound like too simple of a solution, but here it goes.

 

Add an amendment to the current copyright law that provides protection to non-profit organizations or to individuals who are using percieved orphan works

for non-commercial use.

 

Perlman makes that suggestion.

 

Not to mention, should we really be required to pay to have ownership of anything we create, or risk creating an orphaned work? Or is that a myth of the proposed orphan works bill?

 

Thats part of the frustration with this bill. It seems like we would have to pay to get ownership of our works.

 

At the end the Congressman who is running the show makes it very clear that this is a priority. Watch the video.

[aaron-cds]

Perlman makes that suggestion.

 

That's great. I hope they listen. I've made it through a half hour of the video. I'll watch the rest soon.

[landrvr1]

I think I just figured out how to get the senators to kill the bill.

 

LOL. Genius.

 

 

Anyway, Tommy L has it right. It's a wait and see game.

[maikukaiza]

Sawyer,

 

Thanks for the summary. I'm going to watch the entire thing when I get home.

 

I don't see how a database like that would be possible. It would have to be extremely huge. Sometimes what government wants and what is technologically possible are two different things. What would be the cost of maintaining a database of this size? I assume it would cost much, much more than the current system. It would probably end up like the Real ID act, no one will want to pay of it.

[maikukaiza]

I found this interesting. Here Cory Doctorow is responding to someone who agrees with the Mark Simon article. The important part is at the end... The Berne convention. There's more about it on Wikipedia.

 

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/12/countering-the-fud-a.html

 

Posted (in the Boingboing.net forums) BY CORY DOCTOROW, APRIL 14, 2008 1:06 AM

 

@14, sorry, I couldn't disagree more.

 

In Eldred v Ashcroft, the supremes held that *ninety eight percent* of the works in copyright are orphaned. Not only can their authors not get paid for their use, but in many cases, all known copies of these works will disappear before their copyrights expire, which will effectively remove these artists from the historical record -- forever. This is already happening to a lot of early, post-1928 (Steamboat Willie) film stock, which is disintegrating in archives because it can't be used because no one knows whom it belongs to.

 

The orphan works proposals that have reached anything like maturity say that:

 

1. Various entities -- including nonprofits, including artists' groups, including others -- can use registries to help with orphan works. These registries will be optional, and the LoC will work to keep them honest. The LoC has maintained its own registry since Ben Franklin.

 

2. Anyone who finds a work that is not in the registry is required to conduct a good-faith search for the author. If that search comes up null, the LoC or a collecting society will collect a set royalty for use of the work and escrow it for the author.

 

3. If the good-faith search turns out to have been merely pro-forma, conducted *without* good faith, the author will be entitled to massive statutory damages.

 

None of this is coherent with the bizarre rant that this guy published. He's basically made up a bunch of stuff, backed it up with selective and misleading quotations, and then declared the sky is falling.

 

Orphan works legislation is desperately needed, so that we can:

 

* Make new works from old

 

* Rescue old works from history's scrapheap

 

* Pay the 98% of artists whose works are presently orphaned

 

You're right. The Berne convention prohibits mandatory registration. That's why we can be absolutely certain that the US will not pass an orphan works rule on the lines that this guy is worried about, nor will any other WTO signatory.