Mind Your Business: You Will Lose All The Rights to Your Own ArtMark Simon is mad as hell and, in this month's "Mind Your Business," he tells you why you should be too.April 10, 2008By Mark Simon
As you know, I usually handle the subjects in my articles with a sense of humor. That is not the case this month. I find nothing funny about the new Orphan Works legislation that is before Congress.
In fact, it PISSES ME OFF!
As an artist, you have to read this article or you could lose everything you've ever created!
An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission.
If you don't like to read long articles, you will miss incredibly important information that will affect the rest of your career as an artist. You should at least skip to the end to find the link for a fantastic interview with the Illustrators' Partnership about how you are about to lose ownership of your own artwork.
Currently, you don't have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something. International law also supports this. Right now, registration allows you to sue for damages, in addition to fair value.
What makes me so MAD about this new legislation is that it legalizes THEFT! The only people who benefit from this are those who want to make use of our creative works without paying for them and large companies who will run the new private copyright registries.
These registries are companies that you would be forced to pay in order to register every single image, photo, sketch or creative work.
It is currently against international law to coerce people to register their work for copyright because there are so many inherent problems with it. But because big business can push through laws in the United States, our country is about to break with the rest of the world, again, and take your rights away.
With the tens of millions of photos and pieces of artwork created each year, the bounty for forcing everyone to pay a registration fee would be enormous. We lose our rights and our creations, and someone else makes money at our expense.
This includes every sketch, painting, photo, sculpture, drawing, video, song and every other type of creative endeavor. All of it is at risk!
If the Orphan Works legislation passes, you and I and all creatives will lose virtually all the rights to not only our future work but to everything we've created over the past 34 years, unless we register it with the new, untested and privately run (by the friends and cronies of the U.S. government) registries. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone wishing to steal your personal creations won't successfully call your work an orphan work, and then legally use it for free.
In short, if Congress passes this law, YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY FROM
YOUR OWN CREATIONS!
Why is this allowed to happen? APATHY and MONEY.
Artists have apathy and corporations have money.
We need to be heard in order to protect our incomes, our creations and our careers. GET OFF YOUR ASS!
That means writing letters to our congressmen and representatives. That means voicing your opinion about how we need copyright protection, as we've had since 1976, that protects everything we create from the moment we create it. This is the case around the world.
However, an Orphan Works bill is also in the works in Europe. I was speaking recently with Roger Dean, the famed artist of the Yes album covers, and he is greatly concerned with what will happen if Orphan Works bills become law.
"This will devastate the livelihood of artists, photographers and designers in a number of ways," Dean says. "That at the behest of a few hugely rich corporations who got rich by selling art that they played no part in the making of, the U.S. and U.K. governments are changing the copyright laws to protect the infringer instead of the creator. This is unjust, culturally destructive and commercial lunacy. This will not just hurt millions of artists around the world.
"On the other side of the coin, what argument will a U.S. court have with a Chinese company that insists it did its research in China and found nothing? If the cost of this is onerous for a U.S.-based artist, what will it be like for artists and small businesses in emergent economies?"
If an artist whose work is as famous as Roger Dean's is concerned with this legislation, it should be of great concern for all of us.
The people, associations and companies behind the Orphan Works bill state that orphaned works have no value. If that were true, no one would want them. However, these same companies DO WANT your work, they just don't want to pay for it. If someone wants something, IT HAS VALUE. It's pretty simple.
Some major art and photography associations, or I should say, the managers of the associations, support this bill. The reason they support it is that they will operate some of the registries and stand to make a lot of money. Some have already been given millions of dollars by the Library of Congress. Follow the money and you will see why some groups support this bill of legalized theft of everything you have ever created.
Two proponents of this new legislation are Corbis and Getty Images. They are large stock photo and stock art companies. They sell art and photos inexpensively and are trying to build giant royalty-free databases. Do you see how they could benefit from considering most works of art in the world orphans?
Do you know who owns Corbis? Bill Gates. He doesn't do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money. Helping you lose the copyright to your art is big business for Gates.
For years we've heard of Hollywood fighting with China to protect copyrights and stop the pirating of DVDs. Our government has worked with the studios to protect their investment.
Our government is NOW WORKING AGAINST US by allowing our own fellow citizens TO
STEAL OUR CREATIVE WORKS.
It will be easy for them to get away with it unless we make ourselves heard.
Your calls and letters do work. I've seen many instances in which a single letter made a difference in public policy. Tens of thousands of calls and letters help even more.
This is not empty talk. I have written letters to my congressmen and I will do so again. I do what
I can to let every creator know about terrible legislation like this... thus you are reading articles like this one and you can listen to interviews I've posted online.
CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR:Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml to quickly find the phone number, address and e-mail of every U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor and state legislator.
Forward this article to every creator you know and urge them to take a moment to protect their very livelihood. I am giving everyone the right to reprint this article in any form to help spread the word to protect our creative rights.
Instead of sitting around watching TV tonight, TiVo that show, write a letter and make yourself heard.
Letters to our government officials don't have to be long, but they should be heartfelt. A good story helps. Tell them who you are, how this legislation negatively affects you and that you want them to vote against the Orphan Works legislation. It's that easy!
If you don't, you will have only yourself to blame when you see other people making money from your art and you don't see a dime.
Spider-Man comic artist Alex Saviuk is also concerned about the loss of copyright protection. "When I found out all the negative aspects of the new legislation, it would almost behoove us to want to do something else for a living," says Saviuk. "If we would have to register with all the different companies, we would never be able to make a living."
"It would be impossible for me to register all my art," continues Saviuk. "It would put me out of business."
You can listen to my complete interview with Alex
Photos on the internet could be orphaned. With tens of millions of photos shared online with services like Flickr, Shutterfly and Snapfish, there is a huge opportunity for unauthorized use of your photos... legally.
You could see photos you take of your family and kids, or of a family vacation, used in a magazine or newspaper without your permission or payment to you. You would have to pay to register your photos, all of them, in every new registry in order to protect them. Say the average person takes 300 photos per year (I take a lot more than that). If a registry only charges $5 per image, that is a whopping $1,500 to protect your photos that are protected automatically under the current laws. If there are three registries, protecting your images could cost an amazing $4,500. Not to mention the time it would take to register every photo you take. Plus, you will also have to place your copyright sign on every photo.
That's not including all your art, sketches, paintings, 3D models, animations, etc. Do you really have all that extra time and money? Plus, even if you do register, the people stealing your work can still claim it was orphaned and, unless you fight them, they win. Even if you win, you may not make back your legal fees.
It gets even better. Anyone can submit images, including your images. They would then be excused from any liability for infringement (also known as THEFT) unless the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within a certain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.
That means you will also have to look through every image in every registry all the time to make sure someone is not stealing and registering your art. You could actually end up illegally using your own artwork if someone else registers it. DOES ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?
Do you think the U.S. Copyright Office is here to protect you from this legislation? Think again.
Brad Holland of the Illustrators' Partnership shares his notes from a recent meeting with David
O. Carson, general counsel of the Copyright Office.
Brad Holland: If a user can't find a registered work at the Copyright Office, hasn't the Copyright
Office facilitated the creation of an orphaned work?
David O. Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries.
BH: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register?
DOC: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest!
This cavalier and disrespectful dialogue should have you seeing red. Who the hell does he think he is? Carson should be fired and RUN OUT OF WASHINGTON!
None of this could happen with our current laws. Our current laws work and they protect us and our creations.
The only people who will benefit from the copyright law change are those who can't create work on their own or companies who stand to make a lot of money from using our works of art. They make contributions to congressmen, which is why they get what they want. We need to stand up and be heard. Every one of you need to write your senators and representatives. We have to protect our livelihoods. It's that serious.
Plus, the technologies being developed for locating visual art don't work well enough. On March 13, 2008, PicScout, the creators of one of the software applications used in the registries, stated to the House IP subcommittee:
"Our technology can match images, or partial information of an image, with 99% success."
A 1% margin of error is huge when you consider the millions of searches performed for art every day. That means for every million searches, 10,000 images could be orphaned.
Plus, this only takes into account images registered on their system. If you have registered all your work on another system, they won't be searched here and, even though you may have spent thousands of dollars registering your creations, a new or unused directory could orphan everything you've ever created.
This is just one of the many reasons why INTERNATIONAL LAW FORBIDS COERCED
REGISTRATION as a condition of protecting your copyright. The United States is about to break international law by making us register our works. The people behind the bill say it's not forced registration, but you won't have any rights unless you register. THIS IS SEMANTICS! Of course, this is forced registration and we can't stand for it!
There are many, many other problems with the Orphan Works legislation. As a creator, YOU
MUST understand what is going on.
For additional information on Orphan Works developments, go to the IPA Orphan Works
Resource Page for Artists http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185.
This is not something that is going to go away easily. We need to be vocal NOW!
This legislation has been beaten or delayed for the past two years and they will keep trying until it passes. This is no time to be quiet and see what happens. What will happen depends on you.
Send e-mails and call your congressmen. Ownership of your own creations depends on it.
Roger Dean sums this up well. "Where are the colleges and universities in all this? Has the whole world gone to sleep?"
GET ON ORPHAN WORKS E-MAIL LISTTo be notified of the latest information on the Orphan Works bill and when to contact your legislators, send an e-mail
AUDIO INTERVIEW LINKI have recorded a fantastic interview with Brad Holland
Mark Simon is an award-winning animation producer/director and speaker. He speaks around the world on subjects about art, animation and TV production. His copyrighted companies may be found online at www.SellYourTvConceptNow.com and www.Storyboards-East.com. He may be reached at marksimonbooks@yahoo.com.
Portions of this article use information and phrasing provided by the Illustrators' Partnership.
The opinions expressed in this article reflect those of the columnist and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AWN, Inc. and its affiliates.
MY 300
So right out you can tell that I don’t like this idea of the orphan works, it’s totally bullshit and I think that Mr. Mark Simon has said it all. It puts us as photographers and artist at risk more than we are today. Get this things like this have being going on forever, we do projects with our graphic design department here at Spokane Falls, they bring us in a product and we photograph it. Some designers and I personally don’t know who is teaching these ideas, but one designer brings in a peace, with a photograph of nuclear power plant on it, there advertising being “GREEN” so we ask him if he took that photograph, nope he got it off the internet, we asked him well did you pay for it, he said he didn’t think that he had to since there was no copyright stated on it. Later we search the image and find that it was in a stock photography web page and he took it off the display image which is tiny so he had to blow it up with little resolution to make it usable like he did. If he was working for any major company he would be fired right off the bat.
Who the hell takes other peoples images and uses them as their own. Well a lot of people actually, thats why you see me, not so much on my blog, put my bad luck images stamp on every photograph that I put on the internet if you look at my flicker you can really see it at work. You know why I do that cus people still shit people think that it’s on the internet so you can have free range on it. I worked so hard and many long hours to make those images what gives you the right to use them in any way. It sucks having to put that logo all over my photographs because it really takes away the meaning and the impact of it. Instead of looking at the photograph your trying to read what the logo says or your just looking at the logo. But it detours people they see it and think that it is copyrighted and that they would be in a world of trouble if they used it and it makes the photographs unusable in some ways you would have to take hours cloning out the logo in Photoshop and the photograph would never look the way it was meant to.
Back to the orphan works bill, if this bill ever past personally you would never ever see any of my photographs on the internet ever again. I like sharing my work with everyone even more with the people that read my blog but this takes the cake. I’m already thinking of going and reposting all my photographs that don’t have my logo on here, my blog, just to double protect myself.
Main this country is falling apart what next right.
11 comments:
The only problem is that Mark Simon doesn't know what he's talking about. There is (was) no orphaned works legislation before congress.
Also, isn't it just a little ironic that you're posting AWN's copyrighted article? (Or did you get permission?)
I read that article and speaking form a photographers stand I don’t think she understands that that’s how photographers make their money. Both of her examples were the same dealing with “old” photographs when right know people take senior portraits and family pictures that they “tried” to find the photographer of to places like walmart and such so that they don’t have to pay the photographer for more photographs. This is how things work for photographers, you bring a let’s say child in for a session they buy a certain amount of pics and move on, but get this later their grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle and so one come in and order pics also. If this passes and the mother tries to get a hold of the photographer she could rightfully go and get them copied for ¼ the price taking that money away from the photographer. We are trying to make a leaving too and if one person tries to look for you and doesn’t succeed then there goes you livelihood. Her article has wholes, it’s not that the bill isn’t in congress now it that someone is trying to get it there. She says that were not likely to have to pay for registry but American industries are greedy and people are going to try and cheat other people. It’s all really based on how much you trust America and big corporations in general and I really don’t. This is just to worn everyone and prepare them for the worst. If this bill happens what good will it do for anyone except the greedy, those people always find ways this just makes it a little easier for them.
and i did get permission
"I am giving everyone the right to reprint this article in any form to help spread the word to protect our creative rights."
So what recourse should a person have if the photographer can't be found? What if the photographer just doesn't respond to the person's attempts to contact them? Should that person simply be unable to ever reclaim their pictures?
That's the point of this orphaned works stuff -- it gives people an option when good-faith attempts to contact the photographer fail. ("Good-faith" means the person tried, in every reasonable way, to find the copyright holder. If they failed, they still have to credit the copyright holder.)
Besides, even if a photographer's copyright was infringed, HR 5439 (assuming this is what you're talking about -- it's two years old and failed) would have entitled the photographer to collect their fee retroactively (unless the person was using the work in a totally non-commercial way for charity, church, or educational purposes AND they immediately stopped using the work when requested by the copyright holder).
Further, that bill wouldn't have required any photographer to pay for the registry of their works. If the photographer was findable by a Google search of their name, for example, that would be enough. (And honestly, what photographer can't maintain a simple web site with their contact info on it? Even a Flickr profile? You can make those for free with no training of any kind.)
None of the orphaned works legislation I've seen would prevent a photographer from making a living in any way. Even if someone infringed their copyright, they could collect a fee later. (And if the infringer didn't do everything they could to find the copyright holder, the photographer could even sue them for damages, attorney's fees, etc.)
The only copyright holders that would actually be hurt by these laws are the ones that are too lazy to make themselves findable and too apathetic to go after infringers.
Again it’s based on how much you trust the good faith of people. All this bill would do is open up loop holes. I understand that if you can’t contact a photographer in terms of old photographs, but with newer photographs you even said what photographer wouldn’t have a web site. Plus when copying a photograph, places like Wal-Mart and Kinko’s only give you grief if there is a printed copyright symbol on the photograph, meaning those old historical photographs that she was talking about wouldn’t be a problem. We have had classes that talk about what to do if someone infringes your copyright, usually if it’s the case of charity organizations we know they’ll drop it, but when it come to bigger organizations we’re sort of taught to not even bother, because the fee’s and damage to the photographers reputation way out what they would eventually over time (double negative I know) get back. There studio would most like go under before they reap any benefits of the lawsuit. And interns of the good faithed Google search I’ve searched my name many times and still have not found any of my, myspace, flicker, deviantart, blogger, or photobucket pages. I’m not a well known photographer but neither are most of the people that are most susceptible to this.
I did find my deviantart page and blog after I searched “bad luck images” with the quotations but it wouldn’t bring it up under its full name bad luck images and productions which is what my copyright is.
http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/04/15/orphan-works-overkill/
you should read that article and its comments
"Good faith" isn't something up to people's discretion; it's defined by the bill and, to some extent, a judge's interpretation (who has no incentive to favor an infringer). It has nothing to do with some imagined honor system.
> when it come to bigger organizations we’re sort of taught to not even bother
I have a hard time understanding that. It costs nothing but postage to send a cease & desist letter. And large companies are much more likely to comply because they stand to lose more (since their use of the work is clearly commercial and probably more visible; it's easier to assign damages in thoe cases). Attitudes like that ("don't fight big companies that steal your images") do far more harm to photographers than orphaned works legislation. Also, I don't see how it could hurt a photographer's reputation to fight commercial infringement.
Re: googleability: Have you included all the likely search terms on one page? On your Flickr profile, for example, you don't have your name or production company name in plain English (i.e. sans underscores). The string has to exist on the page for it to get indexed that way.
The article you linked seems to suffer similar comprehension problems: The author has the registration issue wrong again, frex. Mostly it's a rehash of the Simon piece that tries to rationalize his errors. (The blatanat "There's legislation before congress!" lie gets turned into "Well, no... but there could be someday!")
All I think is that if this bill ever goes anywhere, which I know it may not, that the bad reproductions that may come from it, out way any good that it will do. How many old photographs would it really help, compared to how many new photographs it may put at risk. And if that’s the most prominent point of this bill, to be able to copy or use old photographs, I being a photographer would rather not risk the potential hazards for my industry.
I agree with ya Hammy, I think its good to put it out there even if its not a set in stone situation. It's great to talk about possibilties like this anyways. :)
-Rach
Post a Comment