Mind Your Business: Does Congress Care About Your Creations?

In this month's column, Mark Simon keeps trying to chip away at the Orphan Works Act.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: MindBiz

When I found out about the Orphan Works Act, I was astounded that anyone in Congress would consider legislation that could so obviously be used against artists and their original creations.

I started helping the Illustrators' Partnership in getting artists to write letters to Congress asking senators and representatives to oppose the bill. (You have written a few yourself, right? Every voice counts!) So far artists have sent over 99,000 letters opposing the bill through the system the Illustrators' Partnership set up (http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/). That doesn't even count all the letters sent and calls made to representatives and senators directly.

Your Voices Are Being Heard!
At least they are being heard by some people on the Hill. However, I'm not quite sure what some of our congressmen are listening to. When artist Marty Kleva called the office of his New Mexico representative, Tom Udall, Kleva was told, "This is a very popular bill."

Really? Popular? Have you seen the outrage in the online artist communities? Has Udall read any of the tens of thousands of letters sent to Congress opposing this bill?

Congressman Steve Kagen stated in his response to Kathy Glasnap, "This bill has come under considerable scrutiny and criticism from people in the arts community." This statement completely contradicts that of Udall. At least Kagen is listening.

As you may imagine, I have gotten a huge amount of e-mail regarding this issue. Most artists understand the problems inherent in this legislation and they oppose the bill. Your letters are working and legislators are starting to listen.

At the end of May I asked a number of artists on my Orphan Works E-Mail List to forward the responses they have received from their representatives and senators regarding orphan works. I was copied on over 60 responses, which show a combination of support for the bill, opposition to it and a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Let's talk about specifics in these responses from our government officials who are supposed to be supporting our best interests.

Some members of Congress do support our position that the Orphan Works Act is bad for the creative community. I have seen letters of support from the following congressmen. Let's give them their fair due and please let them know that you appreciate their continued support in opposing the bill:

  • Ron Paul (extremely strong opposition to the Orphan Works Act)
  • Sam Farr
  • John Olver
  • Diane Feinstein
  • Tom Feeney
  • Diane DeGette
  • Barbara Mikulski

Florida representative Tom Feeney, co-chairman of the Intellectual Property Caucus, says about the bill, "I do have several concerns. This bill provides for a potential haven for those who are seeking to use copyrighted works but are unwilling to undertake a thorough search for the copyright owners." This is also one of my main concerns and I'm glad Feeney agrees.

Many of the responses from our senators and representatives used similar language regarding a limitation in civil action remedies if an infringer "documented a reasonably diligent search in good faith."

This phrase, or a portion of it, was included in responses from Tom Feeney, Jack Reed, Vernon Ehlers, Sherrod Brown, David Wu, Lynn Westmoreland, John Hall, Henry Waxman, Saxby Chambliss, Susan Collins, Mel Martinez, Olympia Snowe and Ric Keller.

It's rather easy to understand how someone could read that phrase and think that a reasonably diligent search for a copyright holder could be a good thing for artists. One problem: the proposed law does not encourage a reasonably diligent search.

In fact the legislation does the opposite. It makes it easy for someone to do a quick search on a registry and then call a work of art an orphan if it doesn't appear in the registry results. No other searching would need to be done to orphan a work. That's not a diligent search. It's lazy!

I've searched for artists to get the rights to use their work in my books. I know what it can take to find someone and get their permission. Sometimes you can't find them. You know what I do? I don't use the work without their permission! My inability to find someone doesn't give me the right to infringe on their work.

Having a searchable registry to help track down artists is a good idea.

Using any registry as a basis to orphan our creative works is a terrible idea!







Comments


Thanks for Posting Mark. I had recently contacted my rep's aide in DC. He pretty much let me know that if I couldn't afford to register all my work and take the infringers to court, that my work probably just wasn't worth that much anyhow. Gee thanks and did I mention the aide was an attorney? This is something that is SO WRONG. Why would anyone want to invest all the time and money it takes to create art, if you can't control it? Art is a challenging career as it is, throw in the impediments of legalized theft, registry fees, legal fees that you can't recoup the the fact that your art could wind up anywhere - you'd almost have to be daffy to do it. This will definitely have a negative impact on the art world if it passes.
Valorie Wilson (not verified) | Tue, 06/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Thanks for writing this article. All your concerns are mine also. I just wish each senator and representative really understood what this bill would do to artists. A group of 19 artists/illustrtors went to Washington last week to meet with as many senators and representatives as possible and to leave information with them on the dangers of this bill. Even though there has been such a huge protest will emails, phone calls, and faxes, so many of the congressmen were still clueless on the bill - one even thought that the "orphans" were babies. The group was successful in educating several plus creating some opposition to the bills. The group also met some heavy opposition with a few congressmen who support the bill. But each of us should remain diligent and continue to contact all of our congressmen and not let up.
Phyllis Dobbs (not verified) | Fri, 06/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Their attempts to make this look like its for the good of 'the public' not only fail to take into account the thousands + small artists that it will harm, but also the real backers and beneficiaries of the bill, like Microsoft - Flickr and Picscout, Google - Getty and the million (or billions) of dollars these companies stand to gain selling ads (and 'RESONABLY DILIGENT' searches and the registration fees) The public stands to lose alot of artists that will forced out of business or left at the mercy of infringers. If an artists finds an infringement and can locate the 'infringer', the 'infringer' will undoubtably claim the OW defense, that they have made the reasonable search - the artist would have to go to court to prove or disprove this...and there's only a 50/50 chance that you recover any legal fees...if the infringer did the search, you're now out more money the the 'REASONABLE' FEE for use would be. I also wonder if the registries operators won't give some kind of guarantee to the infringers...a kind of insurance in the event the owner accidently finds out or shows up. An artist could just wind up with an attorney on retainer from Google/Getty instead of just some 'INFRINGER' - not very good odds. I spent thousands of dollars on pc's and software, printers and scanners - years of study and thousands of dollars on supplies and website, more time than I care to think about. Why would I want to give my art away? This is not a hobby...its how I feed my child and just like any other business, if it doesn't create enough revenue, I'll have to do something else and there'll be at least one less artist creating. And with respect to the 'GOOD OF THE PUBLIC'? if they drive small artist out of business, we may deprive the 'PUBLIC' of another Monet or DiVinci or Ansel Adams...Remember, when our liberal, free for all colleges teach art (and charge tuition), they teach about an INDIVIDUAL. AN ARTIST - what would we lose if the "David" or SUNFLOWERS had been just another 'ORPHAN'? This is no boon for society...just a few internet giants.
Valorie Wilson (not verified) | Fri, 06/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.