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

Mark Simon is mad as hell and, in this month's "Mind Your Business," he tells you why you should be too.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld
Mark Simon.
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.







Comments


Once again the talentless jealous and uncreative are lined up to claim that which they are incapable of imagining and producing on their own. Through their mentally deficient short sighted greed they will happily ruin the lives of their betters as "america the new third world country" retrogrades into a nation of incompetent losers by the incompetent losers and for the incompetent losers. Don't join the losers call and write your Congress and Senate and Governor and newspaper and do it every god damn week until we put this host of the uncreative down like the thieving curs that they so closely resemble.
Jason Argos (not verified) | Sat, 04/19/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
It seems the copyright office supports the orphan legislation and delivered a letter of support in March of 08 based on their findings in 2006. While the writer of this article may or may not be correct in all of his information, something is going on. Without more information and further study I cannot say if I support this proposed bill or not. http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html
Michael Grant (not verified) | Fri, 04/18/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I am an artists and I am not important , but to make artists pay a fee and register all their art work if just unbelievable . Most artists are starving and then we add a fee when they can not deduct their work and some big business that makes millions can use it. How unjust are we going to get in the U S
Cynthia Anderson (not verified) | Fri, 04/18/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
This is an outrage! What kind of fools are in charge? This is the stupidist thing I have ever seen someone do with their power to influence laws!
Mizu Rakahasi (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Howdy, Well, here's my opinion. You can like it or lump it. If you lump it, then that's your problem. Let's put our greed aside and look at this issue with a little integrity. First of all, no one should be able to register as the copyright owner of a work unless they: a) created the work, or b) paid for the creation of the work. If an owner of a work cannot be found, then it can be classified as being orphaned, BUT from the moment it is classified as being orphaned, it should go into a state of non-usability for a period length of the average life span of a human being. If the owner of the work can be determined before the end of the period of non-usability, then the work should be reclassified as being the property of its owner. If after the period of non-usablity has ended and an owner cannot be determined, it should then be classified as being public domain, or in other words "owned by the public." Once it is classified as being a work owned by the public, then anyone who wishes to use the work for profit should be required to pay the public for the use of the work. If the use of the work is not for profit, then the work could be used freely. In my opinion, if we use a work for profit, then we should have to pay for that use, by either spending the time and money to create it ourselves, paying someone else to create it for us, or paying the public for works that have been classified as public domain. Adios, Cactus Dan
Dan Libisch (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
The Orphan Works Legislation will affect the businesses of every creative person in the state the country. Thanks for your article, everybody, not just artists and other visual creatives should be concerned. Here is my blog entry posted on wwwcristinaacosta.blogspot.com : Have you ever picked up a camera and taken a picture? Of course you have. And you probably put the photos online and send them to your friends and family. Now and then a doting relative passes on a uber-cute photo to their friends. But no matter how large your circle is you'd never expect to see that same photo in some corporation's national ad campaign without your permission or payment. That's the future folks if the Orphan Works legislation passes. In fact, it's already happened. It's just going to get brazenly, egregiously worse and it will be virtually impossible for the little guy (most of us) to do anything to rectify this theft of our intellectual property. Follow the money on this bill and you'll realize that big business stands to gain. Everybody else -- photographers, painters, sculptors, designers and the ordinary guy or gal with a camera will lose, BIG. Virgin Mobil is in a lawsuit right now with a family that found a picture of their daughter in a Virgin Mobil advertisement. Taking advantage of the very small print on the Flickr site, Virgin's ad agency took this picture without permission -- and saved themselves a bunch of money on models and photo shoots. Alison Chang, the subject of the photo and her uncle, filmmaker Damon Chang got NOTHING. In fact, Alison Chang complained that the imagery insulted her Asian heritage. Read more about this on The Register.co.uk If you're an artist, don't fool yourself thinking that theft is some form of flattery. This is about your bottom line. No cash and you aren't able to work. The copyright laws as we know them will be gutted. Getty, Corbis and other media supply agencies will have free rein to use your images without ANY payment to you. And, it only gets worse. Individuals and businesses will get on the bandwagon. An image of your painting or design work could be put onto paper plates, tissue boxes, beach towels, calenders, stationary, ad campaigns and you'll get nothing except a sinking feeling when you walk into some retailers shop or open a magazine or book and see them SELLING your work and you get NOTHING! Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, the powerhouse behind the IPA's efforts to preserve the civil economic rights of creators has this to say: "Remember: the US Orphan Works amendment is not an exception to copyright law to permit the archiving and preservation of old, abandoned works. It is a license to infringe contemporary works by living artists worldwide. Its goal is to force these works into private commercial US registries as a condition of protecting copyrights. Coerced registration violates international copyright law and copyright-related treaties. To concede defeat on it is to knock a hole in copyright law and admit a Trojan horse." — Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership
Cristina Acosta (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
This article is ridiculous. It repeats itself for dramatic effect, and leaves the reader confused. Why write an article filled with so many scare tactics? I just want the facts from a logical point of view. This guy makes me sick.
Kaci Beeler (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
but I thought this had not gotten out of committee yet? Does anyone have any credible evidence as to where in the process it is?
ann Tracy (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I hate this law...I will do all I can to help you fight this.... Steve D.
steve dreben (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Poorly written and very misleading article. AWN should try to provide its readers with actual news and information, rather than this knee-jerk tripe. I am amazed at the ignorance that persists in the media these days.
Joe Shakula (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 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.