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 | Columns: MindBiz

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


I am truly upset about this new bill . I will be one of the voices crying in the wilderness of "apathy". I do know that alot of artists are not aware of the proper procedure for copyright registration. The process is not as painful as it sounds and not as difficult as trying to get our work noticed by galleries, museums, and the commercial industry.
christine schmalz (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
First things first; while we get our point across in DC (think two years of shoeleather), let's do what any inventor does: 1. keep daybooks which diarise our key work, and date, sign the entries. Every three months or so, have another person read the daybook and make an entry to the effect that he/she has done that task and understands what's written there. 2. archive all work. Sign and date everything, log those events into your daybook. Photograph or scan everything you do. This will take you about 90 minutes a week, with practice. Record the digital files on separate media, like CD; make two copies, one for your safe box, one at hand. Sounds like a pain but get used to it, it'll go faster. 3. be very carefiul to trace the development of all your biggest ideas, eg the seven or eight drafts of an evolving image. Be conscious of what you believe you are doing AND make sure that someone else knows that you have a record. 4 OK. So now you have records that match those of any inventor; you have done what big firms insist their employee idea people do. Your archive is protected, still, by existing US law practice. If you rally want to gild the lily, mail a copy of your archive to yourself, Certified (important!) and keep the receievd package UNOPENED in case you need to establish a precedence date. 5. What I have just written is what I find I have to teach industrial clients the very first day I am retained. Because I make paintings and designs myself, I offer this very traditional cautionary advice here for free. Good luck all, and let's get together. Peter Cannon
Peter Cannon (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Thank you very much for the information here within this article. I have never really paid much attention to the laws of art, and registering things. This disturbs me to no end. I will begin my monotonous conquest of senators shortly
Angel Mori (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
http://oncopyright.copyright.com/2008/03/17/orphan-works-are-back-on-congress%E2%80%99s-radar-screen/ Looks like it hasn't been formally re-introduced, but it's definitely peeking around the corner. I say it at least warrants a letter to the senator...apparently the only thing that kept it from passing in 2006 was the opposition of photographers and artists' groups. Also, where did you hear about the 'private copyright corporations?' I haven't been able to find another article that mentions them.
Anne (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
They already do this same type of stuff with patents. If you don't file your device at some office by going through mounds of paperwork before displaying it out in public and someone sees it and decides to do that instead of you they now own the device you created. It's lunacy and would cause the same type of reaction it has caused in the technological development field. Almost no display of whats available or could be available in the public arena rather than the cornucopia it truly is. (see work/history of marko rodin, tesla, or mounds of items in the patent office) Simply due to fear of some hungry crook with a pen, a lot more time, and money than an inventor or an artist(or both combined) would ever have. Imagine the monkey wrench it would throw into individual creativity... Deviant Art and conceptart.org would be barren and any artist left paranoid whether they should display there work or not to others. Pondering if they should get a second job to pay for it if they should choose to do so. As a struggling artist/inventor type it really sickens me as to what the legal system and corporations think they can do and does at present when it comes to the work of creative individuals. Back to the woods... and back to the drawing board if this passes.
Spunjo McDohl (suikoden) (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
With all due respect, this is a pretty bad article. It suggests to readers that they should panic when there is no need for panic; it misstates what orphaned works laws are about and how they work; and it claims that this legislation is a plot to make Bill Gates richer, while ignoring the legitimate reasons many museums, universities and libraries say they need an orphaned works law in order to preserve historic works. Reading this article makes readers less informed. I hope AWN publishes a follow-up article providing a more accurate and balanced view of the issue.
Barry Deutsch (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
You guys should make a petition or something O: .
Panda XIII (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
This article is complete hyperbole and fearmongering. The author should be ashamed of himself for posting such utter lies online and getting so many artists worked up about nothing.
jessica hyland (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
On one hand, it sounds like something absolutely horrible is being described here. The idea of a private copyright registry is simply ridiculous and should never be allowed; the hypothesis that this sort of thing seems like a play from big business seems spot on as well. However...You absolutely ruin what could've been an otherwise impassioned plea for sanity by coming off sounding every bit like the evil corporations you're supposed to be rallying against. Theft, stealing? Oh please, spare me the RIAA style melodramatics. This isn't 2001 anymore so I had hoped we could move beyond the poor attempts at character assassination meant to sway those who do not firmly grasp the difference between the tangible and intangible. Furthermore I'd say you're actually ignoring the fact that there are legitimate reasons to require registration (With the government of course, not a corporation.) Such as to allow for someone to be able to identify the rights holder of a specific work, which enables them to be tracked down and asked for permission. Or that without any clear owner or any clear date of creation that can be made apparent outside of a registration date, no one can know within any certainty when the protection on a work might expire. I think you'd get a lot more support on this issue (Hint: having artists that read the internet alone isn't going to get you to change congress' opinion, you need to get the general public involved too for it to work) if you'd taken that into consideration.
Chris Gregory (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
i agree that this alw should not be passed it takes away the right of artwork its like saying that the work is worthless because it does not allow it to have vaule anyone can copy and use your work, without permission? this could destroy incomes, vus probably crashing creative motives, why create something if by right it is on longer yours? our culture needs art, in any form and by taking away the rights of artists it destroys part of its self.
zoe cheale (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 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.