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


Its hard to find this credible without some kind of link to the legislation. Couldn't you at least give us the number of the bill or the name of the congressman or senator who submitted it? I've searched in Thomas (thomas.loc.gov) and I can't find the legislation you are referring to. I'm not saying that its not there, I'm saying that without more information, its hard to believe that there is a problem, let alone help as you are requesting.
Kent Larsen (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
You will find a lot of people who work in this area is all they have left. They have no kids, they have no spouse, they have no job, they have no home of their own All they have is their work of art to keep them happy. Sending out thir work of art makes a person who is unable to walk, play in sports, get employed gives them a reason to get out of the bed in the mornings. A person disable will be robbed from their meaning of life one more time.
karen webb (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Just an example of socialist incrementalism whereby self determination and intellectual ownership is not assumed Registration is essentially a licence for the right of intellectual ownership - a reflection of the time we are now living in. The saying goes "everything is cost measured and commoditised and nothing valued" Very interesting article.
Art Lover (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I have just read the comments in the above article on the orphan art legislation. This article or comment makes it sound like this just came about. Being a professional photographer this has been in play long before any legislation came about. Artists are responsible to protect their work from day one. Putting it up on the web sites is basically like giving it away. With todays digital technology the smallest of thumbnails can be blown up into usable size. We have signatures on our work we can use watermarks or layers to help reduce the risk, but like with any other media where there is a will there is a way. I have found my own photographs in publication where I did not sell them to. I may be simple but its kind of a compliment that someone thought some of my work is worth stealing. Registering a copyright is much cheaper than paying a lawyer to sue someone who has helped themselves to your work. And most cant afford to sue anyway. Be smart all you artists, take steps to protect your work ! Wether this legislation passes or not its not going to change the things you would need to do to recover your loss. If your any good at your art form you will lose some work once in a while. But remember if you protect your work to much who will see it so it can be bought. If your a painter and someone steals one off the wall thats easy to pursue. Another fact of life if were willing to admit it is none of our work is truly original, we have all in some period been inspired by someone elses work. And used it to make our creations with a personal bent. Like if I see a subject shot in a certain way that I like I will try to incorporaate the technique in my own work. Do I own the technique ? Nooooooooo but is it illegal to use it ? nooooooooooooooo. The old masters in any art form are called teachers !!!! We see their work, it moves us and we want our work to have the same affect on someone else. I myself dont believe government should have so much supposed control over matters such as this. But we elected the people who are doing it so maybe we should work a little harder on picking better legislaters. It would not surprise me a bit if the one introducing the bill was voted for by some of us artists. Write your congresional people and let them know how you feel. Take the fight where the battle is. There will always be theifs, some of them are called congressmen :)
Nick Andersen (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
That is outragious!! They have absolutly no right to use items that we have worked on for personal profit!!
Emily plourde (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
In some ways it seems like the suggested legislation is a Trojan Horse. The outer covering of reasonableness in protecting the large image distributors and other mega corporations -like Getty.com- from a lawsuit if they inadvertently distribute content that is later contested masks the potential for abuse. The onus of tracking down, registering and protecting every bit of work through a likely onerous and draconian process is dumped on the creator. Large firms may have the resources to navigate the system but many artists can get screwed. Even if the artist somehow manages to get through it, the legislation would limit the amount they can claim (to $2000 per original item -not derived work- if I read that right). Imagine for a second that an artist fails to protect a property correctly and they, or their heirs, lose it; the pirate who uses it to launch the next mega million Sponge Bob franchise can battle the artist on many fronts - and even if they somehow 'lose' and damages are awarded- the amount of damages may be so small as to provide no real restraint to a company worth many millions of dollars. That's why previous efforts to pass similar legislation were shot down. I actually think the potential for abuse can be greater in much the same way that the average citizens ability to run for public office is limited and controlled by the large sums of money required (and the need to sell part of your soul to party and lobbying groups) or in the way that electoral votes, the primary process and redistricting allows another level of control over voters. Think control and limiting access. Think of the potential use to squash creative works and people that criticize powerful companies, individuals or governments. Grabbing copyright of something that doesn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's Make the creator fight to prove ownership, meanwhile incurring debt while the offender fights a battle of attrition until you are worn out, broke or drop dead. If you think it can't happen, remember how SLAPP lawsuits were used to silence critics and force acceptance of terms by essentially beating people into submission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP Sorry. Looks like I wrote a Theodore Kaczynski style manifesto but suffice it to say that the proposal is, at the very least flawed and potentially dangerous.
Burt Abreu (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Despite the near hysteria of the author, the current copyright regime is broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Yes, we need an orphaned works to be released in to the public domain. We need shorter copyright periods. We need, copyright holders to pay an annual tax to keep their copyright in force or lose all rights to it. Copyright is not property--it is a limited grant of monopoly that the Constitution limited to 14 years, Huge corporations like Disney have make billions off of decades old works which drew liberally from the public domain--yet deny that same public domain right to others.
Kevin Ross (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
THIS IS UN FRIG AN BELIEVABLE I HAVE RECENTLY STARTED DOING ART,i freely admit i did not draw all my characters to begin with but my friends agreed that they were infarct MINE after drawing them for me,and i am now in the process of revamping them into 3D works,now this crap starts no wonder so many hackers try to screw with the big men on capital hill THIS WAR BULLSHIT IS BAD ENOUGH we don't need more if our rights taken away "for the good of everyone" or whatever sugar coated line they use instead of we just found a new way to subjugate you now dance little puppets dance!! it's funny as hell that they still call this "the land of the free" when we become less and less free every few decades or so,our founding fathers must be turning in their graves!!!
Mathew Schurman (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I was just wondering: what is the name and number of the resolution before Congress, if it has yet been formally introduced? I want to write my congressman, but I don't have sufficient information to put into the email os I can tell him what to keep an eye on. Thank you!
John DiPietro (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
What is this? Tis has to be the most ignorant way of the government to get money off of people who just do things for fun? 5 per artpiece?! that's disgusting! They have to take money from CHILDREN -yeah children submit work people- so they can put more cash in their pockets? Lets face it, they aint doing this for the "economy". it's already way down the tube, they want this for their own benefit. And watch, IF this thing does pass... something will happen where their crap is "legally stolen" and they'll actually get away with taking it back and suing the person. This is just about e most idiotic, imbecilic, moronic thing I have ever heard of. Whitney Cameron
Whitney Cameron (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 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.