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
With the pending Orphan Works legislation, artists might lose rights to works they've created. Courtesy of Jon Hofferman.
With the pending Orphan Works legislation, artists might lose rights to works they've created. Image courtesy of Jon Hofferman.

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 online. Think this doesn't apply to you? Maybe you don't license your artwork? How about this?

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.







Comments


The orphan works is designed for archives, libraries , museums, special collections and others who have over the years become repositories of materials that were donated without a proper deed of gift. As it stands now because no one knows who owns the copyright these materials are effectively close to researchers. The orphan works act is NOT designed to take away someone's copyright
Peter (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Sam (not verified) | Thu, 04/17/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I think everyone is FREAKING over nothing. I didn't type this, I just took this from Snover@Y!'s journal, he pretty much sums up this whole thing perfectly. "First of all, Mark's definition of orphan works is wrong. An orphan work is a creative work where the original copyright owner cannot be located or identified. What he is describing as "orphan works" is, in actuality, the public domain. (Though, improper registration only applies to works from before when the Berne Convention was ratified.) (See en.citizendium.org/wik····an_works) Second of all, there is no current legislation before congress regarding orphan works. The Public Domain Enhancement Act was the last bit of legislation regarding copyright and orphan works reform, and died after being referred to committee in 2006. You can confirm this yourself by searching for "orphan works" at the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov/bss/110····rch.html). Third of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act doesn't legalise theft any more than copyright expiration legalises theft. Copyright is supposed to be a short, fixed term exclusive right that encourages the production of new creative works. Copyright was not intended to allow Disney to continue to make money on cartoons created 3 generations ago, or for John Lennon's wife to get rich off her dead husband's estate, but that's how it is today thanks to the large media conglomerates. (For someone that's spending so much time railing against corporations, Mark seems to spend a lot of time not talking about how the major film and music studios have pressured Congress to extend copyright terms 11 times since the original 1790 copyright act.) Fourth of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act requires a token payment of $1 every 10 years, ONCE THE COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT ALREADY FOR FIFTY YEARS. That means, the first 50 years of copyright are still free, even under the proposed Act. Fifth of all, Mark is wrong about current registration requirements. In order to file ANY copyright infringement suit, not just one for statutory damages, you have to register the work with the copyright office. Statutory damages can only be claimed if the registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work. All this information is easily available from the Copyright Office's Web site (www.copyright.gov/circ····.html#cr) so there's no reason for him to get it wrong. Sixth of all, I'm very interested to learn how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes Bill Gates money, since Mark claims that Bill Gates doesn't "do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money". I'm even more interested as to how Mark thinks that Bill Gates stepping down as chairman of Microsoft to move into philanthropy will make him more money than continuing to run the largest software company on earth. Finally, the most important thing. The point of orphan works laws, which is COMPLETELY missed by this three page comedy of errors, is NOT to make it possible for people or corporations to steal your work. In fact, most of the orphan works legislation has been pioneered by people such as Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred -- people that are TIRED of big corporations continuing to steal from the public domain by pushing forward copyright term limits. The point of orphaned works laws is to make it possible for people to use works whose owners cannot be found, thereby preventing these works from fading into oblivion and creating a new surge of creativity built on these freely available works. Under the current system, even if someone is willing to pay for license to use a work, if they can't find the original copyright holder, they can't risk using the work in case the original copyright holder or a heir surfaces later and sues them. With the proposed US orphan works law, after 50 years, if the copyright holder does not pay the $1 tax to continue their copyright ownership, the work enters the public domain. How fifty years of exclusive rights is not enough for Mark, I don't know. It's still FAR more than the original 28-year term set back in 1790, and still FAR more than is needed to make money on a work. Any potential legislation that works to reduce copyright terms is a VERY GOOD THING for all creatives today. Hey, it even means that once Corbis's library enters the public domain, you won't need to pay them to get copies anymore."
Tora Vi (not verified) | Wed, 04/16/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Firstly, those that think this is a dead issue need to go here: http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/03/orphan-bill-rears-its-ugly-head-aga... Secondly, I'm sure this has already been addressed, but if this bill passes, it will spell certain death for the commercial artist. If there is such a vast cache of art to choose from, what would compel anyone to hire an artist/photographer from that point forward, provided said client/company had done a "reasonable search" for the copyright holder? This just looks like more bullshit to tie up the legal system and line the pockets of those that work in it. I understand the basic principles of why this bill was even conceptualized in the first place, but the cons definitely outweigh the pros in this case. Bottom line - if you can't find the copyright holder, move on.
Anne El-Habre (not verified) | Wed, 04/16/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
This is absurd. If you deny the legal protection of copyright, you deny the very foundation of this country--the unique rights of the individual, Nuf said. It will NEVER happen
Jack D (not verified) | Wed, 04/16/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Hooray !!! Lets declare orphan software then !!
will Gates (not verified) | Wed, 04/16/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Call your senators and representatives. The Phone number for the congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. You can give the operator your zip code and then you will be connected to your senators' or representative's offices. Looks like the main person to contact may be Rep. Howard Berman D-CA28, he's the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. You can find the names of other representative on the committee here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Judiciary_Subcommittee_... This is an issue that appears to be non partisan in nature, so don't be afraid to call someone of an opposing party. Please be concise and inquisitive while raising your concerns and as always be polite. If they don't hear from you they'll think they are doing great job.
David Planchet (not verified) | Tue, 04/15/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I read this and did some google-fu and the best I can tell, this bill died in the house in September, 2006. Am I missing something? If so, please update this article with the house bill number, or what bill it's attached to! I'm not going to write a letter to my respective political clown if there isn't actually a bill in the house. That would make me crazier than they are. Publish the facts, please.
Thomas C (not verified) | Tue, 04/15/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I just picked up this tid bit of info a few moments ago, I'll tell you right now this bill will not pass in my country! Multiple Petetions and Protests of large magnitudes are gearing up and getting together to shut this ""Criminal Opperation"" down! If you would like to assist please follow the link at the bottom for one of the many petitions to be signed. Thank You. An Artist Deviants against the "Orphaned Works" Bill http://www.petitiononline.com/dAvsOW/petition.html
Joshua McGathy (not verified) | Tue, 04/15/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
get your story straight before posting it, or make sure you can't be immediately verified a wolf-crying teary-eyed panic boy... telling stories about Chinese legislation on art would be a safer bet, for example.
youran idiot (not verified) | Tue, 04/15/2008 - 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.