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


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
This is so extremely sick! Ive spread it around to everyone I know and to all IRC channels Im on and I cant say that the responses are what I was expecting... "I dont care", "So what!?", "Like anyone care?" is just a few of them... =S is there anything wrong with programmers and webdesigners? And I hope anyone could answer a little question, would this affect the whole web, including swedish servers content? in that case the swedish government should do something to stop this!
Per Johansson (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
There has been a great deal of inflammatory overreaction surrounding this issue. There is no legislation pending before Congress, and a thorough read of the Office of Copyright's 2006 report on orphaned works shows that great care is being taken to consider the rights of living creators. Everyone should take the time to read that report in full: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf Or at least read this: http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html KG
Kevin Geiger (not verified) | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
As an artist who cannot afford registration fees I just want to say HOW DARE THEY!!! no one should profit from anothers artwork unless they have signed permission or have paid the artist for the right to do so.
Dawn Harris (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.