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


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.