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


As a professional photographer and high school art teacher I am extremely interested in this legislation. However I would like to take a look at the actual legislation before I commit one way or another. In addition, it would probably be helpful, when contacting our State and Federal Legislators, if we had a name or number so as to reference the Legislation in question. Thanks
Michael Koontz (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I just wrote to my school paper about this. This is officially fk'd up.
S. K. (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html This article has been debunked. You might want to remove it. Apparently, it's predicated on a falsehood: there is no such legislation currently introduced or even in committee discussions to be introduced this session. Certainly such legislation could be introduced in the future, but the fact that the entire article is predicated on this (I'm sure unintentional) untruth makes the argument valid but certainly needing a rewrite. The author might want to revisit his thesis and the point where he says such legislation is currently under discussion. It's a good article anyway so hopefully it is rewritten and not abandoned.
(not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Exactly what legislation are you referring to? Is there a citation? I've just spent three hours going over the daybook and I don't see a single piece of proposed legislation related in any way, shape or form to copyright at all - not in committee, on the floor or even tabled. Are you sure you're not referring to the 2006 orphaned-works bill which was never voted on and ultimately dismissed? This is very confusing - your entire article, which is quite interesting, is predicated on the existence of this legislation, and I can't find it anywhere at the national level. Maybe you're talking about something international, before the Berne copyright court? As far as I know, they dismissed similar legislation in 2002 and haven't revisited it, nor have I heard of any plans to. If you can clarify this for us, I'd really appreciate it.
Moe Hong (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
Personally, I am disgusted with the American government. There is such a loss of freedom and as a Canadian it hurts me to see that the So called land of the free is willing to take away so much freedom from people. I don't know much about how it would even effect other people in the world. I would not want people to steal my work, even though I don't mind showing it to people or even people using it. all said I don't think it will work, and if it passes there would be riots I think. "Thankfully US copyright laws (and bullshit bills like this one) don't apply in Canada." (this post ©2008 Pixel Shifter) I quote my friend and I bloody hell agree with him. If this shows how corrupt the American government is where they even conceive of this idea it makes me think less of the American government.
philip mcalpine (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
So...lemme see if I got this straight. One day we have to put twenty disclaimers on something just so we won't get sued, and the next we don't own our own art? This is ridiculous! I fully support the rebel groups who are standing up against this abomination, and I stand right there with them!
Jessica Childress (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
This is despicable. But I believe there will be uproar if this bill is passed. They can't do this.
Eleanor MJ (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
This is ridiculous and should never pass. Unfortunately, with big businesses behind it, this time, it just might. Apparently, this was attempted in 2005 as well, it just didn't go through. Let's hope it doesn't again. Here is another article about it from 2005. http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=...
Amber Stone (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
I there any thing us artists outside the States can do to prevent this?
Brad (not verified) | Sat, 04/12/2008 - 00:00 | Permalink
It is worth noting, that while you are absolutely entitled to be pissed about the very notion of the existence of this suitably horrifying bill... it's especially worth noting that the bill died in Congress way back in 2005, and has not been reintroduced since 2006. There's no need to panic, but what's horrifying is that this has become a viral internet article, and many of the artists I watch believed it immediately - and subsequently began to remove all of their work from viewing. I. Am. Horrified.
Matthew Morrison (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.