Sign Up Now
Login/New User

Commons

Major Infringement

Erin Shaw

The Orphan Works Act is scheduled to be introduced in the House and Senate simultaneously for a vote this month. If passed, it would require that all art be digitized and registered with private commercial registries, effectively ending passive copyright protection. The current copyright law protects art even if it is unregistered, but the new law makes “any work not registered with a private sector registry ...a potential orphan from the moment it's created.” This means that all art is up for grabs in the public domain unless “the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within a certain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.”

Anyone can register a work, which means that artists could end up illegally using their own work if someone else claims it in the private registry. Not only visual art is susceptible to infringement and plagiarism: family photos, home movies, journal entries, sketches, letters and e-mails are considered public domain unless you pay to have them in the publicly registry. This creates the paradox that “In order to 'protect' work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it on a publicly searchable registry.” To make matters worse, the registries cannot enforce copyright infringement or monitor when your work is used; it is up to you to search regularly and pursue plagiarizers on your own.

In the words of the Illustrators Partnership, “Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded personal correspondence, family photos, etc., it would tear one more slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental rights we currently take for granted.”

You can learn more and download the House and Senate versions of the Orphan Works Bill at the Illustrator's Partnership website. Get involved by signing this petition or contacting your representatives.

Creative Commons image: "License to Steal: U.S. Orphan Works Act" by Spadea on Flickr

email

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.

I find this absolutely appalling.

Words cannot begin to express my disgust, but hell, I'll give it a shot. I can't say that I'm really surprised, but I guess that optimistic part of me just didn't want to think things would go this far. And I can think of some pretty vile people that would more likely than not take every opportunity to abuse this legislation. Obviously the writers aren't artists themselves, or just don't give a shit about art in general. This is literally turning my stomach.
Picture of <em>LionKimbro</em>

Can you get a lawyer on this?

Wait -- Can I have some proof?

I need to see a lawyer's analysis, preferably the analysis of someone from Creative Commons or the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation.)

I see that you are studying creative writing.  This would place you in the camp of artists, artists who, by tradition, argue for the most extreme copyright laws possible -- preferably "you give me money for life, and then all of my decendents, forever and ever."  The type of force that would have us still paying out for Beethoven, and Mark Twain, and so on, without end.  The type of force that makes the construction of documentaries near impossible, because every single last appearance in the background has to be contracted for.

Personally, I've had enough of this kind of thing, and so I'm taking my cues from Creative Commons or the EFF.  If the CC or EFF raises an alarm about this, I can agree with you.  Or if you can show me a lawyer saying that the law means what it says you mean, I might agree with you.  But as it is, I'm just seeing a smear campaign without teeth -- the words of lawyers explaining what's going on.

Picture of <em>Antonio Lopez</em>

Yes, who's behind this?

I got something similar to the post in an email from a very shrill artist who thought the world is ending. So I did some research and the only place I found any outcry or information was on the Illustrator's Partnership site. I found it strange that there was nothing about this at any of the places that normally jump all over this kind of thing-- like the EFF. I'm wondering if it's a hoax.

I'm with you

I definitely thought about all that as I wrote this blog. I'd like to see a full-length post that "follows the money" because I can't figure out how this is lucrative for anyone but scam artists who register work that's not their own and sue the original artist. I have to wonder if this is the same fear musicians had about filesharing when that became an intellectal property issue.

What I object to most is the private commercial registries, especially because I don't understand what's not working about passive copyright law as it stands. Who advocates private commercial registries and the unintended protection paradox?

My source was a story suggestion e-mail and the Illustrator's Partnership website (no shortage of bias there), but I'm sure there's an unexplored side that's not so up in arms. I think I may have received the same e-mail as Antonio, but there's much more out there about the 2006 and 2008 versions.

Erin


 

Shifting the Responsibility...

...from infringers to rights holders is like moving from a society that is Innocent till proven guilty to Guilty till proven innocent. Why is this law being implemented now? Who is going to directly benifit from this. It seems like private(corporate) registers will make a win fall from the fees. Creative Commons does exsist as a option, so why have a revamping old copywrite laws. Who will benefit from this.? As far as paying for Beethoven, and Mark Twain what do you mean LionKimbro? Are not these works in the public domain. Do I have to pay royalties to perform Beethoven's 5th? But I should pay the musicians to buy a recording of it. It is simple...A artist should be paid the same way as any other craftsperson. And any artist should own the right to do with thine work as thy will. Let's keep this easy and focus on the big issues. I expect a lot more comments on this subject... "When the power of love overcomes the love of power,the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
Picture of <em>LionKimbro</em>

Mark Twain & Copyright

I adore Mark Twain, but his thoughts on Copyright are right out. He argued passionately before Congress that copyright should last forever.

From talking with my contemporary artist friends, I say, "The attitude hasn't changed," in the artist community. To my experience of their words, the common artist lives in a world of perpetual warfare, take no prisoners.

Picture of <em>N9</em>

Keep us posted

It's creepy that someone might want to claim my family photos and...email! First I've heard of it. Please keep us posted.

 

I did a little more researching...

Seems that the the main purpose for this act is to allow museums and libraries to put work that they found or has been donated to them on display without having to keep it locked up so as not to infringe on unknown person's rights. However, if you read the text of the act, it does not specify that it only applies to things of this nature. It could be anything regarded as art that has been "abandoned." Sure it has a lovely paragraph about how one must make a diligent effort to seek out the rightful owner, and then goes on to define dilligent, but it still doesn't sit right with me because the act doesn't limit this to any certain situation. But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm missing something.

Wow!

That's great! Where did you find that out?

You can read the bill in its entirety...

here:     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5889:     As far as how I found out about the more noble purposes of this act, I just did a good deal of web-hopping and the whole library/museum thing seems to be legitimate. I can't remember the exact sites.