(UPDATE from MSB: see comment below. These Bills are INDEED VERY REAL and VERY DANGEROUS for visual artists.)
Basically, the House & Senate are both pushing bills through congress that would allow anyone to be able to use content you previously thought was copyright protected. Photos, paintings, poems, stories & so on are all going to get put into the open for large companies or anybody for that matter to use, without the fear of being sued or having to pay for the use.
The bill called the "orphan act" will essentially let anyone use content that would normally be copyrighted if they basically say they tried but couldn't find the original creator/copyright holder. Fill out the simple email form to your area's congressmen, no need to search it does the work for you.
Here is a good, balanced account of the bills. They are not evil ogre's BUT could do some serious damage to creators rights and need to be resisted:
http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/?p=2034
Not to play devil's advocate, but aren't we headed towards this anyway with bittorrent, mp3's, sampling, and even conceptual theft/borrowing...
The landscape is changing. Self-promotion and output are a different animal in this day and age... Although I think it changes the game a bit... artists, writers and musicians alike have to adjust.
Its a much larger discussion, I know... but when you can get a Joel Pieter Witkin limited edition promo dvd on bittorrent through the right sources... is that theft... or is that viral marketing?
I think the bigger problem is the potential for CORPORATIONS to steal and market creations by smaller or individual creators en mass, that is whjat the Illustrators Society and cartoonists are worried about. Almost exactly in opposition to "pirating" these bills, like the change in the copyright law and much of Bush-era legal endeavour, is constructed to make life easier and more profitable for large corporations at the cost of real cpaitalist endeavour and individual creativity and invention. The bills might create a potential for "reverse" pirating, so to speak.
I totally agree and its a bit schizophrenic of policy makers on one hand to call for copyright stringency and then turn around and provide loopholes.
I see the potential of it hitting people like street artists the worst. As most of those are hung as public works anonymously for necessity due to the legality of 'defacement of public property.' I can imagine a scenario like local grocery store Dominicks suddenly falling in love with the street artist the Grocer's avocado bills and subsequently incorporating it into their weekly circular free of charge because they were damn fine looking avocados. That just wreaks of bs.
At the same time, it needs to be said that there is a culture out there of copyright haze especially in things like New Media and sound. And in general I'm always a little grey when copyright conversations come up. There are a lot of formats of expression that could have been stifled and regulated into the ground by copyright law and laws in general. Thats simply my point.
The bill sounds REALLY terrible now that details are out:
Greetings,
I am writing today to help inform my fellow artists about some very disturbing news in regards to the United States copyright laws which are currently in existence and which may be changed if specific senators have their way.
The laws as they are being presented are:
Bill H.R. 5889 for the House of Representatives and for the senate S. Bill 2913
Same Orphan Works bill, different #'s for Senate and House.
A full explanation follows as it has been written about by Art Calendar Magazine. But if you really want to scare yourself silly take some time and listen to this webcast interview with Brad Holland about the Orphan Works act bill. This webcast offers insight to the ramifications of this bill - if it should pass. The mp3 webcast interview about the Orphan Works act bill can be heard at the site listed here:
http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
On April 24, Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced legislation (S.2913, HR 5889), which is now being referred to as the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008. It is virtually the same bill that was presented in 2006, and subsequently rejected by Congress. But now, they are trying again.
If passed, the Act would radically alter copyright laws, taking away the automatic copyright now guaranteed to artists of all types who create any type of work. Right now, under U.S. law, you are automatically guaranteed copyright on everything you create, from the sketches in your sketchpad to your best paintings and sculptures. Under the Orphan Works Act, every creator will be required to register everything he or she creates in a private registry system, requiring a fee of course, and supposedly to make it easier for the “public” to search for works and contact the creators if they want to use the works for some purpose.
Everything created in the last 30 years will need to be registered through this as-yet nonexistent system, including those works already registered via additional fees with the copyright office. If they aren’t, and some member of the public makes “due diligence” to find the creator of a work and can’t find him or her, that member of the public is entitled to use the work without any limitations, and artists will have no legal recourse. That means every piece of work you have out there, especially online, would be open season for use by major publishing houses and businesses (Microsoft — who owns one of the largest online image databases — and Google have already voiced support for the bill and indicated they will use thousands of images) and everyone in between.
Proponents of the bill say it will assist the public in identifying and contacting creators of works and going through the proper channels to contact them to ask for permission. While we understand the need for an organized system of search, there are MAJOR FLAWS in the proposed bill that need to be addressed before any such proposal should take place. Here are a few points:
Under this law, you would need to register every piece of work you create, including those works that you have already registered with the Copyright Office officially, in some system that does not exist and would likely require you to pay to do so. The time and cost to do this is going to be prohibitive for visual artists.
While this is meant to apply to all types of creative works, including music and literary, visual artists will be impacted the most because of the sheer volume of work we create, making it very expensive to register everything you have ever created or will create.
For the visual arts, there would still be little protection for you and your work, even if it is registered, because search tools would rely on names of artists or titles of work, and not image recognition tools, which are still in their infancy of development.
Under this law, if you register your work, you would have to respond to EVERY inquiry sent to you for use of the work. So in other words, if you have a work out there in a registry system, and some person contacts you and says he wants to use your work for free on his Web site or in his new catalog, you would need to take the time to officially respond to every inquiry within a specified time limit, letting him know if you do not want to have him publish your work for free. This will take a lot of time and effort that we, as professional artists, do not have.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill, and yesterday, May 15, the Senate Judiciary Committee did as well. This means the bill will be presented to Congress, likely before the end of May.
We need you to write to your representatives ASAP and let them know that you do NOT want this bill to be expedited, as it is now. Tell them we need a better solution, or tell them you don’t want it at all: Just be sure to tell them something soon. Click the links below to get more information on the bill, including a video that gives you a great overview of the artists’ concerns:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00261
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=11346091&type=CU
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Perlman080313.pdf
Click below for several options of pre-written and editable letters that you can fill out, and that will automatically identify and send it to your representatives when you enter your address.
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
Don’t wait. Do it now. And pass this on to everyone you know. Thanks for your help
Thus, it is a purely pro-corporate, anti-individual creator act (the ridiculous registration demands --- each and every piece with a monetary cost and bureaucratic paperwork, etc.)
It would also put US American artists at a distinct disadvantage worldwide --- in Switzerland, e.g., we are automatically covered by normal copyright even without the (c) date and name notice. ANd certainly no forced paperwork registration.
Brad Holland (IPA) challenges the views of Alex Curtis of Public Knowledge concerning the stance that PK takes on the orphan works bill.
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/brad-holland-responds-to-public.html