Orphan Works: Legislation by Misdirection 9.29.08 The architects of the Orphan Works Act have already placed testaments to the bill on their websites: Senator Leahy: http://leahy.senate.gov/ Senator Hatch: http://tinyurl.com/3jsq5o They say this "landmark intellectual property bill" will "unlock proverbial attics of copyrighted works" whose owners can't be found. Is that really what all the fuss has been about? No. If that were the case, the problems could be solved with a modest expansion of Fair Use. It's not proverbial closets we fear seeing unlocked. It's our commercial inventories, which would be exposed to potential infringement. And while one Senator pointedly writes that the bill "does not dramatically restructure copyright law" (emphasis added), he's right: it doesn't "restructure" it. It merely redefines an orphaned work so broadly that it would let users infringe millions of works as orphans on the premise that some might be. And why, if the bill is only meant to benefit libraries and museums, have the doors been opened wide for commercial usage? A Fundamental Change to Copyright Law For us, the saddest of these postings is on the Copyright Office website itself. http://www.copyright.gov/ But that's not the sad part. There are orphans. She's entitled to her belief. And as Register of Copyrights, she's entitled to lobby for a change in the law. But what's sad is that the Register, who we've respected for years as an advocate for creators rights, has chosen to justify this legislative scheme by mischaracterizing the honest objections that creators have raised in good faith, again and again. Here's how she summarizes the objections of the hundreds of thousands of artists, writers, photographers and musicians who oppose this bill: "Some critics [she writes] believe that the legislation is unfair because it will deprive copyright owners of injunctive relief, statutory damages, and actual damages. I do not agree." Well, those are all real issues, but they've never been our focus. We've made our case clearly, simply and often. Our objection goes to the heart of the matter. Here it is, as one of us expressed it in his opening statement at the Small Business Administration Roundtable, August 8: "The bill's sponsors say it's merely a small adjustment to copyright law. In fact, its logic reverses copyright law. It presumes that the public is entitled to use your work as a primary right and that it's your obligation to make your work available. If this bill passes, in the United States, copyright will no longer be the exclusive right of the copyright holder." - From "Orphan Works: A Hobson's Choice for Artists," by Brad Holland August 8 2008 And in case the point needed elaboration: "This exclusive right matters to artists for three reasons: · Creative control: No one can change your work without your permission; · Ownership: No one can use your work without your permission; · Value: In the marketplace, your ability to sell exclusive rights to a client triples the value of your work. - http://ipaorphanworks. The Orphan Works Act passed by the Senate Friday explicitly voids that exclusive right as expressed in Article 9 of the Berne Copyright Convention: (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. (3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ There can be no responsible argument that the Orphan Works Act is consistent with Article 9 of Berne. None. Simple reason: the Orphan Works Act does not limit exemptions to an author's exclusive right to "certain special cases." Case closed. There are many other reasons to object to this terrible bill: it violates the entirety of Article 9. But we only need to make this single point to show that it's a radically new copyright law. Hiding the Rabbit The key to the Congressional magic act has been to hide an anti-copyright rabbit in an Orphan Works hat while misdirecting attention to a tedious debate about "reasonably diligent searches," injunctive relief and statutory damages. Meanwhile the secret of the trick has been simple: redefine an orphaned work as "a work by an unlocatable author." This new definition would permit any person to infringe any work by any artist at any time for any reason - no matter how commercial - so long as the infringer found the author sufficiently hard to find. Since everybody can be hard for somebody to find, this voids a rights holder's exclusive right to his own property. It defines the public's right to use private property as a default position, available to anyone whenever the property owner fails to make himself sufficiently available. This is a new definition of copyright law. The headline on the Copyright Office website should read: In the United States, Copyright Will No Longer Be the Exclusive Right of the Copyright Holder. This headline would at least have the virtue of candor. On March 13, the Register of Copyrights testified before the House IP Subcommittee. On page 1 of her testimony she said: "Every country has orphan works and I believe that, sooner or later, every country will be motivated to consider a solution. The solution proposed by the Copyright Office is a workable one and will be of interest to other countries." http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ You can bet it will be of interest to other countries, because the copyrights of other countries can now be orphans in the U.S. too. The Copyright Office and the Senate have thrown down a gauntlet to the world. Write your congressional representatives today and tell them not to follow. -Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership TAKE ACTION: EMAIL CONGRESS NOW Tell the House Judiciary Committee not to adopt the Senate version. We've supplied a special letter for this purpose: http://capwiz.com/ Please post or forward this message immediately to any interested party. ______________________________ For ongoing developments, go to the Illustrators' Partnership Orphan Works Blog: http://ipaorphanworks. Over 70 organizations oppose this bill, representing over half a million creators. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses. The Capwiz site is open to professional creators and any member of the image-making public. International artists will find a special link, with a sample letter and instructions as to whom to write. If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@ Please post or forward this email to any interested party. |
Reamer Keller in CARTOON LAFFS
Jim Borgman leaves his daily editorial cartoonist position with the Cincinnatti Enquirer."I’ve said my piece, as Grandma Borgman would have said.
"One week after graduating from Kenyon College 32 years ago I started drawing editorial cartoons for the Cincinnati Enquirer, awestruck to be working for the only newspaper that had ever been spread across my Price Hill family’s kitchen table. I’ve barely looked up since. Some employee! Not a single promotion in three decades. My buddy says I’m “still stuck in the same dead-end job” I got right out of college.
"But what a job .... "
Don Wilder, the writer of the King Features Syndicate comic strip Crock, passed away September 24, 2008. No cause of death specified. A memorial service was held today."Wilder co-created the Foreign Legion-based gag strip in 1975 with artist Bill Rechin and the late Brant Parker of Wizard of Id fame. According to Editor & Publisher, the feature still boasts 200 clients. It is carried by King Features.
"Rechin and Wilder also launched a sport-related panel strip called Out Of Bounds after Crock was up in running. It did not last. There have been multiple Crock-related books including 1979's Crock (Ballantine) and several titles published with Hodder & Stoughton and Coronet in the UK.
"Wilder was an artist in addition to being a writer. He earned a degree from East Tennessee State and took courses at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. He was during a long and varied career a technical illustrator and a visual-information specialist at the CIA. His newspaper obituary states that he lived in Fredericksburg, Virginia, having moved there from Knoxville in the mid-1960s to take the CIA position.
"He was a member of the National Cartoonists Society and the National Press Club."
One of the things I would have liked, when I was a kid growing up in Iowa, was to meet a real cartoonist in the real world.
"No, I am not available as a downloadable podcast."
Yesterday I showed 5 cartoons I mailed to Women's World magazine and asked you to guess which one was bought. Most of you got it right! It's the podcast one, above.
I'm surprised as well. I liked the guy playing videogames (below) better, but I suppose it infers a divorced parent and maybe that's not the WW image. I don't know.
"I swear he's just dating me for my son's video games."
Thanks so much to those who played along.
Related: an excerpt from SCORCHY SMITH AND THE ART OF NOEL SICKLES from Today's Inspiration.
When Noel Sickles gave up his strip, Scorchy Smith, it was because of a combination of "restlessness, deadlines, boredom and money," according to biographer Bruce Canwell. In an online excerpt of an interview from The Comics Journal #242, Sickles himself mentions that his salary at the beginning of his three-year stint on the strip was $47.50 per week. In spite of his managing to negotiate it to a respectable $125 a week, Sickles quit the strip in 1936 to pursue a career in magazine illustration.
"Will I give away my work?" is one of the fundamental questions that you, the creative professional, will have to decide.
"I swear he's just dating me for my son's video games."
This one is just silly and the "guy as a big kid" kinda character is always welcome.
"Sorry, no ice cream. Only those energy efficient light bulbs"
I like the above cartoon, but I have a feeling they have seen a lot of the energy efficient bulb gags and are bored to death with them.
"Well, the kiss didn't work. How about a cuddle?"
Unwanted interspecies sexual overtures! Too risky? Just edgy enough?
"No, I am not available as a downloadable podcast."
Tomorrow: the winner is revealed.
I have to write a paper on the career I want to go into and I chose cartooning. Please tell me:
1) How much money do you make?
2) How much education was required for you to get your job?
3) How much time does it take you to draw a cartoon?
4) How did you get into this business?
1) Cartoonists make anything between $0 per year and $50,000,000 per year just like actors, musicians and basketball players. And, like actors, musicians and basketball players, most cartoonists make closer to $0 than $50,000,000.
2) No education is required, only quality of work and some business acumen but that is true of most careers. Education is very important and it is unusual for anyone to be successful without a good education.
3) All my life. Some cartoonists brag about drawing quickly; I think this diminishes the value of their work in the eyes of their editors and readers. Good cartoonists think about their work all the time and spend a lit of time working to improve.
4) I started as a general illustrator, and then worked as a cartoon illustrator, then I worked as a toy inventor, I did a syndicated cartoon, then editorial cartoons. I drew other people's characters in other people's styles, working on projects for others before my career got to the point that I could draw as I wanted.
Friday at 2pm EST I'll be interviewed by the one and only Mr. Media in a live podcast feed.
Above: a subverted juxtaposition cartoon. This is more of a smile than a chuckle.
“'My studio in Queens is much bigger, but I’m perfectly content with this small desk,' he said of the simple wooden work space, outfitted with only a desk lamp, ruler and pencil sketches for a 'Battle of the Bands Competition' for an upcoming Archie comic. 'You’ll notice there’s no computer. This new electric pencil sharpener is about as technical as I get.'”There is more here than usual for a newspaper article. There is some background about Stan that I only learned after knowing him for the past seven years. Stan was, for instance, the fellow who decided on the costume colors for all of the seminal Marvel Comics characters. As he has told me, it's primary colors (red, blue) for the heroes and tertiary colors (purple, brown) for the villains.
"Ms. Goldberg explained. 'After a tragedy like that happens, your life changes forever, but you find a way to go on.'In addition to the article are 2 dozen photos of their place taken by Dana Shaw.
"Fortunately, the couple has found some solace through their involvement in a national organization, Parents of Murdered Children, and through their close connection with each other and their varied travels."
