Appeal to House Judiciary

December 8, 2008

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers:

On behalf of more than 81 professional organizations – and more than half a million small business owners, we are writing to express our grave concern about the controversial Orphan Works Act of 2008 (HR 5889). We’ve been advised that the Judiciary Committee may try to place it on the Suspensions Calendar and pass it by unanimous consent. Please don’t allow this to happen. This is no way to pass a controversial bill opposed by your constituents. It would strip them of their intellectual property rights without due process.

None of the organizations or businesses listed in the attached sheet – and the number is growing as more people learn about it – had a voice in drafting this bill, yet all citizens stand to be harmed by it. We believe that an orphan works bill can be perfected, but we do not believe there is time to perfect it in a lame duck session. We are therefore urging that this bill be held over until the next Congress, when we would pledge the positive input of the creative community to see that a true orphan works bill is passed.

When Chairman Berman held the single open hearing on this bill March 13th before the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, he acknowledged that it was not a true orphan works bill. Let us quote him exactly:

“[W]e should correct a misnomer,” [he said]. “The works we’re talking about are not orphans...The more accurate description... is probably an unlocatable copyright owner...But for the sake of ease we’ll keep talking about them as if they’re orphans.”

With all due respect to the Congressman, if this bill is not about orphaned work, we do not think it should be passed as if it were one. Conversely, if its goal is to make the work of ordinary citizens available as commercial content to large internet databases, such a transfer of rights should be openly and transparently debated on its own merits.

An orphaned work is a work whose author has died or abandoned his copyrights. This bill would redefine an orphan as “a work by an unlocatable author.” This would radically re-define the ownership of private property. This bill, as written, would permit any person to infringe any work by any author at any time for any reason – no matter how commercial or distasteful – so long as the infringer found the author sufficiently hard to find. Since everybody can be hard for somebody to find, this voids every rights holder’s exclusive right to his or her own intellectual property as required by the U.S. Copyright Act. It creates the public’s right to use private property as a default position, available to anyone whenever any property owner fails to make himself sufficiently available to any would-be user.

The Orphan Works bill is being presented as a minor adjustment to Copyright Law. It is not. This bill – in both houses of Congress – would affect the most personal form of private property that exists – the work that citizens create themselves, the work they use to make a living, the work they use to express their time on Earth. It would affect any form of creative expression – from professional artwork to family photos, home videos, songs and lyrics – and anything that anyone has ever been placed on the Internet. It would affect the work of living authors who are still actively licensing their work.

The stated purpose of the bill is to benefit libraries and museums. But if so, why have the doors been opened wide for commercial infringement?

On the premise that culture will be harmed if authors can’t be found, this bill would “pressure” copyright holders to surrender access to their commercial inventory, metadata and licensing information to privately owned commercial databases. Unregistered work would be vulnerable to potential infringement. Since no rational business owner would voluntarily turn over private business information to outside commercial interests without agreed upon compensation, this is a troubling prospect for millions of creators and small business owners. And since copyright holders would have to digitize their entire inventory at their own expense to comply, this bill would socialize the cost of compliance while privatizing the profits from creative work.

The bill’s drafters have relied on the 2006 Report on Orphan Works, issued by the Copyright Office. But the Copyright Office studied the specific subject of orphaned work. They did not inquire into the workings of commercial markets and there is no evidence in their report that business clients are unable to find the living authors they wish to work with. No evidence whatsoever. This bill has been drafted behind closed doors, without a needs-assessment study, an economic impact analysis, or an evaluation of how the public would be affected by this transfer of private property from individuals to giant commercial databases.

The first – and so far only – effort to assess the economic impact of this legislation on the creative community came on August 8, 2008 when the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration conducted an Orphan Works Roundtable in New York City. Participants represented artists, writers, photographers, songwriters, musicians, performers and many collateral small businesses. Panelists stressed several key points:

• The high cost of compliance would make it impossible for many small business owners
to comply; yet
• Failure to comply could lead to loss of intellectual property.
• The loss of exclusive rights would breach the sanctity of contracts, and
• Devalue the work of rights holders in their derivative markets.

For the 81 groups in the enclosed list, the most troubling part of this has been our near-total exclusion from the legislative process. To counter the protests of copyright holders, special interests have tried to dress up the House bill with complicated provisions, calling them “speed bumps” for infringers. For example, the House bill requires an infringer to perform a “qualifying search” – where a qualifying search is defined as one that is reasonable and diligent but reasonable diligence is left for the courts to define. Who wants to go to court to seek payment after your work has been used? We’re business people. We make our livings through voluntary business transactions, not lawsuits. Any bill that drives business decisions into the courts is bad for business and bad for the courts.

To understand this bill, we have to go to the heart of the matter. By defining millions of works as orphans on the premise that some might be, this bill will allow Internet content providers to profit by harvesting and monetizing the work of ordinary citizens, providing their databases with content they could never afford to create themselves nor license from authors.

In light of the meltdown on Wall Street, we do not think it’s wise for Congress to concentrate our nation’s copyright wealth in the hands of a few corporate databases. The contents of these databases would be more valuable than secure banking information. Yet this bill would compel small business owners to subsidize their business models. That means it would be the assets of ordinary citizens at risk in the event of their failure, mismanagement or corruption. The consequences of this step will be far-reaching, long lasting, perhaps irreversible and will strike at the heart of property ownership.

On July 11th, on behalf of all those who wish to see a true orphan works bill, the Illustrators’ Partnership, Artists Rights Society and Advertising Photographers of America submitted Amendments to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.* The Amendments have never been considered. A new Congress would have the opportunity to do so. Please do not allow this legislation to pass until it can be subjected to an open, informed and transparent public examination.

Sincerely,

Brad Holland, Illustrators' Partnership
212.226.3675, brad-holland@rcn.com

Cynthia Turner, Illustrators' Partnership
850.231.4112, cynthia@cynthiaturner.com

Dr. Theodore Feder, President, Artists Rights Society
212.420.9160, tfeder@arsny.com

Martin Trailer, President, Advertising Photographers of America
800.272.6264, Martin.Trailer@APAnational.com


*H.R. 5889 Amendments available here:
http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part V

Through the Looking Glass

Orphan Works advocates defend their proposals by saying they’re necessary to put users in touch with copyright owners. They say this isn’t happening now because of a market failure in commercial markets.

Speaking at a Congressional Seminar March 31, 2006, Copyright Office attorney Jule Sigall explained why they believed artists needed Congress to “push” them to register their work with privately owned copyright registries (page 23 of the transcript):

“[A]t this stage, in respect to the legislation...the real question we need to ask and answer is, what kinds of provisions put the right pressure [on photographers and illustrators] to get to that point? Who needs to be pushed there? I mean... I use this line a lot, photographers and illustrators like to say, ‘We haven’t collectivized...’ This is a problem, generally, for their marketplace. It’s hard to have a marketplace where buyers can’t find sellers.” (Emphasis added) http://www.pff.org/events/pastevents/033106orphanworks.asp

Nothing expresses the looking glass logic of the Orphan Works bill better than this statement by the “principal author” of the Copyright Office report that an amendment legalizing the infringement of millions of commercial copyrights is necessary in order for buyers to find sellers.

For the record, there is no evidence in the Copyright Office report that art directors and commercial clients are having any difficulty finding the contributors they want to work with. No evidence whatsoever! Indeed, even a cursory glance at our field refutes that conclusion:

Consider magazines such as Vanity Fair, the New Yorker, Time or Vogue. All of them and countless others are filled from cover to cover with photographs and art - as are newspapers, trade publications, medical journals, ads, annual reports, posters, brochures, catalogues, postcards greeting cards and more. How can anyone be surrounded by this sea of images and seriously argue that in the visual arts “sector,” “buyers can’t find sellers”?

The Copyright Office “evidence” for their conclusion of market failure amounts to no more than 215 relevant letters submitted to their study on the specific subject of orphaned work. Since they didn’t study the workings of commercial markets, there cannot possibly be any valid grounds for deducing a market failure in those markets. You can’t study apples and draw conclusions about oranges.

Orphan Works “For the Sake of Ease”
However unfounded, this Copyright Office factoid of “market failure” is now an orphan works fact to lawmakers. When Chairman Berman of the House IP Subcommittee held the sole public hearing (I hour 27 minutes) on this bill, March 13, 2008, he acknowledged in his opening statement that it was not a true orphan works bill. Yet he insisted it was necessary to correct a “market failure”:

“[W]e should correct a misnomer. The works we’re talking about are not orphans...The more accurate description of the situation is probably an unlocatable copyright owner...this situation better describes the orphan works construct, which is to correct the market failure when a potential user can’t find the copyright owner. But for the sake of ease we’ll keep talking about them as if they’re orphans.”
http://www.copyright.gov/video/testimony-3-13-08.html

But to redefine an orphaned work as “a work by an unlocatable author” is to radically re-define the ownership of private property. Since everybody will be hard for somebody to find, this bill would permit any person to infringe any work by any author at any time for any reason - no matter how commercial or distasteful - so long as the infringer found the author sufficiently hard to find. And this would create 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.

We may presume that the bill’s backers don’t want to be seen as trying to strip citizens of their intellectual property rights without due process. So instead they now argue that they’re only trying to help artists, who in their fecklessness, oppose the bill because we don’t want to be helped.

The Myth of the Feckless Artist
The best example of this mythologizing can be found in statements coming from Public Knowledge, one of the driving forces behind this legislation. On May 29, 2008, Gigi Sohn, President and Co-Founder of PK, explained to listeners at the Center for Intellectual Property why artists perversely oppose these bills:

“Now let me tell you what the main opponents of orphan works legislation really don’t like about it...[they] don’t like the fact that good faith users- those who are willing to pay but can’t figure out who to pay - might be able to use their works without permission and without the maximum financial punishment. They want to control every use of their works, and whether or not they receive fair payment is beside the point.” http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1594 *

And on August 21, 2008, her colleague at PK, Alex Curtis, reiterated the theme:

“Visual artists say they have a problem, that no one can find their work, or at least match them as the owner of their work.” http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1717

“Visual artists say they have a problem, that no one can find their work...” Actually we’ve never said any such thing. In fact we’ve explicitly said the opposite. Here’s just one example, from a sample letter we posted on our CapWiz site May 3:

“I am told that the Copyright Office conducted a study of Orphan Works and that these bills are based on that study. I understand that an orphan work is a work whose owner can’t be located. I am alive, working and managing my copyrights. I can be located. My clients locate me all the time. But that does not mean that anyone anywhere can find me. And frankly, why should the failure of any one person to find me be the measure of whether or not I can be found?

“What if 1000 people can find me but one can’t? Why should that one person get a free pass to use my work?” http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/alert/?alertid=11333406

“I can be located. My clients locate me all the time.” I don’t see how we could say it any more clearly.

Far from complaining that we can’t be found, an entire food chain of collateral markets currently exists to facilitate the process by which image buyers successfully find image sellers: Agents, commercial directories, trade shows, ads in trade publications, direct mail, web sites and email solicitations - all attest to the fact that hundreds of thousands of creators are engaged daily in the robust business of making themselves accessible to potential users.

All of these businesses will be hurt by a bill that legalizes the infringement of the work they trade in. None will be helped by placing on them the onerous and costly burden of registering and maintaining tens of thousands - or for photographers, hundreds of thousands - of individual copyright registrations, not to mention the impossible burden of trying to monitor infringements of their work, which can occur anytime, anywhere in the world.

The Orphan Works proposals under consideration would not create new ways for buyers to find sellers. It would merely allow opportunists to co-opt the existing markets of creators and of the collateral businesses that serve them.

As artists we already know this. Our chore is to hold this bill over until the next Congress, then work to counter the false logic of market failure created by the unwarranted conclusions of the Copyright Office’s Orphan Works Report.

- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership

*Presented to the Center for Intellectual Property 8th Annual Intellectual Property Symposium, University of Maryland University College May 29, 2008

Tomorrow: A Bill Too Far

The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889) has not been passed by the House of Representatives, but could be placed on the Suspensions calendar and passed by the lame duck session of Congress scheduled to re-convene this week. The Illustrators’ Partnership is asking lawmakers to hold the bill over to the next session of Congress, when rightsholders can have an opportunity to have their case heard before the full Judiciary Committee.

Senate Hotline Revisited

Yesterday, many of us received a letter from our Senator, one of the most prominent lawmakers in the country, expressing his support for strong intellectual property rights protections as a necessary stimulus to creativity and entrepreneurship.

He stated that the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S.2913 “is currently being carefully considered by the Senate,” and he assured us:

“Members of my staff have met with representatives of artists and small business owners who have expressed many of the same concerns you mentioned. I will continue to closely study developments on this bill and I will work with both my Senate colleagues and the...artist community to ensure that any bill that is ultimately passed appropriately balances these competing concerns.”

We’ve written to the Senator to inform him that the Shawn Bentley Act passed in the Senate on September 28, 2008, by unanimous consent, including his.

Frankly, we don't blame the Senator for not knowing that he's allegedly consented to a bill that would strip his constituents of their intellectual property rights without due process. Considering the way this controversial bill was drafted behind closed doors and passed by hotline, we suspect many Senators aren’t aware that they’ve “consented” to this radical change to U.S. Copyright law either.

This makes it all the more important that the House not pass their version of this bill (H.R.5889) by a similar legislative maneuver.

Orphan Works legislation should be held over until the next Congress and subjected to an open and transparent public debate. Laws affecting the intellectual property rights of all citizens should not be brokered by lawyers and lobbyists in backroom deals.

Monday the Senate will convene for a lame duck session. A spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi confirmed yesterday that the House will convene on Tuesday. For now, the House is where we need to focus our attention.

House sources continue to assure us that Orphan Works is not on the agenda. However every prior effort to pass the bill by legislative maneuver was prefaced by similar assurances, so we believe it’s in our best interests to stay vigilant. We’ll update you as we learn more.

- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership

Starting Monday we’ll conclude our series of little known facts about this legislation.

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part IV

Moving The Cats' Food

The Copyright Office received about 215 relevant letters to their Orphan Works Study. From this they deduced a claim of widespread market failure in commercial markets and concluded that government should “incentivize” creators to register their work with for-profit registries as a condition of protecting their copyrights.

Officially, this goal is expressed benignly on page 106 of the Copyright Office’s Report on Orphan Works http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf:

“[W]e believe that registries are critically important, if not indispensable, to addressing the orphan works problem, as we explain above. It is our view that such registries are better developed in the private sector...” (Emphasis added)

But later, in defending their proposal, the Report’s principal author stated the case in more coercive terms. Speaking at a Congressional Seminar March 31, 2006, Jule Sigall of the Copyright Office noted that visual artists had failed to “collectivize” to create such registries. And comparing artists to cats who can’t be herded, he said:

“You can’t herd cats, but you can move their food... It’s really what kind of incentives, what kind of pressure and how you put on the right pressure.”*
http://www.pff.org/events/pastevents/033106orphanworks.asp

To which another panelist, the lobbyist for Getty and Corbis, replied: “The tough love theory of copyright policy. We’ll take the food away and then you’ll be motivated to go find where it is.”*

But putting pressure on creators to subsidize the creation of privately-owned registries violates the intent of international copyright law, specifically Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention: “The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality.” (Emphasis added) http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/5.html

This principle has been incorporated into the Universal Copyright Convention and Article 13 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). These agreements acknowledge narrow limitations and exceptions to the exclusive right of copyright - so long as the exceptions don’t exceed the constraints of the TRIPS Three-Step Test:

“Member [countries] shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to:

(1) certain special cases
(2) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work
(3) and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.” http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm

And as legal scholars Jane Ginsburg and Paul Goldstein have noted in their orphan works comments:

“[T]hese rules embody an international consensus of national norms that in turn rest on long experience with balancing the rights of authors and their various beneficiaries, and the public. Thus, in urging compliance with these technical-appearing rules, we are also urging compliance with longstanding practices that have passed the test of time. 1., p. 1, OWR0107-Ginsburg-Goldstein (Boldface added). http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/reply/OWR0107-Ginsburg-Goldstein.pdf

The backers of the Orphan Works bill [H.R. 5889] argue that their proposals won’t violate these agreements because the bill won’t explicitly legislate formalities. It would merely expose to infringement the work of rightsholders who don’t impose formalities on themselves. Just moving the cats’ food.

Contrast that sentiment with the comments from one of our country’s leading illustrators, C.F. Payne, who submitted his thoughts to the Small Business Administration Roundtable on Orphan Works last summer:

“[The Orphan Works bill] promises to protect artists’ work by pressuring them to register every single work of art with commercial databases...This would impose an impossible burden of compliance on me. I doubt that I could participate. Yet if I do not, I would be exposing my life’s creative output to unfettered infringement. This is not in the spirit or intent of copyright and it is not the way our government should pressure creators to deal with their private property.

“I believe myself to be a steward of the best traditions of our craft...

“For thirty years I have worked to build a body of work I can pass on to my children. I hope it will be a source of inspiration for others. For twenty years I have taught, hoping to pass on what I can to the next generation. And, for 10 years I have worked with other illustrators through the Illustrators’ Partnership to see that our business concerns are presented in a professional and responsible way.

“I do not want it said that we in our generation failed to do the necessary work to ensure future generations the opportunities they are entitled to for a fertile career. If government does not emasculate copyright law, my body of work will sustain me for the 25 or so years left in my career. But I have students with hopes for 50 plus year careers. They want to provide for their children with their art.

“In addressing this Roundtable, I hope to have my statement heard by lawmakers. So to them, I would like to say that in opposing this legislation we are not seeking a favor. We are not looking for any special treatment from the law or government. Rather we are looking to Congress for the sense of fair play established by our Constitution. How Congress decides this legislation will be a measure of how we as a nation treat the individual and the individual’s property.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210734?secret_password=ohitwbyx8ada6g3e16e

- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership

*Quotes from page 24 of the transcript of “Orphan Works: A Search for Solutions,” Congressional Seminar hosted by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, March 31, 2006. Mr. Sigall’s full title at the Copyright Office was Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs http://www.pff.org/events/pastevents/033106orphanworks.asp

Tomorrow: Through the Looking Glass: The False Logic of “Market Failure”

The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889) has not been passed by the House of Representatives, but could be placed on the Suspensions calendar and passed by the lame duck session of Congress scheduled to re-convene next week. The Illustrators’ Partnership is asking lawmakers to hold the bill over to the next session of Congress, when rightsholders can have an opportunity to have their case heard before the full Judiciary Committee.

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part III

215 Letters

Nearly 300 million people live in the US. How many of them does it take to make an “orphan works problem”? Apparently 215 (give or take a few). That’s the only conclusion we can draw from the Report on Orphan Works released by the Copyright Office in 2006.

In their testimony to Congress, the Copyright Office stated they had received “over 850 letters” to their Orphan Works Study. Yet they failed to note that 600 of those letters had to be dismissed as irrelevant or too vague to determine their relevance to orphaned work.

That information can be found, if you look for it, in their own Report on Orphan Works. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf:

“The Office received an overwhelming response (by comparison to past studies), receiving 721 initial comments, and 146 reply comments.” - Page 17

Or a total of 867 letters. So much for the talking point. But read on to page 21:

“A large portion of the comments (about 40%) did not identify a specific instance where a copyright owner could not be identified or located. Another portion (10%) presented enough specific information for us to conclude that the problem presented was not in fact an orphan works situation. (Italics in original.)

“Still, approximately 50% of comments did contain information that could fairly be construed as presenting an orphan works situation, and a significant number of those comments (about 45%, or about 24% of all comments) provided enough information about a specific situation for us to conclude that it presented an orphan works situation.” (Emphasis added)

In other words, 24% of 867, or about 215 letters.

On the basis of these letters - out of a country of nearly 300 million people, Copyright Office attorneys have deduced an orphan works “problem” so serious that US copyright law must be be rewritten behind closed doors and rushed through Congress without an open and transparent public debate.

And remember:

• Many who responded to the Orphan Works Study no doubt thought they were contributing to a study of true orphaned works – not promoting a bill that would legalize the commercial infringement of new work from the moment it was created.

• The “interested parties” who worked with the law students in drafting the bill’s “legislative blueprint” were well aware of the Copyright Office study and filed comments supporting the recommendations they had worked on.

• But individual artists, design firms, and other small businesses never knew the study was being conducted and therefore had no voice in the study.

• An exception was the statement submitted by the Illustrators’ Partnership, signed by two thousand artists and endorsed by 42 national and international visual arts organizations. It spelled out the need for maintaining existing copyright protections and warned that a bill drafted too broadly would undermine intellectual property rights and spread uncertainty in commercial markets. Yet although the Orphan Works Report was 127 pages long, the Copyright Office never found space to mention that statement. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0660-Holland-Turner.pdf

“In other words,” writes David Rhodes, President of New York’s School of Visual Arts, “those who believe there is no [Orphan Works] problem are defined as not serious and dismissed out of hand. As a gauge to serious, some other examples are instructive. When the Federal Communications Commission tried to change ownership rules to allow further media conglomeration, a serious problem, it received millions of negative comments. More recently when the Federal Reserve asked for comments on abusive credit card practices they received 56,000 comments. Obviously, people believe that these are serious issues. Most people simply do not believe that “Orphan Works” are a serious issue.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210734?secret_password=ohitwbyx8ada6g3e16e

Yet based on these 215 letters, the Copyright Office report set off an Oklahoma land rush for orphan works domain names. According to an excellent paper by the Advertising Photographers of America:

“Within two weeks of the issuance of the [Orphan Works Report January 23, 2006], nearly all the domain names associated with orphan works were registered by commercial interests in preparation for the profit-taking that will result if this legislation is passed.” – Page 10, The “Come-And-Get-It” Factor, The Orphan Works Dilemma, by the Advertising Photographers of America http://www.apanational.com/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=3864

Come-and-get-it, indeed.

- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership

Tomorrow: “Meow” or Moving the Cats’ Food

The Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889) has not been passed by the House of Representatives, but could be placed on the Suspensions calendar and passed by the lame duck session of Congress scheduled to re-convene next week. The Illustrators’ Partnership is asking lawmakers to hold the bill over to the next session of Congress, when rightsholders can have an opportunity to have their case heard before the full Judiciary Committee.

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part II

The Legislative Blueprint

The “legislative blueprint” for the Orphan Works Act was not drafted by the Copyright Office after their year-long Orphan Works study, but before it, by law students at the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic.

Their Copyright Clearance Initiative (CCI) is the document that first proposed the “limitation on remedies” that would radically change international copyright law. From page 5 of the CCI proposal:

“Under no circumstances will Sec. 504(c) statutory damages, attorney’s fees, damages based on the user’s profits or injunctive relief relating to the challenged use be available against a qualified user.” http://copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0595-Glushko-Samuelson.pdf

This is the premise the Copyright Office adopted with only slight modifications: where the law students had proposed capping infringement fees at $100, the Copyright Office proposals changed that to an ambiguous “reasonable fee.”

And how did the student authors describe their study of the orphan works issue?

“On April 11, 2003, the Clinic held a symposium with scholars, academics and other interested parties to discuss this issue. Since then, the work of CCI has focused its efforts on devising the blueprint for a legislative solution to the ‘orphan works’ problem...and has been in close contact with various non-profit organizations, intellectual practitioners and academics...”

A footnote names the eight “clinic students” who contributed to the “legislative solution.” And among the “interested parties,” the authors cite Public Knowledge, a group now actively promoting the Orphan works bill. Copyright holders were apparently not considered interested parties, as none are listed among those invited to participate.

The Clinic authors submitted their blueprint to the Copyright Office March 24, 2005. They cited no effort to survey the potential impact of their legislative solution on commercial markets – nor did the Copyright Office three years later, when they adopted the “limitation on remedies” and proposed it to Congress in their 2006 Report on Orphan Works.

The Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Law Clinic is a long-standing critic of existing copyright protections.

In 1994, legal scholar Peter Jaszi wrote that in the new “information environment” created by the internet, authors, artists and others “may not need the long, intense protection afforded by conventional copyright -- no matter how much they would like to have it.”

Copyright, he wrote, is rooted in outdated concepts of “possessive individualism.” The “romantic myth of authorship,” he argued, is a vestige of the 18th and 19th centuries “in which entrepreneurial publishers...[and] entrepreneurial writers...played out their shared conviction that the “individual [is] essentially the proprietor of his own person or capacities -- and thus of whatever can be made of them.”

Professor Jaszi has criticized the US for joining the international Berne Copyright Convention, calling it “an international agreement grounded in thoroughly Romantic assumptions about creativity.” And he noted with disapproval:

“The first Act of this preeminent ‘authors' rights’ treaty in 1886 represented the culmination of a process which got underway in the mid-nineteenth-century with Victor Hugo's vigorous campaign for the rights of European writers and artists. Other famous ‘authors’ rallied to the cause: Gerhard Joseph suggests that the manic energy with which Charles Dickens championed international copyright stemmed from the novelist's private insecurities about his own ‘originality.’”*

Note the scare quotes around “authors rights” and “originality.” The Professor appears to subscribe to the postmodern cliché that all art is a form of collage and that authorship and originality are merely covers for one writers ”vigor” or another’s “manic energy” and “insecurities.”

Maybe so, but a working author might guess that Dickens and Hugo were merely protecting their copyrights because that’s how they made a living.

Citing the authority of postmodern critics, Professor Jaszi laments that their “critique of authorship” “has gone unheard by intellectual property lawyers.”

“However enthusiastically legal scholars may have thrown themselves into ‘deconstructing’ other bodies of legal doctrine, copyright has remained untouched by the implications of the Derridean proposition that the inherent instability of meaning derives not from authorial subjectivity but from intertextuality. Above all, the questions posed by Michel Foucault in ‘What Is an Author?’ about the causes and consequences of the persistent, overdetermined power of the author construct -- with their immediate significance for law -- have gone largely unattended by theorists of copyright law, to say nothing of practitioners or, most critically, judges and legislators.” –Page 12 The Construction of Authorship*

Or to put it in plain English: why hasn’t Congress harkened to some collectivist literary critics and written their debatable theories into US copyright law?

With the Orphan Works bill, maybe they will.

Yet if this were one’s goal – to impose a collectivist agenda on US copyright law, wouldn’t forthrightness be the better policy? Shouldn’t you say “we want to change the laws governing a citizen’s ownership of his or her intellectual property” – then present the case frankly and debate it publicly and transparently?

Wouldn’t that serve the public interest better than concealing the agenda behind a claim that you’re only amending the law to “find homes for the poor orphan works” or making the world safe for folks to duplicate pictures of grandma?

Tomorrow: How many letters did it take to trigger the Orphan Works Bill? Would you believe 215?

*Quotes from the Introduction to The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature by Martha Woodmansee, Peter Jaszi, Editors, Duke University Press, 1994
http://books.google.com/books?id=dpRKltgJYYwC

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part I

Little Known Facts

Congress will reconvene for a lame duck session next week. That means Orphan Works backers may try again to pass their bill by suspending the rules. We believe this bill is too controversial to be passed by backroom dealing. It would let commercial interests harvest and monetize the personal property of ordinary citizens without their knowledge.

The bill can be improved, and we’ve offered amendments that would improve it. But there’s not enough time to improve it during a lame duck session. The bill should be held over until the next session of Congress, when those whose livelihood it will threaten can have the opportunity to present their case.

Over the next few days, we’ll highlight some little known facts about the way this bill has been conceived, drafted and promoted. We believe these facts raise serious questions about the legislative process that has brought this legislation to the brink of passage:

1. The “legislative blueprint” for the Orphan Works bill was not the result of the Copyright Office’s year-long Orphan Works Study. It was drafted before the study began, by law students who made no apparent effort to survey its potential impact on commercial markets.

2. The blueprint was drafted under the guidance of a legal scholar who opposes current copyright protections. He has written that authors in the internet age “may not need the long, intense protection afforded by conventional copyright -- no matter how much they would like to have it.”

3. The Copyright Office received barely 200 relevant letters to their Orphan Works Study. Although they testified to Congress that the number was “over 850,” they failed to acknowledge that more than 600 letters had to be dismissed as irrelevant or too vague to determine their relevance to orphaned work.

4. In their Orphan Works Report, the Copyright Office failed to acknowledge a unified statement submitted by 42 national and international visual arts organizations. This statement called for the maintenance of existing copyright protections and warned that a bill drafted too broadly would spread uncertainty in commercial markets.

5. The Copyright Office studied the specific subject of orphaned work, yet concluded they had discovered a widespread “market failure” in commercial markets. But since they didn’t study commercial markets, there’s no evidence for this conclusion in their report.

6. The principal author of the Orphan Works Report has acknowledged that their true goal was to “pressure” working authors into relying on registries to protect their work. He said this was necessary because artists and photographers have “failed to collectivize.”

7. Two of the key players in the legislative process have already left government service and gone to work for companies that stand to profit from passage of the bill. On the other hand, one of the parties who testified in favor of the bill has already gone to the Copyright Office. She’s now in charge of orphan works.

We think these and other little known facts give lawmakers sufficient reason not to pass this bill without a thorough vetting.

Tomorrow: The Legislative Blueprint: How a copyright critic and his students tackled the “orphan works issue.”