September
22, 2015
Maria Pallante
Register of Copyrights
U.S. Copyright Office
101Independence Ave. S.E.
Washington, DC 20559-6000
RE: Notice of Inquiry, US Copyright Office, Library of
Congress, Copyright Protection for Certain
Visual Works (80fr23054)
Reply Comment of the American Society of
Illustrators Partnership
The
responses to the Visual Arts Notice of Inquiry demonstrate that artists overwhelmingly oppose orphan
works legislation. Although the Copyright Office invited us to express our
opinions about current copyright law (and most did), nearly all respondents
also expressed their concerns over the potential return of an orphan works bill
that would reverse the principle of copyright law and degrade the exclusive
right of authorship to a non-exclusive right. Of course, it should not be
surprising that so many have chosen to comment on this subject. Nearly two
months before the deadline for submissions, the Copyright Office had already
sent draft legislation to Congress proposing a new copyright law based on the
2008 Shawn Bentley Orphan
Works
Act. *
The
Artists Rights Society spoke for nearly all of us when it wrote that the
proposed legislation would “would destroy
the legitimate market for the artist’s work,
and nullify the protections afforded by the Copyright Act.” [1] And we agree with our colleagues at the
Illustrators Partnership that because an author’s exclusive right to his or her work is guaranteed by
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, it cannot be nullified except by a
Constitutional amendment.[2]
In these reply comments we hope to comment further on that point.
The Response
First,
let’s note that
the initial response to this Notice of Inquiry is between
three to ten times greater than the total response to the 2005
Study on which orphan works legislation was based. In its House testimony of
March 13, 2008, the Copyright Office stated that it had received “more than 850 written comments” to its 2005 Orphan Works Study.[3]
The Copyright Office called this an “overwhelming
response,” and said it
justified the legislation it proposed to Congress.[4]
Yet the current Visual Arts Inquiry has already drawn more than 2,500 letters –
a number that does not yet include reply comments – and the vast
majority are firmly opposed to the legislation.
Moreover,
let’s recall that
of the 850 letters received 10 years ago, the Copyright Office had to discount
more than 600 of them because they did not reflect an “orphan works situation.” [5] That means that orphan works legislation has
never been predicated on more than 215 total comments.[6]
Comparing that number to the current outpouring – a ratio of more than 10:1 –
we have to conclude, in the words of David Rhodes, President of the School of
Visual Arts, that “[t]he Copyright
Office’s own paucity
of data should lead one to conclude that ‘Orphan Works’ are not a problem.” [7]
Moreover,
since 2008, libraries and archives have gone on record to state that recent
court decisions have “diminished the need for orphan works
legislation.” [8]
Therefore the
orphan works campaign now boils down to the desire by some commercial entities
and the legal scholars associated with them to abridge the exclusive right of
authorship “secured” by Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution.
Constitutional Issues
Visual
artists may not be legal scholars, but neither were 20 of the 55 delegates to
the 1787 Constitutional Convention. [9]
Many of the framers were businessmen and merchants, which may explain why the
Constitution contains a provision guaranteeing copyright as a private property right.
For similar reasons, it should not be surprising then that so many visual
artists, the smallest of small business owners, should express their concern
that orphan works legislation would undermine that Constitutional provision.
Here are just five examples from the current responses:
Association of Medical Illustrators: “The threat to copyright is that it is
losing its legitimacy which is based on protecting…the exclusive rights
promised by the founders in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution...” [10]
Medical Illustrator William Westwood: “Now proposals are being made to
further undermine the concept of ‘exclusive’ copyright ownership by creators
through notions that ‘potential users’ have ‘rights’ to make use of copyrighted images on par with those
of actual creators and copyright.” [11]
New Yorker Cartoonist Pat Byrnes: “The Orphan Works Legislation Discussion
Draft contemplated in the Report by the Copyright Office violates every fundamental of international rights treaties and
tenets of our own Constitution…Making something published yesterday eligible
for orphan status is a veritable abolishment of Copyright altogether.” [12]
Artist Taina Litwak: “The Mass
Digitization proposal makes a mockery of the Constitution, the free market, and
rights of ownership. PLEASE know that MANY creative people ARE paying attention
and are DEEPLY DISTURBED.” (Emphasis in
the original.) [13]
Medical Illustrator Teri
McDermott: “The Copyright
Act was the first article passed in the US Constitution. It was that important.” [14]
Article 1, Section 8
The Constitution’s Copyright Clause states that Congress shall have the power “[t]o
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries.” [15]
But giving Congress the power to “secure”
those rights does not give it the power to abolish them via statute law. To
the contrary, it accepts the existence of an author’s
exclusive rights as a given.
In fact, the comments submitted by Rutgers University
Libraries go further:
“Art and culture
is compromised when creators are unable to benefit from their own works because
economic gains accrue instead to third parties directly through infringement
and indirectly through other forms of third-party monetization…This is not
fair, and it is not what copyright, which is recognized as a human right under
Article 27 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
was intended to achieve.” (Emphasis
added.) [16]
The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27.2: “Everyone has the right to
the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” [17]
Reversing Copyright Law
Since
2008, the Illustrators Partnership has repeatedly argued that the Orphan Works
Act would nullify an author’s exclusive
rights because it would invert the default premise of copyright law:
“[I]ts 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.” (Italics in the original.) [18]
A
year later, Marybeth Peters, then Register of the Copyright Office made a
similar point about the Google Book Search Settlement when she stated
the Office’s opposition to
it in Congressional testimony:
“The [Google]
settlement…could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners,
in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new
products and new markets…In summary, the out-of-print default rules would allow
Google to operate under reverse principles of copyright law.” (Italics added.) [19]
In
2011 the Google settlement was thrown out of court on various grounds,
including copyright infringement, antitrust and international law concerns,
privacy issues and others. Judge Denny Chin ruled that neither party had the
right to enter into an agreement that carved up the exclusive rights of the
world’s authors.
“A copyright
owner’s right to
exclude others from using his property is fundamental and beyond dispute,” [he wrote]. “[I]t is incongruous with the purpose of
the copyright laws to place the onus on copyright owners to come forward to
protect their rights when Google copied their works without first seeking their
permission.” (Emphasis
added.) [20]
Substitute
the words “good faith infringer” for “Google” in that ruling
and you’ll see how the
proposed orphan works legislation “is incongruous
with the purpose of the copyright laws.”
The
Orphan Works Act of 2008 and the Google Book Settlement were alike in that both
would have created an opt-out business model that legalized widespread
commercial infringement and required authors to take specific steps to “reclaim” their private property after it had
already been appropriated by others.
Yet
of the two, the Orphan Works Act presents the more egregious business model.
The victims of Google’s book
infringements would at least know the identity of their infringer: Google. By
contrast, infringements under the Orphan Works Act could occur anytime,
anywhere and be committed by anyone.
“Instead of
giving preference to the legal rights of the creators of works, the [Orphan Works Act] is openly biased in favor of infringers—people who
willfully break the law.” [21]
But
of course if Congress were to pass legislation allowing infringers “to operate under reverse principles of
copyright law,” then what is
currently illegal would become legal.
Making the Illegal Legal
At
the 2014 Copyright Office Roundtables, Professor Ariel Katz of the Law Faculty
of the University of Toronto proposed a hypothetical “business model.” In it, he said “a few authors” might get together to “create a licensing scheme,” and in addition to licensing their own
work, license the work “of anyone else,
even if they have never authorized us to act on their behalf.” Being good guys, he said, they would of
course charge fees for licensing other peoples’ work and would even pay the “unknown” authors if
they should ever turn up. But then rounding to his point, he added: “I don’t think that is legal. Right?” [22]
The
Copyright Office response was immediate: “I think it would have to be legislation,
probably, that would make the difference that would legalize it but others
might have a different opinion.” [23]
The
view that Congress can legalize illegal infringement is once again at the heart
of the draft legislation the Copyright Office has proposed to Congress. In its 2015
Report on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, the Office cites two
authorities to justify their recommendations. [24]
In rejecting the Google Book Settlement, Judge Chin wrote
that “foreign
countries, authors, and publishers have asserted that the [settlement] would
violate international law. For this reason as well, the matter is better left
for Congress.” [25]
And: “the Supreme
Court has held that ‘it is generally
for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause’s objectives.” [26]
We
agree with both comments. Yet we find no reason to interpret either as a call
for Congress to reverse the principles of copyright law. It is simply Civics
101 to state that the separation of powers requires that laws be written, or
rewritten, by the legislative branch and not by the courts.
Congress may indeed have the power to legalize illegal acts
– but not to nullify a Constitutional right via statute law. If, as
Judge Chin wrote “[a] copyright
owner’s right to
exclude others from using his property is fundamental and beyond
dispute,” then legalizing
the widespread commercial infringement of every citizen’s exclusive right to control the work he
or she creates would involve the nullification of a “fundamental” Constitutional right. And to do that
legally, Congress and/or the state legislatures must act in concert to
pass a Constitutional amendment. It cannot be a business-as-usual law.
Breaching the Sanctity of Contracts
The logic behind the Constitution’s Copyright Clause should be
self-evident: no individual can enter into any agreement to sell or license
property – or dispose of it in any other fashion – unless he or she owns the
property.
To make the public part owner of every citizen’s
intellectual property – which is effectively what the proposed orphan works
legislation would do – would make all contracts regarding the disposition of that property essentially meaningless. People
who make their livings licensing their work instinctively understand this:
Pat Byrnes: “My objections
to the proposed Orphan Works Act of 20__ include… the preemption of
artists’ rights to
exercise exclusive control over their works and the impediments that [it]
creates for them to enter into exclusive contracts…” [27]
Medical Illustrator Cynthia Turner (p.3): “My work in these markets is always conducted
under non-disclosure agreements and under an exclusive license. The nature
of the use, the market, the media and collateral use, the worldwide
geographic territories, and the length of duration are all carefully
enumerated and defined in my client licenses.” [28]
Brad Holland/The Illustrators Partnership: “Orphan works infringements would nullify
millions of private business contracts between authors and the clients they’ve licensed work to. This would not only
cause economic harm to the authors, but to their clients as well.” [29]
Sanctity of Contract is “a general idea that once parties duly enter into a
contract, they must honor their obligations under that contract.” [30] But what if
both parties to a contract DO honor their contractual obligations, yet find the
terms of the agreement impaired by third parties? If the third parties are
individuals or business entities, it’s called
tortious interference, and under the law there’s a remedy for that. [31]
But what if the interfering party is the US government?
Aviation Artist Keith Ferris: “There are many contractual arrangements
in place across the art industry in danger of being negated by government
action. Entire business models are in jeopardy.” [32]
Brad Holland/The Illustrators Partnership: “[I]n effect, the government would appear
to be proposing a grant of blanket amnesty in advance to any infringer who
interferes with the contractual or business relationships of millions of
authors, small business owners and private parties, so long as the
infringer believes he or she is acting in “good faith.” Legislative immunity may exempt
lawmakers from lawsuits for tortious interference. But by what right can
they permit members of the public to interfere en masse with
the contractual business affairs of each other on the slender premise that
certain infringers may be ignorant of the economic or personal harm they’re causing to strangers?” [33]
In
explaining exclusive rights to young artists, we often refer to an author’s copyright as a pie. The artist can sell
the whole pie to a client for a substantial fee, or license slices to different
clients and price the fees accordingly.
Keith Ferris: “Since
copyrights are infinitely divisible, one’s inventory of
copyrights is as good as a bank account and amounts to very valuable
personal property. The advent of the internet with its rapid communication
ability has actually greatly increased the value of our personal inventory
of copyrights. Any effort to allow third parties to exploit these rights other
than through exercise of the artist’s exclusive right
to do so would be theft of his/her personal property, resulting in the stealing
of money belonging to the artist. It is important for the successful
business of art that we voluntarily control all uses of our art.” [34]
It’s important that rightsholders control
these uses because without the ability to withhold rights not paid for – in
other words, without an exclusive right to sell or license the property – there
can be no rational pricing structure. And under an orphan works regime, that is
exactly what the government would be creating. Entering into contracts of any
kind would then become a crapshoot because no artist could ever again guarantee
any client that rights licensed to that client haven’t been (or won’t be) infringed by someone, sometime,
somewhere in the world.
Creating Uncertainty Through Legislation
The
Copyright Office’s 2015
Report is full of citations from legal scholars about the need for
certainty among users. Yet it is the current copyright
system that provides certainty in the markets. Where creators
exercise exclusive control over their rights and enter into voluntary
agreements with known clients there is certainty all around. All parties
understand the terms they’ve agreed to
and with whom; therefore both parties are in a position to monitor mutual
compliance.
By
contrast, a reckless orphan works law would inflict massive and perpetual chaos
in those markets. For the sake of guaranteeing certainty to infringers in the
secondary rights market, the law would make it impossible for either creators
or their clients in the primary markets to know who, where or on what terms any
particular work is, has been or will be used.
Brad Holland/The Illustrators Partnership: “How many private parties will end up
suing each other for breach of contract in hopes of making the other party
pay for their loss simply because the government itself had passed a private property
law breaching their contracts?” [35]
The
most likely scenario would be for clients to sue artists alleging lack of due
diligence in monitoring their rights. They might sue artists for failing
to register work, even work produced under the 1976 Copyright Act (which did
not require registration). Or they might sue us for failing to monitor the
world’s publications,
websites and orphaned work registries (an impossible task) for evidence that
the works they’ve licensed
have not been infringed.
In
the real world it will hardly matter that such lawsuits would be the result of government’s placing an impossible burden of diligence on artists as a
condition of preserving their
Constitutional
right of authorship. Such litigation would not need to be fair: the law
will have made it legal. And anyone who thinks this won’t happen isn’t living in the world the rest of us have
to live and work in.
To sum up the orphan works case for certainty: The Copyright
Office seeks to provide certainty for the sub-class of “good faith” infringers in the secondary rights
market by abolishing certainty for all creators and their clients in the
primary rights market. If this is to be the new definition of how to “promote Science and useful arts,” then we reiterate that it would be a
fundamental change to Constitutional law and must be done by Constitutional
amendment.
Conclusion:
The
responses to the Notice of Inquiry include more than two thousand statements
from artists concerned that the proposed legislation would damage or even end
their careers. To quote from just five:
Telaina M. Muir: “[R]equired
registration would take up valuable time and money and make it virtually
impossible for small based artists like myself to earn an income and protect my
images.” [36]
Sara Jarret: “Currently, I only register works that I
feel have a higher likelihood of being infringed, simply because I can not
afford to register all of my works.” [37]
Scott Staton: “The time, expense and paperwork alone
would be a full time job and would effectively end my creative working career.” [38]
Taina Litwak: “The process of
limiting liability that you propose…means the END of the commercial
illustration business made up of small independent authors.” [39]
The Artists Rights Society: “There is No Business Imperative for New Legislation: If
Adopted, It Would Destroy the Market for the Work of Visual Artists.” [40]
On
pages 50-51 of its 2015 Report on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, the Copyright Office states that it “takes [such] concerns seriously, but does
not believe that they outweigh the benefits of comprehensive orphan works
legislation...” [41]
But
what benefits would those be to “outweigh” the damage to the lives, careers and reputations of rightsholders? And
for whom would the “benefits” be benefits?
By
acknowledging artists’ “concerns,” the Copyright Office has implicitly conceded that it is not
rightsholders who should expect to benefit from the legislation they’ve proposed. So who then?
The answer can be found in the executive summary of the Copyright Office’s original (2006) Report on
Orphan Works:
“[I]f our
recommendation [for legislation] resolves users’ concerns in a
satisfactory way, it will likely be a comprehensive solution
to the orphan works situation.” (Italics
added.) [42]
If it is the considered opinion of the Copyright Office that
the fundamental premise of copyright law should be reversed; that the
exclusive right of authorship should be degraded to a non-exclusive right;
and that new rights should be created for users at the expense of authors, then that would be a fundamental change to the Constitution
itself, and Article 5 of the Constitution “establishes the means for amending that
document.”
“The process…is
deliberately difficult…The advantages lie in the fact that the Constitution’s provisions are not subject to change
according to the whims of a particular moment.” [43]
We’re well aware that currently there are
some who believe that the purpose of copyright law should be to grant members
of the public easy access to each other’s intellectual
property. But that is not what the Constitution says: rather the
opposite. The Copyright Clause never mentions users’ rights, and it does not provide a
framework for creating such rights via routine legislation. There is a world of
difference between giving Congress the power to set the terms of an author’s exclusive right and abolishing that
right altogether.
If,
as Judge Chin has stated, an author’s
Constitutional right “to exclude
others from using his property is fundamental and beyond dispute,” then we submit that those who do wish
to dispute it and who wish to fundamentally change the Constitution must do so legally, in the manner prescribed by the
Constitution,* because currently the
language of Article 1, Section 8 stands in their way.
Respectfully
submitted,
Brad Holland
Co-Chair,
American Society of Illustrators Partnership
Cynthia Turner
Co-Chair,
American Society of Illustrators Partnership
Frank
M. Costantino, ASAI, FSAI, JARA
1st Vice-President
Representative for American Society of Architectural Illustrators
(ASAI)
Michel
Bohbot
Treasurer
Representative for San Francisco Society of Illustrators (SFSI)
Dolores
R. Santoliquido
Secretary
Representative for Guild of Natural Science Illustrators (GNSI)
Joe
Azar, Esq.
Director
Representative for Illustrators Club of Washington DC, MD, VA (IC)
Dena
Matthews
Director
Representative for Association of Medical Illustrators (AMI)
Ilene
Winn-Lederer
Director
Representative for Pittsburgh Society of Illustrators (PSI)
Ken
Joudrey
Director
Representative for Society of Illustrators San Diego (SISD)
C.F.
Payne
Director
Representative for the National Cartoonists Society (NCS)
Nick
Anderson
Director
Representative for the Association of American Editorial
Cartoonists (AAEC)
Keith
Ferris
Director
Representative for the American Society of Aviation Artists (ASAA)
Joe
Cepeda
Director
Society of Illustrators Los Angeles (SILA)
Don
Kilpatrick
Director
Unaffiliated Illustrators at Large
Footnotes
* In the June 2015 Report,
the Copyright Office states that the Senate passed the Shawn Bentley Act by
unanimous consent. In fact, it was done by a legislative maneuver called
“hotlining,” that effectively bypassed Senate consideration.
According
to Roll Call, Sept 17, 2007: “The practice has led to complaints
from Members and watchdog groups alike that lawmakers are essentially
signing off on legislation neither they nor their staff have ever read…In order
for a bill to be hotlined, the Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader must agree
to pass it by unanimous consent, without a roll-call vote. The two leaders then
inform Members of this agreement using special hotlines installed in each
office and give Members a specified amount of time to object – in some cases as
little as 15 minutes. If no objection is registered, the bill is
passed.” http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_27/-20011-1.html
The
Shawn Bentley Act was hotlined twice during the summer of 2008, but both times Senators
objected. On September 26, 2008, the bill was hotlined again, this time during
early evening hours. With most Senate offices closed, even the legislative
aides artists we were able reach by phone said they lacked the time to read it,
and so the bill was passed by what Senate protocols are allowed to call
“unanimous consent.”
* “As spelled out in Article V, the
Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place
by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate
followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures
(ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment
today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second,
the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by
two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments
are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.”
[1]
Comments
of the Artists Rights Society (ARS), p. 10, Response to Notice of
Inquiry, Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office [Docket No.
2015-01]
[2]
Comments
of Brad Holland/The Illustrators Partnership of America, Response to
Notice of Inquiry, July 17, 2015, p.1.
[3]
Register’s
testimony on the “Orphan Works Problem and Proposed Legislation” before the
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property; Committee on
the Judiciary; United States House of Representatives March 13, 2008 http://www.copyright.gov/video/testimony-3-13-08.html
[4]
Report
on Orphan Works, A Report of the Register of Copyrights, January 2006,
United States Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
The exact
numbers were 721 initial comments and 146 reply comments, a total of 867. But
on page 21 of the Report on Orphan
Works, the Copyright Office acknowledged that only “about 24% of all comments” “provided enough
information about a specific situation for us to conclude that it presented an
orphan works situation.” Twenty four percent of 867 letters equals 215.
The other comments were considered either vague or “not in fact an orphan works
situation.” Report on Orphan
Works, A Report of the Register of Copyrights, January 2006, United
States Copyright Office, pp.17-21. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
[7]
David
Rhodes, President, School of Visual Arts, U.S. Small Business Administration
Roundtable on Orphan Works Legislation, August 8, 2008.
[8]
Comments
of Jonathan Band, Library Copyright Alliance; and David Hansen, Digital
Library Copyright Project, University of California, Berkley School of Law
& Law Library, University of North Carolina School of Law; Transcript
of the Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Roundtables; Session 1: “The Need
for Legislation in Light of Recent Legal and Technological Developments”; March
10, 2014; quoted in Comments submitted by Brad Holland/The Illustrators
Partnership of America, July 17, 2015, Footnotes pp. 6-7.
[10]
Comments
of the Association of Medical Illustrators, Response to Notice of
Inquiry, p.17.
[11]
Comments
of William Westwood, Response to Notice of Inquiry, p.3.
[12]
Comments
of Pat Byrnes, July 21, 2015, Response to Notice of Inquiry, p.19.
[13]
Comments
of Taina Litwak, July 22, 2015, Response to Notice of Inquiry, p.1.
[14]
Comments
of McDermott Medical Illustration, July 14, 2015, Response to Notice
of Inquiry, p.2.
[16]
Comments of Rutgers University Libraries in
Response to Notice of Inquiry Concerning Certain Visual Works; Submitted July
23, 2015 p.1.
[17]
The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_27.html#at29
[18]
From
“Orphan Works: A Hobson’s Choice for Artists,” by Brad Holland, August 8 2008;
Small Business Administration Roundtable: “How Will the Orphan Works Bills
Economically Impact Small Entities?”
[19]
Statement
of Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights before the Committee on the
Judiciary United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
September 10, 2009. http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat091009.html
[20]
http://blawg.intellectual-property.it/2011/03/copyright/summary-of-the-google-book-settlement-ruling-in-judge-chins-words/
[21]
Comments
of Pat Byrnes, July 21, 2015, Response to Notice of Inquiry, p.11.
[22]
Comments by Ariel Katz, Faculty of Law,
University of Toronto; Transcript of the Orphan Works and Mass
Digitization Roundtables; Session 9: “The Structure and Mechanics of a
Possible Extended Collective Licensing System in the United States,” March 11,
2014, pp. 220-221. http://copyright.gov/orphan/transcript/0311LOC.pdf
[23]
Comment by Karyn Temple Claggett, US Copyright Office; Transcript
of the Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Roundtables; Session 9: “The
Structure and Mechanics of a Possible Extended Collective Licensing System in
the United States,” March 11, 2014, p. 221. http://copyright.gov/orphan/transcript/0311LOC.pdf
[24]
2015
Report on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, Report of the
Register of Copyrights, June 2015, p. 44, Footnote 199.
[25]
Read all
about IT ~ IP Developments From The Digital World, “Summary of the Google Books
Settlement Ruling, in Judge Chin’s words,” Posted by Gareth Dickson March 27,
2011; http://blawg.intellectual-property.it/2011/03/copyright/summary-of-the-google-book-settlement-ruling-in-judge-chins-words/
[27]
Comments
of Pat Byrnes, July 21, 2015, Response to Notice of Inquiry, pp. 1-2.
[28]
Comments
of Cynthia Turner, Response to Notice of Inquiry, p.3.
[29]
Comments
of Brad Holland/The Illustrators Partnership of America, Response to
Notice of Inquiry, July 17, 2015, p.2.
[31]
“Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for
damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff’s
contractual or business relationships.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference
[33]
Comments of Brad Holland/The Illustrators
Partnership of America, Response to Notice of Inquiry, July 17, 2015, pp.
2-3.
[35]
Comments
of Brad Holland/ The Illustrators Partnership of America, Response to
Notice of Inquiry, July 17, 2015, p.2.
[42]
Report on
Orphan Works, A Report of the Register of Copyrights, January 2006, p.14. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment