The Return of Orphan Works Part 1: The Next Great Copyright Act

For more than a year Congress has been holding hearings for the drafting of a brand new US Copyright Act. At its heart is the return of Orphan Works.

Twice, Orphan Works Acts have failed to pass Congress because of strong opposition from visual artists, spearheaded by the Illustrators Partnership.

Because of this, the Copyright Office has now issued a special call for letters regarding the role of visual art in the coming legislation.

Therefore we're asking all artists concerned with retaining the rights to their work to join us in writing.  

Deadline: July 23, 2015
You can submit letters online to the Copyright Office here.

Read the Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry.
Read the 2015 Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report.

Here are the Basic Facts

"The Next Great Copyright Act" would replace all existing copyright law.

It would void our Constitutional right to the exclusive control of our work.

It would "privilege" the public's right to use our work.

It would "pressure" you to register your work with commercial registries.

It would "orphan" unregistered work.

It would make orphaned work available for commercial infringement by "good faith" infringers.

It would allow others to alter your work and copyright these "derivative works" in their own names.

It would affect all visual art: drawings, paintings, sketches, photos, etc.; past, present and future; published and unpublished; domestic and foreign.

The demand for copyright "reform" has come from large Internet firms and the legal scholars allied with them. Their business models involve supplying the public with access to other people's copyrighted work. Their problem has been how to do this legally and without paying artists.

The "reforms" they've proposed would allow them to stock their databases with our pictures. This would happen either by forcing us to hand over our images to them as registered works, or by harvesting unregistered works as orphans and copyrighting them in their own names as "derivative works."

The Copyright Office acknowledges that this will cause special problems for visual artists but concludes that we should still be subject to orphan works law.

The "Next Great Copyright Act" would go further than previous Orphan Works Acts. The proposals under consideration include:

1.) The Mass Digitization of our intellectual property by corporate interests.

2.) Extended Collective Licensing, a form of socialized licensing that would replace voluntary business agreements between artists and their clients.

3.) A Copyright Small Claims Court to handle the flood of lawsuits expected to result from orphan works infringements.

In your letter to the Copyright Office: 

It's important that lawmakers be told that our copyrights are our source of income because lobbyists and corporation lawyers have "testified" that once our work has been published it has virtually no further commercial value and should therefore be available for use by the public.

So when writing, please remember:

• It's important that you make your letter personal and truthful.

• Keep it professional and respectful.

• Explain that you're an artist and have been one for x number of years.

• Briefly list your educational background, publications, awards, etc. 

• Indicate the field(s) you work in.

• Explain clearly and forcefully that for you, copyright law is not an abstract legal issue, but the basis on which your business rests.

• Our copyrights are the products we license.

• This means that infringing our work is like stealing our money.

• It's important to our businesses that we remain able to determine voluntarily how and by    whom our work is used.

• Stress that your work does NOT lose its value upon publication.

• Instead everything you create becomes part of your business inventory.

• In the digital era, inventory is more valuable to artists than ever before.

If you are NOT a professional artist:

• Define your specific interest in copyright, and give a few relevant details.

• You might want to stress that it's important to you that you determine how and by whom your work is used.

• You might wish to state that even if you're a hobbyist, you would not welcome someone else monetizing your work for their own profit without your knowledge or consent.

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


The Illustrators Partnership has filed multiple papers with the Copyright Office regarding this issue. You can download them from the Copyright Office website:

Remedies for Small Copyright Claims
January 17, 2012

Orphan Works and Mass Digitization
Initial Comments February 3, 2013

Orphan Works and Mass Digitization
Reply Comments, March 6, 2013

Orphan Works and Mass Digitization
Additional Comments, May 21, 2014

Individual Rights Versus the Collective

For the last several days, we've been responding to queries about the announced "class-action" lawsuit by "visual arts" organizations against Google in the matter of the Google Book Search project. Some perspective: The organizations suing Google are the same visual arts groups that lobbied for passage of the House version of the Orphan Works bill. That bill would have created commercial registries that artists would have to patronize to protect their work from potential orphan status. It would also have created a Dark Archive where infringers could register their right to infringe work. The Google Book Search settlement involves an agreement in which two US organizations would consent to Google's mass infringement of books by the world's authors in return for multimillion dollar cash settlements for their organizations and payouts of $5 to $60 to the infringed authors. In return Google would continue scanning, create yet additional commercial products without the prior consent of rightsholders, control future markets and create a Book Rights Registry of "orphaned" books. The settlement has been condemned by the US Justice Department, the US Copyright Office, several countries and by authors and publishers around the world. One of the chief objections to the settlement is that the plaintiffs do not have standing to trade away the rights of the world's authors as a class action. The US Government has filed two formal statements against the agreement, noting that procedural rules cannot be used to modify rights:  "[T]he amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation". (Emphasis added) We commented on this case last fall. It’s currently under review by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Copyright is an Individual Right  Let's reassert the basic principles we've held to since we started the Illustrators' Partnership: ·  We believe that copyright should be maintained as an individual, not a collective right. ·  As such, we will not make claims to represent the copyrights of others without their consent; and ·  We don't recognize the right of any organization to represent our copyrights without our consent.      To be specific: We do not recognize the right of any organization to negotiate with, trade away or permit infringement of our copyrights for any purpose without our consent, either to enter into agreements with third parties, or to be named as an Orphan Works registry, or for purposes of collecting our reprographic and digital royalties, or for condoning the mass infringement of our works for a “cut of the action.” The Google Book Rights Settlement and the Orphan Works Act have highlighted the age-old problem of separating individual rights from the collective. The ability of large internet interests to build empires by aggregating the work of individuals and licensing that work as a "service" to the public has created a tempting business model for opportunists eager to cash in and clothe their self-interest in the language of altruism. The land rush for creators rights as a collective right is on.   Copyright is a property right and is the exclusive right of the author.  We'll have more to say about this in the future.

White House Seeks Artists' Comments to Improve Copyright Protection

New Copyright Czar begins Joint Strategic Plan to Protect Intellectual Property
Victoria Espinel is the first U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), also known as the Copyright Czar. Congress created IPEC by an Act of Congress. Ms. Espinel serves within the Executive Office of the President to coordinate with all the federal agencies that fight the infringement of intellectual property.

Ms. Espinel and her team are specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a Joint Strategic Plan to help protect the ingenuity and creativity of Americans by improving the U.S. Government's protection of the rights of intellectual property owners.

Your input is requested.
The White House is inviting your public input and participation to shape an effective intellectual property enforcement strategy. Please respond with your written submissions regarding the costs to you, your business and the U.S. economy resulting from infringement of your intellectual property rights, both direct and indirect.

This will be a 2-part process.
The first is to gather public recommendations by March 24. IPEC will then gather your input on the formulated plan.

Please be precise.
Include your name, city, state, and what type of artist you are. Explain why copyright is critical to you as a commercial artist, how infringement affects you, and what the U.S. government can do to better protect the rights of American artists. If your submission is about your economic loss due to infringement of your copyrights you must clearly identify the methodology used to calculate your losses or otherwise validate your infringement and enforcement costs.

Your submission will be publicly posted.
For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information.

Confidential disclosures.
If you have confidential business information that would support your recommendation or that you believe would help the Government formulate an effective enforcement strategy, please let them know by contacting:  

Thomas L. Stoll

Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

(202) 395-1808

Deadline: Submissions must be received by Wednesday, March 24, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST.
Address: All submissions should be sent electronically via intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov

Additional Background Reading:
White House Blog
Federal Register Notice Request

Orphan Works and the Google Book Settlement / Part II

A Reversal of Copyright Law
Last Friday we summarized the basic details of the Google Book Search Settlement. Like the visual arts "databases" we opposed last year, this agreement would allow both Google and a yet-to-be-created Book Rights Registry to commercially profit from an author's work whenever they say they can't locate the author.

Both schemes would force authors to opt out of commercial operations that infringe their work - or to "protect" their work by opting-in to privately owned databases run by infringers. This Hobson's Choice for authors reverses the principle of copyright law.

The by-product of the Google settlement (again like the Orphan Works bill) would be to establish public access to private property as the default position in copyright law. In other words, it presumes:

    a.) that the public is entitled to use your work as a primary right,
    b.) that it's your legal obligation to make your work available, and
    c.) that if you fail to do so, you forfeit your exclusive right to control access to your work.
 
If you're an author and you wish to keep the book you write from becoming a potential orphan, you'd therefore have to register it with the Book Rights Registry run by the parties that settled with Google (and who will receive an award of $30 million for cutting themselves in).

Advocates of the deal try to justify it by saying it will make more books available to more people than at any other time in history - a claim that's no doubt true - but therefore they say, as Andrew Albanese writes in Publishers Weekly, "the massive public good of the deal far outweigh[s] the individual greivances [sic] of rightsholders."

Yet it's in this very argument that the danger lies.

Once the Copy Left has established a legal precedent that the property rights of authors can be subordinated to the assertion of public interest, they can build on that principle to enact further statute and case laws to benefit commercial interests. To do this, they'll have to chip away further at the inherent property rights of individuals.

Orphan Works: "Half a Loaf"
An example of the agenda that underlies both the Google book search settlement and the Orphan Works bill came in May, 2008, at a time when the Orphan Works bill looked to be a shoo-in by early summer. Anticipating a quick mopping up operation, the bill's advocates were high-fiving one another. But as James V. DeLong of the Convergence Law Institute reminded them, there was still much work ahead.

Calling the Orphan Works bill just "half a loaf," he hinted at what it would take to permit commercial interests to take the whole loaf:

"These possibly-orphan, sort-of-orphan, and gray literature works simply cannot be made available if the digitizers are required to make one-by-one judgments and seek permission before copying. If they are to be retrieved in useful form, then sooner or later Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and some others must be permitted to digitize on a massive scale."

Of course he acknowledged that the new reverse copyright law should not deprive intellectual property owners of their "legitimate rights." But he reaffirmed the Copy Left's fundamental premise that intellectual property owners should not be entitled to legitimate rights except in situations where they've registered their works:

"At some point, some kind of grand grandfathering proceeding will probably be required, a window in which holders of existing rights must reaffirm them or lose them." (Italics added)

Again, this is the same premise we see at work in the Google book settlement. As Lynn Chu, a principal at Writers Representatives LLC, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2009: 

"Under the settlement, every rights-owner in America is supposed to hand over all their private contract data, on every edition of every work they ever wrote -- and every excerpt permission ever granted to others -- at the peril of losing the money Google will be making on their backs. This is a massive burden on everyone in the book industry, making us all, in effect, Google's data-entry slaves. Indeed, in most cases such information about every permission ever granted is unlocatable. It opens a Pandora's box of disputes and mistaken claims about who actually owns what."  (Italics added)

This is identical to our warning last year about the Orphan Works bill:

"[The Orphan Works bill] would force artists either to entrust their entire life's work to privately owned commercial databases or see it exposed to widespread infringement. It would let giant image banks access our commercial inventory and metadata - and enter our commercial markets as clearinghouses to compete with us for our own clients. I can think of no other field where small business owners can be pressured to supply potential competitors with their content, business data and client contact information." - Brad Holland, Small Business Administration Roundtable, August  8, 2008

The War on Authors
Both the Google Book settlement and the Orphan Works bill have their intellectual rationale in the war on authors that began decades ago in the obscure theories of Postmodern literary critics. Their fundamental premise is that all creativity is communal and that authors are only the agents through which the community creates. This has led a handful of activist legal scholars to demand changes in the law requiring artists, writers and others to affirm and reaffirm the rights to use their own work by, in effect, licensing it from the public "commons."

This argument, Marxist in its origins, has found its unlikely champion in those large commercial Internet interests that hope to build Information Age empires supplying businesses and the public with creative "content."  By defining millions of works as orphans on the premise that some might be, both the Google Book settlement and the Orphan Works bill would allow these opportunists to profit by harvesting the work of others, providing their databases with content they could never afford to create themselves nor license from authors.

Next: Orphan Works and the Google Book Settlement /Part III: Compelling Arguments
The Register of the US Copyright Office has condemned the Google settlement in terms nearly identical to our condemnation last year of the Orphan Works bill. In Part III, we'll examine those similarities to see the patterns that are emerging from this insidious effort to change copyright law.

Orphan Works and the Google Book Settlement / Part I

We’ve been asked for news about the Orphan Works bill. Last June Intellectual Property Watch warned that it would be back during the summer. And on June 11th, Senator Orrin Hatch confirmed his intent to reintroduce the bill. We immediately put out a notice to artists. But summer’s over and we’ve had no further news. So far, so good.

Of course Congress has had other priorities: the ongoing financial mess, the health care debate and – on the copyright front – the Google book search controversy. For those who haven’t followed the news about this Google assault on copyright, we’ll try to summarize it.

The World’s Largest Library (Or is it Bookstore?)
In 2004, Google announced its intent to digitize all of the world’s 80-100 million books – and to make most of them commercially available as orphaned works. The plan has been controversial since its inception.

Google began with the cooperation of several major libraries. The libraries gave Google access to their holdings. The problem is that libraries are libraries; they don’t own the copyrights to the books they hold. In short, they gave Google the rights to other people’s work. So far, Google has scanned over 10 million books.

In 2004, the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers sued Google for copyright infringement. Last October the parties settled. The resulting agreement is 141 pages long, with 15 appendices of 179 pages. The implications for copyright holders are not clear, but what the litigants would get is breathtaking. As Lynn Chu, a principal at Writers Representatives LLC, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2009:

“[I]f approved by the federal court, [it would] permit Google to post out-of-print books for reading, sales, institutional licensing, ad sales, and other publishing exploitations, by Google, online. The settlement gives the class-action attorneys $30 million; a new, quasi-judicial bureaucracy called the Book Rights Registry $35 million...and $45 million for owners infringed up to now -- about $60 a title.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819841868261921.html

Google would keep just over a third of the profits generated by selling these books online. The rest would go to the Book Rights Registry run by publishers’ and authors’ representatives. In other words, 63% would go to the parties that sued Google. In theory, the Registry would attempt to locate the authors of orphaned works and pay them royalties. But as Ms. Chu points out, the parties that sued Google – and would therefore benefit from Google’s infringement – have themselves traded away other people’s rights in the bargain:

“No one elected these ‘class representatives’ to represent America's tens of thousands of authors and publishers to convey their digital rights to Google. Nor are the interests of this so-called class identical.”

The US Department of Justice apparently agrees. Last Friday, it filed an objection to the settlement and advised the court to reject the settlement as written. On page 9 of their brief, the DOJ attorneys write:

“The structure of the Proposed Settlement itself, therefore, pits the interests of one part of the class (known rightsholders) against the interests of another part of the class (orphan works rightsholders). Google’s commercial use of orphan works will generate revenues, which will be deposited with the Registry. Any unclaimed revenues, however, will inure to the benefit of the Registry and its registered rightsholders. Thus, the Registry and its registered rightsholders will benefit at the expense of every rightsholder who fails to come forward to claim profits from Google’s commercial use of his or her work...

“The greater the economic exploitation of the works of unknown rightsholders by Google and the Registry, the stronger the incentive for known rightsholders to retain the unclaimed revenues for themselves.” [Emphasis added]

The Department of Justice also warns that the settlement fails to comply with copyright, antitrust laws and the rules of class action litigation. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/September/09-opa-1001.html

The US federal court was scheduled to hold a fairness hearing October 7. But over 400 objections from around the world have been filed by rightsholders, competitors to Google and (in addition to the US government) the governments of France and Germany. Yesterday we received news that the fairness hearing has been delayed.

The Google settlement has also been condemned by Marybeth Peters, Register of the US Copyright Office. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, Ms. Peters stated that it would allow Google to “operate under reverse principles of copyright law,” adding “it 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, for years and years to come.” http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat091009.html

We haven’t had much to say about this agreement because, with the notable exception of childrens’ book illustrations (which for purposes of the settlement are considered part of the text) the agreement doesn’t include visual art. Yet like the Orphan Works bill itself, the Google Book Settlement would be a radical change to copyright law.

Tomorrow we’ll examine some of the ways in which this settlement parallels the Orphan Works bill.

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.

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.”

Orphan Works: A Public Knowledge Postmortem

"Orphan works relief was vigorously opposed by visual artists... And while we have thought some of their concerns misguided, they did a fine job of organizing and getting their voices heard."

That was the rueful conclusion Monday from the President of Public Knowledge. She was conducting a postmortem on her blog to explain why their last minute efforts to pass the Orphan Works Act failed last week.

Public Knowledge is one of the key special interest groups driving orphan works legislation. And while interested parties around the country were being told all week that the bill was dead, she now confirms that there was a secret last minute push to pass it:

"[W]ith the country's financial crisis raging [she writes] and Congress in the middle of deliberations over a bill to rescue our financial institutions, there was still an opportunity to get a bill done. But how? The best option was to get either House Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Berman or House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers to take the Senate bill that passed and put it on the 'suspension calendar,' which is the place largely non-controversial legislation gets put so that it will get passed quickly. There can be no amendments to bills placed on the suspension calendar, but it needs a 2/3 majority to pass (italics added).

"On Saturday, September 27," she continues, she and others "were on the phone imploring the members to move the bill...":

"The negotiations went on for hours and hours on Thursday into Friday, but in the end, PK, working with the user community (libraries, documentary filmmakers, educational institutions and the College Art Association) could not agree with [sic] on language with the House staff. Late Friday afternoon, the House voted in favor of a bailout bill and everybody went home. Time had run out." http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1783

Public Knowledge has a "Six Point Program" to undo existing copyright law. "Orphan Works Reform" is Number 5. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1245 And while they're "disappointed" they weren't able to pass the bill this session, she advises supporters to "focus on what positive things came out of the process, so [they] can move forward quickly next year."


PK says artists have learned their lesson

In her opinion, one of the "positive things" to "come out of the process" is that:

"[V]isual artists, graphic designers and textile manufacturers who opposed orphan works relief now understand that they must change their business models." (Italics added.)

Artists "must change their business models"? Is that a sound we hear from inside the Trojan Horse?

Whatever happened to the claim that this bill was only a minor tweak to copyright law - to let libraries and museums digitize their collections of old work - or let families duplicate photos of grandma?

That was the argument lawmakers heard last spring, when the bill was rolled out suddenly, scripted for quick and easy passage. But now that the anti-copyright lobby has had to fight for it, they've dropped their guard. Now it's time to openly lecture artists that the world is changing and we'd better get used to registering our work with privately owned "databases" -- at least if we want to ensure that our works won't become orphaned.

But of course that was the agenda all along.


PK says not all artists are misguided

PK'sPresident wants Congress to know that not all artists are "misguided" - only those that oppose the bill. Currently, 80 professional groups do.

By contrast, she cites the Graphic Artists Guild as an example of artists who have learned their lesson. She praises GAG as "enlightened," because GAG supported the House version of the bill. She quotes a recent letter from GAG's President in which he admonished artists to "get real about this Orphan Works scare":

"I don't think Orphan Works is going to have a dramatic influence on how we do business [he wrote], but I hope it has awakened us all to the importance of tending to business issues. If we as a community invested a fraction of the energy we've expended on an apocalyptic vision of Orphan Works into protecting our own creations, protesting unfair contracting practices or writing letters to low-paying publishers, we'd be in a far better market position than we are today. The fact is that we give away more in the every day practice of our businesses than the government could ever take from us."

We replied to the GAG letter weeks ago, when it was first circulated to artists. We obviously disagree. Indeed, we'd point out that what the community of artists is doing by opposing this bill is "protecting our own creations":

• The Orphan works bill would have a dramatic affect on business, because it would let people infringe our work without our knowledge, consent or payment.

• Most people who succeed in our field do "treat art as a business."

• People who are bad at business can't be used as proof that successful people must change their business models.

• You can't justify exposing an artists' property to theft by telling him he didn't write enough "letters to low-paying publishers."

• What artists do or don't "give away" on their own doesn't justify government's taking anything from them.

• It's counter-intuitive to tell small business owners we should accept a bill that's bad for business to prove that we've "awakened to the importance of tending to business."

• If we don't fight to keep the work we create, that would be the ultimate failure to tend to business.

A full response to the entire GAG letter is here: http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/09/orphan-works-why-bet-against-ourselves.html


The Orphan Works Act was based on a premise and a conclusion:

• The premise is that the public is being harmed because it doesn't have enough contact information to locate copyright owners.

• The conclusion is that artists must change their business models.

• What's lacking is any evidence in between.

The Orphan Works Act was based on recommendations by the Copyright Office. But the Copyright Office studied the specific subject of orphaned work. They did not study the business models of artists who are alive, working and managing their copyrights. That means there can be no meaningful conclusions drawn from their study to dictate that such artists must change their business models.

From the beginning, artists have said we'd support a true orphan works bill. We've submitted precise amendments that would make one out of this bill. http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html Our amendments have never been considered.

Instead, as PK's President noted in her postmortem, their last minute strategy for passing the bill would have "put it on the 'suspension calendar.'" And "[t]here can be no amendments to bills placed on the suspension calendar..."

The anti-copyright lobby is well funded. They have powerful backers. They've warned us they'll be back next year.

We should take them at their word.

– Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership

Orphan Works: “We Are Our Work”

These are excerpts from written statements submitted by the Illustrators’ Partnership to the Small Business Administration September 16. The SBA Roundtable is the only forum so far conducted by the government to consider the economic impact of the Orphan Works Act on creators. The Roundtable was chaired by Tom Sullivan, Director of the Office of Advocacy of the SBA. It was initiated by the Illustrators’ Partnership, The Artists Rights Society and the Advertising Photographers of America. It was conducted by the SBA August 8, 2008 at the Salmagundi Club in New York City. Seventeen panelists participated. Scores of others submitted written papers.

August 8, 2008: “We’re here today to speak as small business owners. Yet for most of us, art is something more than a business. Artists become artists because we want to practice alchemy - to turn the lead of experience into something that doesn’t tarnish or rust. At the heart of creativity is independence. We’re here today to defend our independence.”
– Brad Holland, Artist

“The network of contracts and agreements, the very fabric of the business of copyright that surrounds the marketing of images, has been overlooked by this legislation. This threatens the entire commerce of visual art licensing.”
– Cynthia Turner, Medical Illustrator

“Licensing is now a $187 Billion dollar industry...and most of the providers of the creative content are small business owners just like me...the [Orphan Works] changes in the copyright law... will put me and other small business owners in jeopardy of losing revenue that the licensing of our art generates for us.”
– Cheryl Phelps, Illustrator, Designer, Art Licensor, Educator

“If our government approached any other type of business and told them they could no longer own what makes their business valuable, that their intellectual property including sourcing information, trade secrets, collected knowledge of their industry and so on was now no longer theirs to own and use to prosper . . . imagine the outrage.”
– Brenda Pinnick Owner, President, Brenda Pinnick Designs, Inc.

“It is clear that this piece of legislation is part of an anti-copyright offensive waged by those who maintain that copyrights are obstacles to creativity and the free flow of ideas, as if copying, mixing, sampling and appropriation are the essence of the creative process.”
– Dr. Theodore Feder President, Artists Rights Society

“As a young artist, I owe a lot of my professional success to the internet... Copyright law, as it stands, enables us to share work with our fans online, while knowing it won’t be stolen by large corporations. What the Sean Bentley Orphan Works act does is remove this protection.”
–“Orphan Works Act-Unintended Effects,” by Molly Crabapple, Artist

“If this legislation passes, it would mean a return to pre-1976 U.S. Copyright Act when many writers' works fell into the public domain because they could not afford to comply with the formalities of registration as a condition of copyright protection.”
– By Gerard Colby President, National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981

“The financial (and technical) requirements of this Bill truly assume that an artist is “guilty of failing to comply until proven innocent.”
–“The Orphan Works Act: A View From the Trenches,” by attorney Tammy L. Browning-Smith, J.D., LL.M

“Would you rather Charlie Parker had a law degree and a well maintained data base or his bird qualities? Would you rather see Jimmie Hendrix bend his head around “Reasonably Diligent Search” or bend a string from here to eternity?”
–“Orphan Works,” by Gene Poole, Songwriter and Musician

“I know of no other trade or product that requires its creators to register with one government agency and two private ones in order to protect their rights and property from theft.”
RE: H.R. 5889 and S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act ,” by Don Schaefer Don Schaefer Studio

“ [T]he concept of creating an inclusive, cost effective database for imagery is impossible. I represented 400,000 images, had 500 portfolios of artists online, verified listings of 50,000 graphic artists, and I know the time and cost for creating databases. Not possible. Not feasible. Not cost effective. And if there were multiple, smaller databases, not workable.”
– “Orphan Works Compliance: An Impossible Burden for Small Businesses,” by Alexis Scott, Publisher of The Workbook and workbook.com

“The ‘unknown’ entities that will be developing and running the yet nonexistent searchable databases...are set to gain millions from the revenues our artwork can bring them!
– “Why I oppose the Shawn Bentley Orphan Acts of 2008,” by Gail Green, Gail Green Licensing & Design Ltd

“I fought for the rights of Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster. Others made millions while Superman's creators lived in near poverty. Jerry was a clerk and Joe was a legally blind man who lived in his brother's apartment, slept on a cot and worked as a messenger. I met and fought for their small remaining rights when they both turned only 60 years old...The battle took months and the settlement was meager, but it let the men live the remaining years of their lives with dignity. You know what they cared about most? They cared about having their names, once again, associated with their character, Superman! Why? Because it was what they were as people. They were their work. Why do we have copyright law? Because we wish to protect people and their creations, even if they are ‘hard to locate.’”
– “Orphaned Works Legislation,” by Neal Adams, Artist

“Clearly, if an image isn’t ‘found’ in a private registry, it is fair game according to your law. That’s millions, maybe hundreds of millions of images online right now that are not registered, have no statement of copyright or ownership, and will likely not be registered or removed by the time this legislation goes into effect.”
– Harry S. Murray, Letter to Ms. Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights United States Copyright Office

“How would a person from Arkansas or Nigeria know about this law, that it even exists, that it affects him, that he has to register in an American registry for a fee, to protect his wedding picture or pictures of his children from being used by an American corporation or a non-for-profit-organization that may reflect values that are against his religion or his ethics which could add insult to injury?”
– Andre Cornellier, Copyright Chair and Ewan Nicholson, President/ Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communication

“No member of our Society would have the time or financial means to track any unwarranted, illegal activity on the internet, let alone pursue claims against multiple parties that may avail themselves of any artwork. Nor would any illustrator have the resources to register significant collections of current and past works with a proposed system that would offer little or no protection.
– Frank M. Costantino, ASAI, SI, JARA, FSAI Co-Founder, American Society of Architectural Illustrators/ Vice-Chairman, American Society of Illustrators Partnership

“In 2006, I registered 58,731 images, and in 2007, 71,919 images. If a registry charged $0.50 per image to submit and process, I would have to pay $29,365.50 to protect my 2006 images, and $35,959.50 to protect my 2007 images, for just those years.
–“ Testimony Concerning How the Proposed Orphan Works Bill Will Economically Impact Photographers,” by John Harrington, Professional Photographer

“Total scanning, personnel, overhead= $262,560. Additionally, I would have to supervise the operation, losing about two months per year.”
– Photographer MK (NY) in response to internal poll by Advertising Photographers of America

“Even if the scanning charge were $ .25 per image, which is FAR below the current scanning prices available today, That would cost me approximately one half million dollars ( (2,500,000 images x 80%) x .25= $500,000--).”
– Photographer GF (SC) in response to internal poll by Advertising Photographers of America

“In addition to the cost of getting images ready for input into one of these registries/databases, there is the time/cost of uploading these images... which could take as long as it took to digitize the images...add another 20+ years, or another $859K.”
– Photographer RR (NY) in response to internal poll by Advertising Photographers of America

“If these fees were $1 per image, I would incur an additional $1,000,000 in registration expense.”
– Photographer JS (CA) in response to internal poll by Advertising Photographers of America

“Scanning would be over 2 million dollars to include keywording from an outside source. This is a very complicated operation and would take hours of my time to prepare. It's too expensive.”
– Photographer JS (NC) in response to internal poll by Advertising Photographers of America

“The burden of this nightmarish bureaucracy would be overwhelming in expense and complexity for artists. I can speak from personal experience that anyone who has been painting or drawing for any length of time is likely to have thousands of works of art that he would have to pay to digitize and file with one of these companies. And, the Copyright Office has made it clear that failure to register a work with these private companies would automatically render it an orphan, available to be copied by infringers with impunity.”
– Frank Stella, Artist

“If I had to scan all the images I have made in the past 40 years... in order to post them to a registry, the burden of such an expense would cripple me...[F]or the past 40 years I have been building a library of my creative work believing that this was my retirement and my estate. If I have no protection of this work than my estate will have been essentially bankrupted.”
–Barbara Bordnick Photography

“[T]he business model that would be created from this legislation...would doom such a large portion of the creative community that the end result would drastically reduce the artistic diversity our country has prided itself on and the rest of the world has been envious of.”
– Photographer RB (NC)

“[S]ince the expense of registering works will be born by the creative community the expense of copyright protection will be socialized while the profit of creative endeavors will be privatized. “
– Orphan Works Statement By David Rhodes President, School of Visual Arts

“Even if we digitize our artwork, paid to have it uploaded on private databases, thousands and thousands of artists would not, could not or wouldn’t know that they would have to do this extra work to protect their copyrights.”
– Lynn Reznick Parisi, Business Manager Atlantic Feature Syndicate/off the mark cartoons

“The Copyright Office ignores the realities of the market place and places the rights of copyright owners at great risk.” -“Are all Copyright Owners to Become Orphans?”
–Cheryl Hodgson, Esq., President, California Copyright Conference

“Why would conflict photographers who risk their lives on a daily basis to cover important news stories so the world can remain informed, be willing to do so if they thought their work could and would be easily appropriated by others?
–Debra Weiss, Creative Consultant

“When a manufacturer wants to feature an artist’s work on one or more of their products, it is important to them that they are the only company who has the right to reproduce that design on that particular product. If other manufacturers are able to put the same design on the same product then it hurts the licensee.”
–Joanne Fink, President, Lakeside Design

“By opening the floodgates to unauthorized use of protected works, the legislation will result in a tidal wave of litigation as the result of rampant and widespread violation of the rights of publicity and rights of privacy of persons pictured in the orphan works...This wave of litigation between models, photographers and the users of orphan works over publicity and privacy rights will be a particularly disastrous consequence of the proposed amendment.”
–Constance Evans, National Executive Director, Advertising Photographers of America

“As an inspirational painter of children, my work is licensed to manufacturers and businesses. The Orphan Works Act of 2008 will create tremendous overhead for my business and an ethics challenge for controlling my message. The message is as important as the artwork; it is my ministry and my career.”
– Kathy Andrews Fincher, Kathryn Andrews Fincher, LLC

“Biomedical and scientific illustrators are not opposed to usage of orphaned works by the cultural heritage sector for noncommercial purposes, or use by museums and libraries for preservation and education. However this legislation makes no limitations for these purposes and will dangerously expose copyrighted visual content to infringements while stripping the intellectual property holders of any practical means to protect their work.”
–Biomedical and Scientific Illustrators' Opposition to the Orphan Works Act of 2008

“The infringer is free to use any work in any manner—there are no restrictions on how a particular work may be used. One of our members recordings could end up in a motion picture—of any rating—a political advertisement or other commercial, or in a mashup that will alter the sound quality and characteristics of the original recording beyond recognition.”
– American Association of Independent Music (“A2IM”)
“Position Paper on the Current Proposed Orphan Works Legislation in the United States

“The Advertising Photographers of America (APA), the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), the Stock Artists Alliance (SAA) and Editorial Photographers (EP) have all stated they cannot support the Orphan Works bills in their current form. Together, these groups represent more professional media photographers than other U.S. organizations.”
–From “Leading Photographer Associations Urge Congress to Amend Orphan Works Legislation”

“The inherent danger in remixing a medical animation or illustration is that ignorant people can change the meaning, intention or scientific accuracy of an image. They can damage the reputation of the studio from where the work originated.”
–Dena L. Matthews Biomedical Illustrator

“I was the plaintiff in a recent copyright infringement case and I can testify that the full remedies of the current law were necessary for me to prevail...The case took me four years and nearly $100,000 in legal fees, but I was able to prove that the infringement was a willful act, conducted in bad faith by a major corporation.”
– How Camel Cigarettes Orphaned My Work” by Michiko Stehrenberger

“Not only was my art desecrated and devalued in the ‘Orphaning’ process but my original specialized art was made to compete with me to my own client while others in the chain of infringements monetarily gained from its value and I received none.”
–“Orphan Works, Unmasked” by Andrea Mistretta

“Big publishing companies can ensure that their works are never orphaned...Even the Copyright Clearance Center insists that it is not possible to track the use of illustrations which appear in published work. Thus, they refuse to pay compensation to artists, even though those artists often retain all rights, including reprographic rights - to their work. If the CCC is correct that it’s impossible to track ownership of illustrations, then virtually all published artwork may be designated as orphaned.”
– James Perkins, Medical Illustrator

“NARIP takes issue with this legislation because there is no responsibility to the creative community, it's all about users. We've seen a remarkable shift from incentivizing creators and enabling them to protect their personal property, to ‘let’s provide a means and find a way to protect infringers so we can make sure they're not prosecuted.’ ”
–By Tess Taylor, National Association of Record Industry Professionals

“The Orphan Works bill has the potential to erode the protection that copyright owners have fought for over many years. It puts the burden on the copyright owner to find the offending parties and either negotiate with them without the remedies currently available to bring about reasonable compensation or bring costly litigation. In short, for copyright owners, the Orphan Works bill is a disaster.”
–Attorney Steve Winogradsky, Past President, Association of Independent Music Publishers and California Copyright Conference

“In 2004, the Copyright Office initiated a theory, with the enthusiastic support of the anti-copyright lobby, that the public was being harmed because it didn’t have enough current contact information for authors and owners. The Copyright Office then requested Orphan Works legislation without having conducted a needs assessment study, an independent audit of its registration and copyright history records, an economic impact analysis, or an evaluation on how the public, society and authors would be affected by reduced quantity and quality of art, film, television, music, video games and other copyrighted works in the future.”
–Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) and California Copyright Conference (CCC) Joint Position Paper on Orphan Works Legislation

“The steps taken by illustrators over the past few years to address similar changes in their marketplace demonstrate that the incentives of the marketplace should be allowed to work without government intervention such as the Orphan Works Act, a bill that will permanently weaken the rights to the work these stakeholders create.”
–Terrence Brown, Executive Director, American Society of Illustrators Partnership

“As an artists advocate for over 20 years...I am deeply concerned that the drafters of the legislation clearly did not do the needed research and outreach to the artists advocates,, the artists community, the small business community, and the ‘minority’ communities before crafting the language of this legislation.”
–Kathleen Bitetti, Artist and Executive Director, Artists Foundation

“[W]hile the Copyright Office proposal immediately and unfairly prejudices the little guys in the creative economy, it sets a long term precedent that eventually could come back to haunt even those with deep pockets to defend themselves like Hollywood and Silicon Valley.”
– “Orphan Works Legislation – a Bad Deal for Artists,” by Bruce Lehman, Esq., Former Commissioner US Patent & Trademark Office

“Illustration work allows me to provide for my family; teaching allows me to give back to the community. My belief in stewardship brings me to the Orphaned Work Bills. This legislation strikes at the core of what we are as illustrators, how we do our business and why we chose to be illustrators.”
– CF Payne, Artist

The SBA Roundtable is the only forum so far conducted by the government to consider the economic impact of the Orphan Works Act on creators. The Roundtable was chaired by Tom Sullivan, Director of the Office of Advocacy of the SBA. It was initiated by the Illustrators’ Partnership, The Artists Rights Society and the Advertising Photographers of America. It was conducted by the SBA August 8, 2008 at the Salmagundi Club in New York City. Seventeen panelists participated. Scores of others submitted written papers.

The full written statements are now available as five PDFs.

Part 1: Illustrators, Fine Artists, Art Licensors, Art Educators, Copyright Attorneys
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210734?secret_password=ohitwbyx8ada6g3e16e

Part 2: Cartoonists
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210791?secret_password=1afd1r7sc8zltika8ct

Part 3: Photographers
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210796?secret_password=ai90pgbz4xte6c3d80a

Part 4: Musicians & Writers
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210808?secret_password=24doq9ainoadl3dqhnkn

Part 5: Amendments to H.R. 5889 & S. 2913
Articles in the Press
Submission to 2005 Copyright Office Study
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6210817?secret_password=2cdverotovlf9h15e2y1

To review the agenda, the panelists and their biographies, go to the IPA blog:
http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/08/80808-sba-hearing-on-orphan-works.html

The webcast is available here:
http://videos.cmitnyc.com/asip.html

THE HOUSE ORPHAN WORKS BILL (H.R. 5889) IS MOVING IN THE HOUSE NOW

Phone, fax, email these congressman immediately:

Delahunt phone (202) 225 3111 fax (202) 225-5658
phone: (617) 770-3700 fax: (617) 770-2984

Conyers phone: (202) 225-5126 fax: (202) 225-0072
phone: (313) 961-5670 fax: (313) 226-2085

Nadler phone: (202) 225-5635 fax: (202) 225-6923
phone: (212) 367-7350 fax: (212) 367-7356

Berman phone: (202) 225-4695 fax: (202) 225-3196
phone: (818) 994-7200 fax: (818) 994-1050

Express your outrage at the way this is being done

We've been getting assurances all day that the bill was "dead for this year."

Tell them not to pass this anti-copyright law

• under cover of night
• under cover of economic crisis
• under cover of another televised debate

Tell them this is an outrageous way to re-write the copyright laws of the United States

Orphan Works: Connect the Dots

1. Web firms quietly win copyright victory in Congress

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) Sept 29 -- As the media turned its attention last weekend to battles on Capitol Hill over the fate of the proposed Wall Street bailout bill, Internet companies including Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. quietly walked away with a legislative victory that could facilitate their use of copyrighted material.

The Senate on Friday passed the Orphan Works Act of 2008, legislation that weakens copyright protection for works whose owners cannot be located. The legislation has now been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The legislation requires only that a company make a "reasonably diligent" search to locate a copyright owner before using their work in media including the Internet, and limits compensation required for the use of an infringed work.

-By John Letzing, MarketWatch Sept. 29, 2008
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/web-firms-quietly-win-copyright/story.aspx?guid={E21206C0-98F5-459B-9506-8133CBD82859}&dist=hpts


2. Google Acknowledges Copyright Infringement Claims Could Harm Business

ILLUSTRATORS PARTNERSHIP Sept 30 -- In March 2007, Google filed a mandatory 10-Q Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In it, they acknowledged: "copyright claims filed against us [by copyright owners] alleging that features of certain of our products and services, including Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search, Google Book Search and YouTube, infringe their rights."

Google admitted that "[a]dverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements or orders preventing us from offering certain functionalities, and may also result in a change in our business practices, which could result in a loss of revenue for us or otherwise harm our business." (Italics added.)

--Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, Illustrators Partnership
http://investor.google.com/documents/20070331_10-Q.html


3. Google Sees Value in Orphan Works

ILLUSTRATORS PARTNERSHIP March 8, 2006 -- At the Copyright Office's Orphan Works Roundtables, July 26-27, 2005, Alexander MacGilivray of Google stated:

"The thing that I would encourage the Copyright Office to consider is not just the very, very small scale -the one user who wants to make use of the [orphan] work - but also the very, very large scale - and talking in the millions of works. - page 21

"Google strongly believes that these orphan works are both worthwhile, useful, and extremely valuable." - page 119

"We expect that our use of these orphan works will likely be in the 1 million works range..." (Italics added.) - page 166

"[W]e know that many of them [orphan works] will be in the public domain, that most of their authors won't care. But there are a few [authors] that really will care and they will come forward [to claim authorship] and it will be extremely inefficient for us." (Italics added.) -page 166
(Page numbers are from Copyright Office transcripts.)

Orphan Works Roundtables were held by the US Copyright Office July 26-7, 2005 in Washington DC
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/transcript/0726LOC.PDF


4. Google Donates $3 Million to U.S. Library of Congress

Australian IT Nov 23, 2005 -- The U.S. Library of Congress is kicking off a campaign to work with other nation's libraries to build a World Digital Library, starting with a $US3 million donation from Google.

-Eric Auchard in San Francisco | November 23, 2005
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17339145%5E15409%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15322,00.html