ONE SMALL STEP FOR ARTISTS

At last it may be possible for some illustrators to start receiving reprographic royalties. The Illustrators Partnership has been pressing this issue for  several years.

Last April we announced that the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, had dismissed all claims in a million dollar lawsuit brought by the Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) against the Illustrators Partnership and five named individuals. 

Regarding a key statement at issue in the lawsuit: that GAG had taken over one and a half million dollars of illustrators' royalties "surreptitiously," the judge wrote:

"The plaintiff Guild has conceded that it received foreign reproductive royalties and that it does not distribute any of the money to artists."

Therefore we were pleased to learn last week that a list of illustrators, designers and photographers has been made public who may now claim their reprographic fees.

The names on the list range from some of the best known artists in our field to many whose identity we can't be sure of. We've already contacted our own members to alert them. Now we urge any artist who has ever done published work to follow the instructions below to see if your name is on the list and if so, to learn what you'll have to do to claim your royalties.

The royalties involved are title-specific fees. That means it's money derived from the foreign licensing of books or other publications where a single author can be identified by the foreign collecting societies that monitor usage and collect usage fees. The sums owed to any individual may not be large. Still, we believe that paying artists what they're due constitutes both an important principle and establishes a precedent for retaining our rights in the digital era.

Returning these title-specific royalties to artists is a start. Yet it still leaves open the far larger question of non-title specific royalties. These are collective fees derived from work that appears in magazines, newspapers, annual reports and other collective works.

Collective fees can be returned to artists only by a collecting society properly chartered to receive funds and make equitable distributions to rightsholders. In the US, 12 illustrators organizations have come together for this purpose. We'll have more to say about that shortly.

In the meantime, here's how you can see if you have money currently waiting for you and what you'll need to do to receive it:

Your name may be posted here:
http://www.authorscoalition.org/individual_author_distributions/index.html
(Click on the box labeled LIST OF AUTHORS.)

1) Download and fill out the ACA Collection and Claim Form PDF here:
http://www.authorscoalition.org/individual_author_distributions/ACA_Collection_Claim_Form.pdf

2) Download and fill out the W-9 Form PDF here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf

3) Fax them to Authors Coalition at 313-882-3047, or mail to:

Authors Coalition of America
IAD
280 Moross Road
Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236

For the record, the Illustrators' Partnership is not associated with the Authors Coalition of America.

- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner

on behalf of the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership

Graphic Artists Guild Lawsuit Dismissed

Last week the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed all claims in a million dollar lawsuit brought by the Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) against the Illustrators' Partnership of America (IPA) and five named individuals. In the lawsuit, GAG asserted claims for defamation and interference with contractual relations, alleging that IPA had interfered with a "business relationship" GAG had entered into that enabled GAG to collect orphaned reprographic royalties derived from the licensing of illustrators' work. GAG alleged that efforts by IPA to create a collecting society to return lost royalties to artists "interfered" with GAG's "business" of appropriating these orphaned fees. In her decision, Judge Debra James ruled that statements made by the Illustrators' Partnership and the other defendants were true; that true statements cannot be defamatory; that illustrators have a "common interest" in orphaned income; and that a "common-interest privilege" may arise from both a right and a duty to convey relevant information, however contentious, to others who share that interest or duty.  Regarding a key statement at issue in the lawsuit: that GAG had taken over one and a half million dollars of illustrators' royalties "surreptitiously," the judge wrote: "Inasmuch as the statement [by IPA] was true, [GAG]'s claim cannot rest on allegations of a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Truthful and accurate statements do not give rise to defamation liability concerns."  (Emphasis added.) And she noted: "The plaintiff Guild has conceded that it received foreign reproductive royalties and that it does not distribute any of the money to artists." Labor Department filings provided as evidence to the court document that between 2000 and 2007, GAG collected at least $1,581,667 in illustrators' reprographic royalties. GAG admitted to having collected similar royalties since 1996. GAG's officers have repeatedly refused to disclose how much money their organization has received to date or how the money has been spent. DUTY AND COMMON INTEREST  The judge concluded that this situation justified an assertion of common interest by IPA. This means that "the party communicating [relevant information] has an interest or has a duty" to convey that information truthfully to others "having a corresponding interest or duty": "The duty need not be a legal one, but only a moral or social duty. The parties need only have such a relation to each other as would support a reasonable ground for supposing an innocent motive for imparting the information. Here the plaintiff Guild's factual allegations demonstrate that the defendants' statements were both true, and fall within the parameters of the common-interest privilege." (Emphasis added.) We hope this decision will end the two and a half years of litigation during which GAG pursued its claims against IPA and artists Brad Holland, Cynthia Turner and Ken Dubrowski of IPA, as well as attorney Bruce Lehman, former Commissioner of the US Patent Office and Terry Brown, Director Emeritus of the Society of Illustrators.   All defendants were participants in a public presentation sponsored February 21, 2008 by 12 illustrators organizations. The presentation was disrupted by GAG's officers and their attorney. A videotape of the event proves that statements which GAG alleged to be defamatory were made only in response to GAG's intervention, and that until that time, no speakers had mentioned GAG or GAG's longstanding appropriation of illustrators' royalties.  Last year, on January 12, 2010, Judge James issued a prior ruling dismissing nearly all of GAG's causes of action. This left only a claim asserted by GAG against Brad Holland. But in a response filed with the court February 4, 2010, attorney Jason Casero, serving as counsel for IPA, pointed out that GAG's remaining claim rested on an allegedly defamatory statement that Holland never made. When confronted with evidence, GAG was forced to admit it had "inadvertently attributed" the statement to Holland. GAG subsequently filed new motions in an effort to revive its claims against IPA and the other defendants. Last summer the judge consolidated GAG's multiple motions and on April 18, 2011, she dismissed all ten causes of action against IPA and all the defendants.   REPROGRAPHIC RIGHTS AND ORPHAN WORKS GAG served the lawsuit on IPA October 10, 2008, seven days after Congress failed to pass the Orphan Works Act of 2008. The Illustrators' Partnership and 84 other creators' organizations opposed that legislation. GAG had lobbied for passage of the House version of the Orphan Works bill. Mandatory lobbying disclosures document that GAG spent nearly $200,000 in Orphan Works lobbying fees. In our opinion, the issues behind the lawsuit are greater than whether an organization should be allowed to benefit from the millions of dollars that, collectively, illustrators are losing. We believe the reprographic rights issue is linked to both orphan works legislation and the Google Book Settlement, which Federal Judge Denny Chin dismissed on March 22, 2011. Each of these developments involves an effort by third parties to define artists' work and/or royalties as orphaned property, and to assert the right, in the name of the public interest or class representation, to exploit that work commercially or to appropriate the royalties for use at their sole discretion. So far, judges have affirmed that copyright is an individual, not a collective right, and that unless one explicitly transfers that right, no business or organization can automatically acquire it by invoking an orphaned property premise. Now the challenge for artists will be to see that Congress does not pass legislation to permit what the courts have so far denied. We'll have more to say about this issue in the future. For now we'd like to conclude by thanking our attorney Jason Casero, who provided us with a strong, incisive and heartfelt defense; his law firm, McDermott Will & Emery, which provided us with his services; the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts of New York and its Director Elena Paul. We'd also like to thank Dan Vasconcellos, Richard Goldberg, and the over 700 artists and illustrators who in 2008 signed a petition asking GAG (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to drop the lawsuit; the support of so many colleagues was a great tonic at a low time. Finally we'd like to thank the representatives of the 12 organizations that comprise the American Society of Illustrators' Partnership (ASIP). ASIP is the coalition organization IPA incorporated in 2007 to act as a collecting society to return royalties to artists.   - Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership  This message may be reposted or emailed in its entirety to any interested party.

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 Settlement Part 3: Compelling Arguments

Compelling Arguments

On September 10, 2009, Marybeth Peters, Register of the US Copyright Office, testified before Congress in opposition to the Google Book Search Settlement. Her arguments on behalf of creators rights are compelling and we support them. However, we note with some irony that they are nearly identical to the arguments we made in opposing the Orphan Works bill last year. We don't know what conclusions to draw from this fact, but we think it's fair to draw attention to it.

We've picked several examples below and matched them with quotes from our own writings and testimony. In every case, the emphasis is ours.

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "The [Google] settlement is not merely a compromise of existing claims, or an agreement to compensate past copying and snippet display. Rather, 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."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: The bill's sponsors say it's merely a small adjustment to copyright law. In fact...its provisions have been drafted so broadly it will orphan the work of working artists. Its consequences will be far reaching, long lasting, perhaps irreversible and will strike at the heart of art itself."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "[The Book Rights Registry] is likely to have the unfortunate effect of creating a false database of orphan works, because in practice any work that is not claimed will be deemed an orphan."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "As clients come to rely on these [visual arts] registries as one-stop shopping centers for rights clearance, any works not found in the registries could be infringed as orphans."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "Compulsory licenses... are scrutinized very strictly because by their nature they impinge upon the exclusive rights of copyright holders...By its nature, a compulsory license "is a limited exception to the copyright holder's exclusive right . . . As such, it must be construed narrowly."


IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "[The Orphan Works bill] radically abridges the fundamental principal of exclusive rights granted to creators under the copyright law, and creates a sweeping compulsory license permitting large scale unauthorized use of not only older works, the provenance of which may be difficult to determine, but also of the valuable contemporary works that are the economic life blood of those in our profession."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "Compulsory licenses are generally adopted by Congress only reluctantly, in the face of a marketplace failure."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "The Copyright Office only received about 215 relevant letters to their Orphan Works Study. From this they deduced a claim of widespread market failure in commercial markets..." " But the Copyright Office studied the specific subject of orphaned work. They did not inquire about the workings of commercial markets and there is no evidence in their report that business clients are unable to find the living authors they wish to work with. No evidence whatsoever."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "In summary, the out-of-print default rules would allow Google to operate under reverse principles of copyright law..."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "[The Orphan Works bill] creates 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." "[I]ts logic reverses copyright law."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe first and ask questions later..."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "Since orphan works transactions would occur only after infringement, the rights holder would have no leverage to bargain for more than the infringer is willing or able to pay."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "[C]opyright law has always left it to the copyright owner to determine whether and how an out-of-print work should be exploited."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "Under copyright law, no author can be compelled to publish his or her work. So by what right of eminent domain can Congress give strangers the right to publish our work without our knowledge, consent or payment?"

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "The broad scope of the out-of-print provisions and the large class of copyright owners they would affect will dramatically impinge on the exclusive rights of authors, publishers, their heirs and successors."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "The fundamental problem with the Orphan Works Act is that it's been drafted so broadly its use cannot be confined to real orphaned work situations." "To redefine an orphaned work as "a work by an unlocatable author" is to radically re-define the ownership of private property...Since everybody can be hard for somebody to find, this voids a rights holder's exclusive right to his or her own property."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "Some foreign governments have raised questions about the compatibility of the proposed settlement with Article 5 of the Berne convention, which requires that copyright be made available to foreign authors on a no less favorable basis than to domestic authors, and that the "enjoyment and exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "[P]utting pressure on creators to subsidize the creation of privately-owned registries violates the intent of international copyright law, specifically Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention: "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "The ability of copyright owners and technology companies to share advertising revenue and other potential income streams is a worthy and symbiotic business goal that makes a lot of sense when the terms are mutually determined. And the increased abilities of libraries to offer on-line access to books and other copyrighted works is a development that is both necessary and possible in the digital age. However, none of these possibilities should require Google to have immediate, unfettered, and risk-free access to the copyrighted works of other people. They are not a reason to throw out fundamental copyright principles; they are a pretext to do so."

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "The internet has created a culture of appropriation; and immediate global access to artistic works has facilitated piracy, unintentional infringement and plagiary. But instant and unrestricted access to work should not be construed as a necessity just because technology has made it a possibility. That an artist's work now can be instantly transmitted around the world without the artist's permission or control does not justify a user's 'right' to take the work."

* * * * *

Marybeth Peters on the Google Book Settlement: "[T]he settlement would inappropriately interfere with the on-going efforts of Congress to enact orphan works legislation in a manner that takes into account the concerns of all stakeholders as well as the United States' international obligations.

IPA on the Orphan Works Bill: "This bill has been drafted behind closed doors, without a needs-assessment study, an economic impact analysis, or an evaluation of how the public would be affected by this transfer of private property from individuals to giant commercial databases...For artists, the most troubling part has been our near-total exclusion from the legislative process.

"On July 11th [2008], on behalf of all those who oppose this bill, [we] submitted Amendments to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. Those Amendments would make this bill a true orphan works bill. The Amendments have never been considered...This is no way to re-write U.S. copyright law."

Q.E.D.

The Register's full testimony from September 10, 2009 can be found here.

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part V

Through the Looking Glass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow: A Bill Too Far

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

Senate Hotline Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Response to the Orphan Works Study

Of all the excellent responses spawned by the IPA’s Orphan Works campaign, this was one of the most incisive. In it medical illustrator James Perkins pinpoints the problem with stripping art of its copyright protection based on the difficulty potential users encounter in locating the author. Jim notes that a user’s determination of “difficulty” will be influenced by how much he/she respects the principle of author’s rights in the first place.

We think the letter makes an important contribution to the debate on this issue and we’re e-mailing it to you with the author’s permission.

-The Board of the Illustrators’ Partnership

March 11, 2005

Jule L. Sigall

Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs

U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R

P.O. Box 70400 Southwest Station

Washington, DC 20024.

Via email: orphanworks@loc.gov

It has come to my attention that the copyright office is soliciting input on the issue of “orphanworks,” i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate. I am a medical illustrator and a university professor. As such, I am both a creator of intellectual property and one who uses others’ intellectual property in my teaching and research. I would like to comment on the issue of orphan works from both perspectives. My comments will focus on artistic works and illustrations since this is my area of expertise, but I believe they apply to all copyrighted materials.

We live in a time when there is little respect for the concept of intellectual property. Modern technology has made it easier for individuals to steal copyrighted works with no compensation to their rightful owners. Software piracy, cable TV theft, and Internet downloads (e.g., Napster) are but a few examples. Our society seems to feel that if something is “out there” on the Internet, it is free for the taking. Even my own students are reluctant to accept the idea that sharing software and music is wrong - not until I explain to them that their future survival as freelance illustrators depends upon strong copyright protection of creative works.

Meanwhile, the “Free Culture” and “Alternative Copyright” movements suggest that open access to information is more important than protecting the rights of creators. This notion is further advanced by BioMed Central and other so-called “Open Access” publishers who insist that all scholarship be available free of charge. While the notion of free access to information is very romantic, it denies the reality that many creators make their living by controlling the distribution of their intellectual property. Researchers who publish in open access journals earn their income from academic appointments and research grants. Freelance illustrators and writers do not.

Defining certain works as “orphaned” will further undermine the value of intellectual property, particularly in the eyes of the general public. Since many people already fail to grasp the concept of intellectual property, they will view this law as condoning the theft of copyrighted material. If it’s not immediately apparent that someone owns the copyright (e.g., by affixing a copyright notice), the average person will feel little obligation to track down the rightful owner before using the work.

Permitting the use of orphan works would have a particularly devastating effect on individual creators such as writers and artists. Big publishing companies can ensure that their works are never orphaned. Through unique identifiers such as ISBN and ISSN numbers, it will always be possible to trace a published work back to its owner. The Copyright Clearance Center, established by the publishing industry, helps ensure that their member companies are compensated for every use or reproduction. However, it is often difficult to identify the contributors to a collective work, even though the individual contributors may retain the rights to their work. Publishers rarely allow an author or artist to post a copyright notice and they remove signatures from artwork as a matter of policy. Furthermore, copyrighted works are often posted on the Internet without permission and with no attribution to the creator. Illustrations, in particular, are often scanned and separated from the context in which they were originally published. Thus, through no fault of his own, an artist’s work may be published with no way of tracing it back to its rightful owner.

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.

I happen to disagree with the CCC on this point. I believe it is possible to track usage of illustrations and other artistic work, as has been done by several European licensing societies for many years. In fact, this suggests a much more equitable solution to the problem of orphan works. Rather than designating works as orphaned and putting them “up for grabs,” we should strive to create a better system for tracing copyrighted works to their rightful owners. For example, we should support the efforts of the Illustrators Partnership of America (IPA) which seeks to establish a clearinghouse for published artwork, similar to the CCC. They have already proposed a model of unique identifiers which would make published artwork traceable to its source.

(Incidentally, this would have a dual benefit. The IPA could also collect reprographic royalties on illustrations and return them to their rightful owners. As I mentioned above, many illustrators retain all rights - including reprographic rights - to their artwork. Currently, these royalties are collected by the CCC and returned to publishers, rather than to the artists to whom they belong.) This brings me to my second point. As an educator and researcher, I often use the work of others in my teaching and writing. If I wish to reproduce another person’s work, I must first obtain their permission and sometimes pay a re-use fee. I have rarely had trouble locating the rightful owner of a work to obtain this permission. However, I recently had an experience that I believe bears on this issue. Specifically, this addresses one of the issues raised on your website regarding the Identification and Designation of orphan works.

I recently wrote an article on the history of molecular illustration. Among other things, the article discusses the work of Roger Hayward, who illustrated several books by famed chemist Linus Pauling. I wished to reproduce some of Hayward’s artwork in my article. I contacted the publisher of Pauling’s books, W. H. Freeman, and discovered that Hayward had wisely retained the rights to all of his artwork. However, the publisher had no information on his whereabouts. By searching the Internet, I discovered that he had died in 1979. I also discovered that several other individuals were trying to locate the Hayward estate in order to obtain permission to reprint some of his artwork. For example, the Rights and Permissions Editor at Sky and Telescope magazine wanted to reprint some of his illustrations from Scientific American. The Oregon State University Library posted many of Hayward’s drawings on the Internet as part of an online exhibit about Linus Pauling. Neither organization had been able to track down Hayward’s heirs to obtain permission.

At this point I had a choice. I could accept that these other institutions had made a reasonable attempt to locate the Hayward estate and I could declare the works as orphaned. I could chose to reprint the work and take my chances that I wouldn’t be sued for infringement. If an orphan works law was in place, I could probably do so legally. However, as an artist myself, I strongly value the principles of copyright protection and I felt an obligation to pursue a different course. I chose to continue my search.

A quick Internet search indicated that Mr. Hayward died in Merced County, California. I visited the website of the Merced County Recorder’s Office and quickly located documents showing that Hayward left his entire estate to his wife, Elizabeth. Further searching revealed that she died in 1983 and I found other documents in which she bequeathed her estate to the couple’s nieces and nephews. After a few more hours of searching the Internet, I located two of these relatives and even had an email address. I emailed Hayward’s niece and within a few days had received written permission to use his work. I passed this information along to the magazine editor and the OSU librarian, so now everyone can obtain the proper permissions. Hopefully OSU will make this information available to anyone who inquires about Hayward’s work in the future. What was once an orphan work is now re-united with its rightful owners.

This story reveals an important fact. We all have different ideas about what constitutes a “reasonable” effort when it comes to locating the rightful owners of intellectual property. Even a Rights and Permissions editor at a national magazine and a librarian at an academic institution had failed to locate the Hayward estate. Yet I was able to do so in a matter of hours. This is not a reflection of my searching skill - the tools I used are available to anyone with an Internet connection. It is more indicative of the value I place on intellectual property and how much effort I was willing to invest to uphold the principles of copyright law. Unfortunately, as I stated above, the average person cares little about protecting intellectual property rights. Therefore, they will be quick to declare works as orphaned. It will be extremely difficult - if not impossible - to define what constitutes a reasonable effort in locating the rightful owners of intellectual property.

I should also point out that the Hayward family was well aware that they owned the rights to their uncle’s work. They had no intention of abandoning his work or letting it slip into the public domain. Yet they were victims of a system that made it very difficult for potential users to locate them. This further underscores the need for a system to match a published work with its rightful owner.

It is critical that we retain strong copyright laws in this country. Copyright protection ensures that creators control the distribution of their work and, therefore, have an incentive to create. This is far more important than any inconvenience that may result because it is difficult to track down copyright owners. Rather than letting orphan works lapse into the public domain, we should instead focus our efforts on assuring that no work ever becomes an orphan. Developing a system of numerical identifiers for all written and visual works, similar to the ISBN or ISSN number, as well as licensing societies such as the IPA, to complement the existing CCC, will guarantee that potential users will always be able to track down the rightful owners of a creative work.

Respectfully submitted,

James A. Perkins, MS, MFA, CMI

Associate Professor and Assistant Director, Medical Illustration Program

College of Imaging Arts and Sciences

Rochester Institute of Technology