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It would affect all visual art: drawings, paintings, sketches, photos, etc.; past, present and future; published and unpublished; domestic and foreign.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

Letter to Congressional Creative Rights Congress

May 14, 2013

Representative Judy Chu

Representative Howard Coble

Co-Chairs, Congressional Creative Rights Caucus

Committee on the Judiciary

Subcomittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet 

Dear Representatives Chu and Coble,

Thank you for your leadership in founding the Congressional Creative Rights Caucus earlier this year.  We applaud your insights into the need for such an important group of Members during this critical time for America's creative community.

We understand that this week Chairman Goodlatte has scheduled a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet entitled “A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project.”

Although we are not aware of any visual artists being included in the “Copyright Principles Project,” we applaud the Committee’s inquiry into – and the Creative Caucus’s interest in – the effects of the Internet on copyright; and we would like to take this occasion to introduce you to our organization and to state our interest in this issue.

An Overview of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership

The American Society of Illustrators Partnership (ASIP) is a grassroots coalition of twelve visual artists organizations, founded and funded entirely by working artists. ASIP was founded in 2007, as an initiative of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America (IPA), although many of our member organizations have distinguished histories dating back more than 50 years.

Together we make up a broad spectrum of creative artists, ranging from the nation's editorial cartoonists to medical illustrators, architectural and science illustrators, aviation artists, magazine, book and advertising illustrators. Combined, we create much of the visual material in American contemporary culture.

Our 14-person board includes a Pulitzer Prize winner, a muralist for the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and two members of the Illustrators Hall of Fame; as well as artists who have received the top awards for achievement in their respective fields. We are fortunate to count the Honorable Bruce A. Lehman, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office among our closest advisors.

We, and most of the thousands of artists we represent, are freelance creators or small business owners and all of us make our livings licensing the copyrighted work we create.

We therefore have a compelling interest in the continued effectiveness of copyright law in the field of visual art. We believe we have unique insights and unparalleled experience in how art is created, licensed and managed by the people who actually create it, as well as what it is like to live and work under the U.S. Copyright Act and related international treaties.

Support from the U.S. Small Business Administration

In 2006 and 2008 our twelve organizations formed the nucleus of an even broader informal coalition of 84 organizations, representing artists, photographers, writers, songwriters, independent music labels and other small business owners in the multibillion-dollar craft, greeting card and licensing industries.

At the invitation of the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, we came together on August 8, 2008 for a copyright roundtable hosted by the U.S. Small Business Administration. The SBA roundtable addressed the issue of “orphan works.”  The lively session was videotaped and is available online at http://vimeo.com/channels/artistsrights

ASIP’s Copyright Office Filings

In addition, the panelists who attended the Small Business Administration roundtable – and scores of those and who could not attend – submitted papers to the SBA addressing the subject.  We have collected and organized those papers.  On February 3, 2013, the Illustrators’ Partnership submitted them to the Copyright Office as an appendix to our submission to its Notice of Inquiry regarding potential orphan works legislation (Notice of Inquiry, Copyright Office, Library of Congress Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (77 FR 64555)). IPA’s comments were endorsed in a separate paper by the full ASIP board: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_10222012/American-Society-Illustrators-Partnership-ASIP.pdf

The appendix of SBA roundtable material is now online at the Copyright Office website, and we welcome this opportunity to call your attention to it. To the best of our knowledge, it remains the only effort so far by any agency of the U.S. government to ascertain how creators as small business owners are already adapting to the changes in the new digital environment.

Although our February 14, 2013 initial comments, as well as our March 6, 2013 Reply Comments, both address the specific subject of “orphan works,” we chose to place those comments in the larger context of copyright “reform.” As such, we think these comments are a useful contribution to this important debate for Members of the Creative Rights Caucus to consider and discuss in the coming months.  

Our initial comments are available at: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_10222012/Illustrators-Partnership-America.pdf

Our reply comments are available at: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_11302012/IPA.pdf

Endorsement of the Illustrators’ Partnership by the National Writers Union

In addition to the endorsement of the member organizations of ASIP, we are fortunate to have the support of a wide variety of other creators.  For example, our Copyright Office filings were endorsed and commended to the attention of Congress by the National Writers Union, which stated in the NWU’s own comments to the Copyright Office:

“In particular, the NWU endorses and commends to the attention of the Copyright Office and Congress the objections to “orphan works” legislation raised by Mr. Bruce A. Lehman; [and] the extensive submissions of the Illustrators Partnership of America.”

Mr. Lehman’s comments are available at: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_10222012/Lehman-Bruce.pdf

The NWU comments are available at: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_11302012/National-Writers-Union.pdf

We respectfully submit that the Creative Rights Caucus may wish to review our Copyright Office filings and the Small Business Administration roundtable materials in order to get a richer view of the thoughts of independent visual artists/small business owners regarding copyright reform in general and orphan works issues in particular.  

We invite the Caucus to call upon us if we can expand on our comments or be of any assistance as this critical process moves forward.

Respectfully,

Brad Holland

Co-chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership

Representative of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America

Cynthia Turner

Co-chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership

Representative of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America

And on behalf of the Board of Directors, American Society of Illustrators Partnership

Frank Costantino, ASAI, FSAI, JARA                          

1st Vice-President                       

Representative for American Society of Architectural Illustrators (ASAI)     

Michel Bohbot

Treasurer

Representative for San Francisco Society of Illustrators (SFSI)

Dolores R. Santoliquido

Secretary

Representative for Guild of Natural Science Illustrators (GNSI)

Joe Azar, Esq.

Director

Representative for Illustrators Club of Washington DC, MD, VA (IC)

Dena Matthews

Director

Representative for Association of Medical Illustrators (AMI)

Ilene Winn-Lederer

Director

Representative for Pittsburgh Society of Illustrators (PSI)

Ken Joudrey

Director

Representative for Society of Illustrators San Diego (SISD)

C.F. Payne

Director

Representative for the National Cartoonists Society (NCS)

Nick Anderson

Director

Representative for the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC)

Keith Ferris

Director

Representative for the American Society of Aviation Artists (ASAA)

Joe Cepeda

Director

Society of Illlustrators Los Angles (SILA)

Don Kilpatrick

Director

Unaffiliated Illustrators at Large

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.

Court Rejects Google Book Settlement

Yesterday, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin rejected the Book Rights Registry settlement between Google and the US Authors Guild. The $125 million commercial agreement would have rewarded both parties for the largest mass infringement of authors' copyrights in history. Instead, the judge ruled it a business deal "too far."

"A Reversal of Copyright Law" is what we called this agreement in our warning to illustrators September 29, 2009. Like the visual arts "databases" we opposed during the Orphan Works fight, we wrote:

"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."

Judge Chin held this to be the case. "A copyright owner's right to exclude others from using his property is fundamental and beyond dispute," he ruled. "[I]t is incongruous with the purpose of the copyright laws to place the onus on copyright owners to come forward to protect their rights when Google copied their works without first seeking their permission."

The judge also noted objections to the "Adequacy of Class Representation."  In short, this holds that neither Google, nor any organizations claiming to represent authors, nor the university libraries that gave Google "permission" to digitize their holdings, own the copyrights to the works this agreement would have allowed them to exploit. 

Therefore, they have no standing to broker deals based on claims that they represent the "class" of authors. 

The judge held this to be the case even where organizations asserted the right to "expropriate" "orphaned" royalties belonging to rightsholders.  Noting that "After ten years, unclaimed funds may be distributed to literary-based charities," the judge concluded:

"[A]t a minimum a fair question exists as to whether this Court or the Registry or the Fiduciary would be expropriating copyright interests belonging to authors who have not voluntarily transferred them. As Professor Nimmer has written: 'By its terms Section 201(e) is not limited to acts by governmental bodies and officials. It includes acts of seizure, etc., by any 'organization' as well.' 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §10.04 (Rev. Ed. 2010) (footnote omitted)." [Page 31 of the judge's ruling, emphasis added.]

In rejecting the settlement, Judge Chin also echoed the US Justice Department's antitrust objections: The deal, he wrote, "would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission..." He suggested the settlement might win approval if it were revised to cover only those who opt into the agreement.

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.

Authors Groups Meet in Oslo

OSLO NORWAY Over 60 authors organizations met here this week to discuss strategies for defending authors' rights in the digitized world. Their call to action is reminiscent of the grassroots coalition that came together in the US last year to oppose the Orphan Works bill. In addition to concerns over anti-copyright legislation, authors around the world, including visual artists, face threats from piracy, unauthorized usage, all-rights contracts and, in the US, the loss and/or dissipation of their reprographic royalties.

The Oslo meeting was held concurrent with the anniversary of the founding of the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations (IFRRO). IFRRO was born in Oslo 25 years ago. In the last quarter century, it has grown to 190 members and associate members, of which the Illustrators' Partnership is one.

IFRRO was founded by a small group of visionaries who believed that there was a need for an international organization of Reprographic Rights Organizations (RROs). RROs are collecting societies that monitor and clear rights to authors' creations in collective works such as books, magazines, etc. They grant rights, as mandated by authors, collect fees and return royalties to illustrators, artists, writers and others.

Collecting societies are a new concept to most American illustrators. They exist in countries around the world, but currently, there are none for illustrators in the US. Two years ago, the Illustrators' Partnership brought together 12 prominent visual arts organizations. These groups have incorporated as the American Society of Illustrators Partnership (ASIP).

ASIP, which has been chartered as a collecting society, hopes to begin the long-overdue process of bringing accountability to illustrators' reprographic rights. The 12 founding groups of ASIP also formed the nucleus of the 85 organizations that opposed the Orphan Works bill. In future reports, we'll tell you more about what illustrators can do individually to help us build this formal coalition into a functioning society.

Another Anniversary: The 1999 Santa Fe Conference
The meeting of authors this week in Oslo recalls another anniversary closer to home: the first Illustrators Conference, which opened 10 years ago this week in Santa Fe.

The Santa Fe Conference was a grassroots event founded by 8 artists and reps who believed that illustrators should not accept a slow evolution toward the dissolution of their rights. The conference led to the creation of the Illustrators' Partnership - founded by 3 of the same artists- to act on the initiatives first raised at that pioneering event.

So now, as authors worldwide issue a call for cooperative action, we're pleased to note that the spirit of Santa Fe, invoked by illustrators a decade ago, is still alive and well in the US. It's the spirit that guided artists in Washington last year and with luck, it may yet swell and aid in the preservation of copyright law, which is the legal means by which the distinctive expressions of individuals are themselves preserved.

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 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.

Appeal to House Judiciary

December 8, 2008

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

Dear Chairman Conyers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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


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

Orphan Works: A Lame Duck Countdown, Part V

Through the Looking Glass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow: A Bill Too Far

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