The Orphan Works bill is alive and kicking... sort of.

And there's not much time to react. I first became aware of this just yesterday. The Illustrators Partnership has a blog that discusses the issue in detail and has links to important background information. There's a lot to read, including the 150 page Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report, which is the crux of the furor.

The key takeaway is that, once again, the US Copyright Office is considering revamping the copyright law. The US Copyright Office is reviewing possible changes to this law and is soliciting public comment. There is no law before Congress, yet. But the very fact that they are once again considering this as a viable alternative to the current law is disheartening.

That said, there is a calm, complete breakdown of the ACTUAL issues at hand, and a situational report. There is no law pending, yet. The US Copyright Office has issued a lengthy report on Orphan Works, and is looking for input on ways to make it easier for folks seeking to use works online to find copyright holders. It's a complex issue. Brett does a very good job of debunking the hyperbole and fear, in this post: Don't Believe the Hyperbole...

The deadline for public comment to Congress is July 23rd. That's THURSDAY. You can write a letter and upload it to the US Copyright website, here. A simple text document or a pdf can be used. Just do it. Now.

If you need help writing the letter, the Illustrators Partnership has good info on the link posted.

[edited 7/21/2015 10:05AM]

Law is complicated and frustrating. It's almost not worth the effort to try and compete in this field since a plaintiff has to have money to bring a case to court. You think you'll be able to compete against the big bucks? Not bloody likely.

I might be inclined to write a letter and submit it by the deadline, for what it's worth. But something about the issue remains unclear to me, and I don't have an understanding of much more besides where LAW is concerned.

One time we were watching Jay Leno and during one of his skits he showed our artwork that featured on a then current telephone directory, and used the artwork for parody...FREELY. That's something no one ever discusses when they mention that an artist has the exclusive right to their work and no one can use it without paying for the use. Parody is legal. Just ask Weird Al about it.

And what about the current sampling market? There's too much of that going on hardly anyone brings infringement cases to court. It's too difficult to win them.

The Illustrators Partnership discusses works that have been published. Just what exactly does that word mean and whose definition do we refer? Just yesterday I was reading a blog about picture frames, and in that blog the writer showed a picture frame for reference, and then stated that the work was unable to be published due to non-response from the museum that owned the work. I thought to myself that by writing a blog and posting it to the internet constituted an act of publishing. I'm probably wrong. Seems a textbook definition states that publishing something means to offer something authored for public sale. A blog is posted freely and no money is asked by the issuer for others to read it.

Yes, everything I've ever created as an artist (since 1989) has future monetary value for me. You betcha! And I suppose the only way my feelings can be heard is to group together with those who feel the same way as I do. My intellectual property reflects my own perceptions and conceptions. It represents all that I am. And I am ALL IN, so to speak, since my portfolio is what gets me future sales and work.

Replies

Barrie Lynn Bryant July 21, 2015 at 11:41am

Law is complicated and frustrating. It's almost not worth the effort to try and compete in this field since a plaintiff has to have money to bring a case to court. You think you'll be able to compete against the big bucks? Not bloody likely.

I might be inclined to write a letter and submit it by the deadline, for what it's worth. But something about the issue remains unclear to me, and I don't have an understanding of much more besides where LAW is concerned.

One time we were watching Jay Leno and during one of his skits he showed our artwork that featured on a then current telephone directory, and used the artwork for parody...FREELY. That's something no one ever discusses when they mention that an artist has the exclusive right to their work and no one can use it without paying for the use. Parody is legal. Just ask Weird Al about it.

And what about the current sampling market? There's too much of that going on hardly anyone brings infringement cases to court. It's too difficult to win them.

The Illustrators Partnership discusses works that have been published. Just what exactly does that word mean and whose definition do we refer? Just yesterday I was reading a blog about picture frames, and in that blog the writer showed a picture frame for reference, and then stated that the work was unable to be published due to non-response from the museum that owned the work. I thought to myself that by writing a blog and posting it to the internet constituted an act of publishing. I'm probably wrong. Seems a textbook definition states that publishing something means to offer something authored for public sale. A blog is posted freely and no money is asked by the issuer for others to read it.

Yes, everything I've ever created as an artist (since 1989) has future monetary value for me. You betcha! And I suppose the only way my feelings can be heard is to group together with those who feel the same way as I do. My intellectual property reflects my own perceptions and conceptions. It represents all that I am. And I am ALL IN, so to speak, since my portfolio is what gets me future sales and work.

This reply was deleted.