Witness the past! | Glimpse the future!
Does this man possess the most dangerous legal mind on the planet? If you create images, sounds, prose or objects for a living you might just be inclined to think so.
According to the Illustrators' Partnership of America's Brad Holland, Jaszi, his colleagues and students are the authors behind a bill currently before the United States Congress and Senate, attempting- not for the first time- to address the problem of "orphan works". These are pieces of intellectual property that, for one reason or another, cannot be attributed to a copyright holder. Therefore they are often unused (particularly in research and education) for fear of infringing upon the rights of some unknown party. No one wants to find themselves liable for misuse of a photo that it later turns out belongs to Paul Getty.
Many American creatives contend that this bill, if enacted as law, will remove the inherent, immediate and exclusive copyright protection from all intellectual property. In-principle protection from infringement will no longer apply from the moment of creation; instead, any and all work will have to be registered with corporate-ran databases at an as yet unknown cost. Of course, this penalises the individual artist who is least able to pay (average earnings for a visual artist in Scotland: £4-5,000) and benefits aggressive and unscrupulous corporate raiders of a mind to gather and misuse any unregistered photos, drawings, music, films, stories or essays. Of course, a cheaper alternative would be to not put work in harm's way by disseminating it; in other words, don't have a career. The article above asks whether this bill amounts to a violation of international law. If it does, it'd hardly be the first time the US's conduct flew in the face of the world's judgement, but even if it it doesn't it remains a signal violation of creative rights.
The IPA has prepared a document that explains why this development should be of concern to creative people globally, as the new law would make it just as easy for an American-based crook to "orphan" a European, African, Asian or South American artist's work as a domestic's. In the age of the blogosphere, anyone or everyone with a mildly creative bent is spewing pretty much every idea they have into the public domain with little or no understanding of where they stand legally. Thankfully, there currently exist rules that govern the use of such material, but it appears this legislation could drive a hole right through the middle of the statute book.
Therefore I encourage you to read, but more importantly print, sign and send this letter to the relevant parties and tell everyone you know about it too.
According to the Illustrators' Partnership of America's Brad Holland, Jaszi, his colleagues and students are the authors behind a bill currently before the United States Congress and Senate, attempting- not for the first time- to address the problem of "orphan works". These are pieces of intellectual property that, for one reason or another, cannot be attributed to a copyright holder. Therefore they are often unused (particularly in research and education) for fear of infringing upon the rights of some unknown party. No one wants to find themselves liable for misuse of a photo that it later turns out belongs to Paul Getty.
Many American creatives contend that this bill, if enacted as law, will remove the inherent, immediate and exclusive copyright protection from all intellectual property. In-principle protection from infringement will no longer apply from the moment of creation; instead, any and all work will have to be registered with corporate-ran databases at an as yet unknown cost. Of course, this penalises the individual artist who is least able to pay (average earnings for a visual artist in Scotland: £4-5,000) and benefits aggressive and unscrupulous corporate raiders of a mind to gather and misuse any unregistered photos, drawings, music, films, stories or essays. Of course, a cheaper alternative would be to not put work in harm's way by disseminating it; in other words, don't have a career. The article above asks whether this bill amounts to a violation of international law. If it does, it'd hardly be the first time the US's conduct flew in the face of the world's judgement, but even if it it doesn't it remains a signal violation of creative rights.
The IPA has prepared a document that explains why this development should be of concern to creative people globally, as the new law would make it just as easy for an American-based crook to "orphan" a European, African, Asian or South American artist's work as a domestic's. In the age of the blogosphere, anyone or everyone with a mildly creative bent is spewing pretty much every idea they have into the public domain with little or no understanding of where they stand legally. Thankfully, there currently exist rules that govern the use of such material, but it appears this legislation could drive a hole right through the middle of the statute book.
Therefore I encourage you to read, but more importantly print, sign and send this letter to the relevant parties and tell everyone you know about it too.


Comments
And I say that as someone who (tries to) give their creative work away for free.
I'm not condemning "freeware", I think it's the future for a lot of creative activity. I just think the kind of "class war" you've been writing about of late is now creeping into what should be the least structured, most democratic exercises imaginable, with the hyper-rich exploiting not just the labour but the leisure of the masses. Most creativity on the net comes from hobbyists and amateurs (in the strictest, non-judgmental sense). "Orphan works" legislation will allow the misappropriation of any and all of it by the Disneys, Time Warners and Microsofts of the world, perhaps not even necessarily to use it for anything but simply to BURY IT, retarding the explosion of non-corporate media.
> Jaszi believes that since no work is devoid of its precedents and influences no-one can claim true authorship to anything at all!
Funny how lawyers can be persuaded to accept vaguely postmodern ideas when there's money to be made from it :/
And this pisses me off because, by "value" they mean "monetary value". The same way that "efficient" means "efficient at making money".
All together now - "no, a monetary deposit!"
To give an example, a Canadian website that specialised in providing out of copyright musical stores was forced to shut down when it was discovered that, despite a particular score being out of copyright in Canada, it was still in copyright in a European jurisdiction. Rather than restricting the access and usage of the site, the foreign court managed to have the Canadian site shut, despite the otherwise apparent lack of jurisdiction.
Although I would like to say that if a US based entity attempted to "orphan" a foreign work, then proof that you were the author would be a simple preventative, the cost of raising legal action in the states to prove your authorshiop would be exhorbitant.
I'll sign and send this one of post haste.