Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

since we've been talking about it

ironically, this week, the senate is proposing an amendment to copyright legislation to REMOVE PROTECTION from 'orphaned' or unattributed works.

this means, basically, if you do a piece of work that isn't credited to you, it is assumed that it is an orphaned work and immediately deemed copyright free!

this is so dangerous to artists and musicians and anyone making things in so many ways i don't even know where to begin.

i just faxed my own letter of disapproval to the following three senators heading the judiciary committee (names followed by fax numbers, please read the graphic artists guild action alert for more info on what to include in your letter / more info about the situation in general):

orrin hatch (utah) fax: 202.224.6331
patrick leahy (vermont) fax: 202.224.3479
arlen specter (pennyslvannia) fax: 202.228.1229

and my own california representative:
dianne feinstein: fax 202.228.3954

this decision is being made quickly, so it is URGENT that people write and act now.
on this website is a list of all the senators involved in the committee on the judiciary:

there are other methods of contact: email, telephone and letter. please read more and let the senate know this is WRONG!
thank you!!!


( 27 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 24th, 2006 07:46 pm (UTC)
I don't understand how they can do that???....and why????
Feb. 24th, 2006 07:48 pm (UTC)
me neither. i also can't believe it's not ALL OVER THE NEWS. especially since this applies equally to writers. if something they write is unattributed, it is free to reprint, according to this proposed legislation. please contact your reps!!
Feb. 24th, 2006 07:50 pm (UTC)
thanks for posting this. i'm going to spread the word too.
Feb. 24th, 2006 07:52 pm (UTC)
gah! askdjfl.

Feb. 24th, 2006 07:54 pm (UTC)
wait-- does this mean unsigned workds are immediately public property?

Feb. 24th, 2006 08:39 pm (UTC)
unattributed works. like, even - as one website gives as an example - if the work is signed "mark smith" but there are 30 mark smith illustrators and they can't discern which one it is, or get ahold of whoever it is to confirm (there is a clause about something like 'reasonable investigation' - which i wonder if that's as much as a google search?) then it's considered orphaned.
signed works could still be considered unattributed.
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:44 pm (UTC)
oh wow. so how does it work? you have to make sure you've got your own completely unique name?
or should this amendment just be totally just send to the trash?

the latter sounds completely better.
makes me a bit glad i'm not in the united states. :/
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:16 pm (UTC)
i just saw your journal today, and this is insanity!
i`m glad i saw it though, i`m gonna spread the word.
thank you so so much for the information.
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:16 pm (UTC)
gah. I am going to pass this along to as many people as I can. I'd like to believe that this could never get passed into law.
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:35 pm (UTC)
there are so many things i'd like to believe about this country and its government.
Feb. 24th, 2006 09:12 pm (UTC)
I know! As soon as I hit "post comment" I thought the same exact thing. I just passed this on to a few hundred people.
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:33 pm (UTC)
I am sure who to write to?
I live in Oregon.

Do we just write to our senator, I think our is Ron Wyden??
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:44 pm (UTC)
nevermind what i just posted
from the graphic artists guild site:

If you don't have the time to write to them all, it's most important to write to the Chair, Senator Arlen Specter, Senators Hatch and Leahy because they ordered the Copyright Office to conduct this study, and to the senator from your home state- if one of them serves on this committee. That's 4 letters minimum.
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:50 pm (UTC)
Ah. Here are the Senator's address's:

Arlen Spector & Orrin Hatch
711 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510

Patrick Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

I don't have a senator on that commitee. Do you know when the "due" date is to send in letters?
Feb. 24th, 2006 08:55 pm (UTC)
the addressed i had for orrin hatch was:

Senator Orrin Hatch
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

i'm not sure of the due date, let me see if i can find out.
Feb. 24th, 2006 09:36 pm (UTC)
Ah..I just got them from their sites.
I think I got their offices address, it seems yours is particularly for the Committee on the Judiciary( probably the best address to go with )

Feb. 24th, 2006 09:29 pm (UTC)
thanks for the heads-up! copyright law and its interations seems to protect only big business, rather than the creative individuals who produce the arts/medicines/songs/etc.
Feb. 24th, 2006 09:34 pm (UTC)
our gov is all about big business! in many ways more than just copyright!
Feb. 24th, 2006 10:15 pm (UTC)
i know on a logical level, but every time i hear something as outrageous as this, the idealist/optimist in me is as horrified as if it's the first time.

but doesn't it make sense to protect patents on HIV/AIDS drugs made by billion dollar corporations and thereby allow thousands to die, while abolishing any copyrights/protection for small-business-type creators? urgh.
Feb. 24th, 2006 09:34 pm (UTC)
um...I sort of went on a tangent and I suck as far as writing goes because of my lack of education, but here is what I plan to send. I wouldnt mind someone editing it for me so that I don't sound like the cowpoke farmgirl I sometimes envision myself as:

Senator _____________,

I am not in favor of "orphaned" artworks being copyright free. It is extremely difficult for creater's to perseude the public to credit the artist. There are a few people that do give credit to the artist out of politeness, but for every one person that credits the artist, there are so many that do not.

A good portion of people who make art rely on the little income provided to them from that art. For artist's who make such little income in the first place to have to get into legal battles over thier own art is proposterous. If the artist had no proof of the art being theirs, it could easily be "stolen" by any number of larger companies and used to accrue income that the original artist would never see, let alone additional income from sheer popularity of the art.

Furthermore, this amendment would instill a sense of dishonesty to the people of America. There are certain cultural respects that are passed from generation to generation. If we do not teach our children that it is important to credit the person who has created something we are teaching them that they can steal anything.

Purely for examples sake, the Native American's where the creators of the tipi. Now there are people who are profitting from making teepee's for children with out any credit to the culture or people who invented it. These children that play with these teepee's are growing up having no idea about the culture behind this object. There are no royalties being payed to tribal councils. This leaves modern Natives with a sense of disrespect for their culture and sadness that they aren't able to pass along their culture to the next generation.

This feeling is felt by artists when they see X company advertising with their art. Each piece of art and each person who create's art surrounds itself with a certain culture and that culture, big or small is being compromised when it is used with out permission.
Feb. 25th, 2006 07:13 am (UTC)
i think any letter that comes from personal response to what this law would mean is an effective one. i would do a spell check, and also recognize that this law will not just impact visual artists, but creators of all medium. its bias toward the end user is a slap in the face to creators of all kind.
thank you so much for taking action on this!!
Feb. 25th, 2006 07:32 am (UTC)
this is just insanity...thank you for bringing the word out...i hope this doesn't get passed...
Feb. 26th, 2006 12:48 am (UTC)
this is one of the shitiest things i heard lately..
Feb. 26th, 2006 02:49 am (UTC)
just posted about this, thanks for being so "in the know" about these things susie
Feb. 27th, 2006 08:39 am (UTC)
On the other hand...
I don't know, this issue seems more complicated than that. There is no precise definition yet for what constitutes an "orphan work." Here are some very compelling arguements for the amendment:

Duke Law: Center for the Study of Public Domain (http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html)
"The costs of an inadequate system of access to orphan works are huge: needlessly disintegrating films, prohibitive costs for libraries, incomplete and spotted histories, thwarted scholarship, digital libraries put on hold, delays to publication. In the cases where the work is truly an orphan work, those costs are tragic because they are completely unnecessary. This report describes the orphan works problem, and offers a proposal to fix it."

It's a long report, but really informative.

Save Orphan Works (http://eldred.cc/)


Boing boing.net (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/05/your_last_chance_to_.html)

I wonder what everyone's thoughts on these are?

Mar. 4th, 2006 06:06 am (UTC)
Re: On the other hand...
a compelling counter-perspective which i share: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0660-Holland-Turner.pdf
( 27 comments — Leave a comment )

About Me

Hey, I'm Susie. I'm a painter, illustrator, crafter, musician, keeper of various pets and proprietor of the website boygirlparty.com

Latest Month

January 2017