“Under current copyright law, in effect for the last 30 years, your
visual art is copy protected whether or not it is registered or carries
the copyright symbol.
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to introduce
the Orphan Works Act of 2008. If you care about protecting your work,
you’re against it. It will have the effect of wiping out any copyright
on visual art now in existence, throwing your work into the public
domain. If you wish to protect your work (each and every separate piece)
you will have to digitize it and register it with private sector
registries as yet uncreated, for a fee as yet unestablished. I say
registries because this bill places no limit on how many separate
registries there could be.
The fastest, easiest thing is to sign a petition here:
It gets worse. Anyone can submit images, including your images. They
would then be excused from any liability for infringement (also known as
THEFT) unless the legitimate rights owner (you) responds within a
certain period of time to grant or deny permission to use your work.
That means you will also have to look through every image in every
registry all the time to make sure someone is not stealing and
registering your art. You could actually end up illegally using your own
artwork or photo if someone else registers it.
Please read more in this excerpt from illustratorspartnership.org; I
know it’s long, but it’s worth reading. Also, note that while their
site is geared to illustrators, everything they say applies as well to
photographers, musicians, filmakers, painters, writers, etc:
Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this
legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial registries.
On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright Office warned us
that under their plan any work not registered with a private sector
registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it was created.
This means you would not only have to register your published work, but
— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family photos,
home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.
This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law the
total creative output of any “creator” receives passive copyright
protection from the moment you create it. This covers everything from
the published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries,
letters and family photos of the average citizen.
But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be
covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain
coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would “signal” to
infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.
The Registration Paradox:
By conceding that their proposals would make potential orphans of any
unregistered works, the Copyright Office proposals would lead to a
registration paradox: In order to “protect” work from exposure to
infringement, creators would have to expose it on a publicly searchable
registry. This would:
— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the
Orwellian premise that you must expose it to “protect” it.
Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce
copyright compliance. Even after you’ve shelled out “protection money”
to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works, you
still won’t be protected. A registry would do nothing more than give you
a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor infringements – which
can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then embark on an uncertain
quest to find the infringer, file a case in Federal court, then prove
that the infringer has removed your name or other identifying
information from your work. Meanwhile all the infringer will have to do
is say there was no such information on the work when he found it and
assert an orphan works defense.
Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international
copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill
would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded
personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more
slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental
rights we currently take for granted.
We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences of
this radical copyright proposal.
— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators’
So, what to do about this? More from the Illustrators Parnership
March 19, 2008
We expect a bill to be released after the Easter recess. Sources say it
will be introduced in the House and Senate simultaneously, and
fast-tracked for a vote in the House by mid-May. Advocates hope for
swift passage before the summer recess.
The decision to introduce such a radical bill so late in the session is
ominous. Because of fall elections, this will be a short Congressional
year. Any bill not passed by the end of Congress will have to
re-introduced in the next Congress. That means the bill’s sponsors must
know they have their ducks lined up.
So, I urge everyone to:
GET ON ORPHAN WORKS E-MAIL LIST
To be notified of the latest information on the Orphan Works bill and
when to contact your legislators, send an email to
firstname.lastname@example.org and ask to be added to the Orphan
Works list. You can also visit the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for
Artists for more information, because I didn’t even detail all the
disgusting facets of this shocking legislation:
Both House and Senate versions of the Orphan Works Act of 2008 can be
downloaded from the IPA homepage:
And… please act!
The fastest, easiest thing is to sign a petition here:
Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml to quickly find the phone
number, address and e-mail of every U.S. senator, U.S. representative,
and state legislator. In the meantime, please feel free to forward this
to all the artists you know.”
I’d planned on painting this evening but the current painting is finished. Instead, I found msyelf working on the second in the series, having finished the fifth. After drawing for a while and once again asking Fi (the cat) to graciously not curl up his twenty pound body on the drawing pad on my lap, I found myself reading up on some CSS manipulation for a site I’ve been working on and then looking into Rollingstone.com to see what was up there. I find interesting articles in amongst the music stuff, which I am less interested in than the journalism. I stumbled upon an interesting article about a fellow named Larry Brilliant – real name – and his philosophies and current station as head of Google.org, Google’s philanthropic arm, or tentacle if you will.
I understand that all things that come across in writing, no matter how… objective they may strive to be are still subject to the conceits and filters of the writers and editors. Larry will come across through what he makes available to the interviewer and delivered to the reader through sound bites, snippets and word play, a few casual observations and some interviews with allies, associates and critics. Yet, the final feeling i get from it is “Why do we do what we do- for profit, personal gain, or… something more estimable?”. Mr. Brilliant has found himself asked to head up Google’s giving back system, and at that sitting upon a pile of cash to do something with. Not bad for an ex-guru-following-acid-eating-hippie (a highly stressed point as it were, as if to make the RS reader more sympathetic to him and to give him some street cred). But regardless of his history and his story, the point of the matter is that he is a guy who has tried to do a lot to help others and has, in many ways, succeeded, at least, according to this article and according to the perspective I’m left with.
When I read this kind of thing it makes me think two things- why do I do what I do and how do I give back. We strive to make things more sustainable- using recycled paper for everything, low wattage bulbs, etc- but there is more to it. So we look for foundations to give money to, a percentage of our profits. We are no multi billion dollar Google, but, at the same time, we do fairly well, all things considered and that $50 spent on dinner could maybe be better used by someone in need… so it is given to someone in need… And yet, it never feels like it is enough.
I wonder if there is an alternate reality where there is a me that figured out how to take this painting stuff out into the world and help cure cancer with it, or help to solve the hunger or water issues. And was able to do so without seeking personal gain. Such an interesting thing, personal gain. Even if we give because it makes us feel good to give (a valid reason I hear) it is still for personal gain! So how to give without giving from a sense of… well… self. Giving to simply give. This is a great lesson of life. Along with the lesson of how to love, so is the lesson of how to give. Such lessons can be traced back to the original core belief in the sense of self/ego/identity and it is that sense that leads to so many dilemmas. What is really giving? What is really loving? What is really breathing? What is really being?
Shall we stop giving until we have truly perfected the art of giving? Shall we stop loving until we have truly figured out how to love?
Practice makes perfect, or so they say. Life is the kind of thing that can only be perfected by being utilized. Like yoga, where we cannot learn how to properly do our downward dog by reading books, although they can offer advice, we cannot learn how to properly love or give by memorizing the words of those who may have found something close enough to approximate a sense of what it is to love or give selflessly. We can only learn by practice.
So we give and we give and we give, until there is nothing left to give. We love until we feel we have no more love to give. Maybe at that point we realize it was never “I” that was doing the loving afterall. At that point, we may discover what a true love really is.
The silent stillness of late night surroundings finds me solitary and drinking a glass of red wine with a side dish of cheese and olives. It is a usual place for me on a late night Monday night these days listening to late night music like Pink Floyd’s Ummagumma. What a weird collaboration of soundscapes and mental landscapes it is and yet, it was through this experimentation and willingness to go “out there” (and, incidentally, “in there”) that led them to great albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here. . The willingness to walk the edge, push the boundaries, leads us to find the new. In this world of the reinvented, the borrowed, the done time and again, it is that newness that stands the test of time.
The other day, I found a collection of music called Psychedelic Archaeology vols. 1-10. Interesting, I thought, I always wanted to see what I’d been missing in my collection. This montage, if you will, of Psychedelic rock from the 60’s didn’t purport to have any Beatles, old Pink Floyd or Jimi Hendrix. It was the underground. And rightly so- none of it held a candle to that which I already have. Much of it “sounded like…” or “seemed to borrow from…” or something and so was quickly forgotten, having never had an authentic and true voice and having never having had something really real to say. This is not to say that Ummagumma is a great album- it’s weird, psychedelic and distinctly of that era. Yet, because Pink Floyd went on to create bolder and more beautiful work (peaking out with The Wall) the early work has greater significance. We can see this with some artists. Early Picasso and Dali pieces or any great artist in fact. Although the early pieces may not hold the same clarity of vision (or confusion as the case may have been!) that the later works have, early works often show a passion and a willingness to push, to find the edges and see what lies over them. The challenge as an artist is to always be willing to push, to explore and to never settle into a “groove”.
I read in some book a long long time ago now that, in order to be a successful artist you should find something and stick to it. For example, the book suggested, if you paint cats well, then paint pictures of cats! Hundreds of pictures of cats! Non-stop cats! Just and only cats and maybe sometimes cats and a bird too but mostly cats! I can think of more than a few artists who have gone this route. Just replace “cats” with, well, cottages in the woods, or whales in the ocean or… Eventually one becomes less of an “artist” and more of an “artisan”. An artisan is more of a crafts person than an artist in the truest sense of the word. An “artist” is one who engages in their work with a passion for exploration and is willing to turn down an unknown road with gusto. Artisans usually play it safe and stick to the tried and true. This is not to put down the craftsmen and artisans. After all, there are many beautiful works created by such people and I own some of these things myself. I may find a woman weaving while I am traveling and love what she is making and she is a skilled artisan, following the patterns of her culture and the colors of her native tongue creating a work of art, of sorts- an elaboration on a theme.
What is the theme of my own life? Growth. Movement from darkness to light and back again. A desire for purity. A desire for fuzziness. Movement between polarities. Finding happiness within and not basing that happiness on external conditions. Learning to be malleable…
Those may be sub-plots but what is the theme?
What is the story?
Well, it began in a little town called Milford… whatever, that’s not the story- that is a story… one of many that I have lived. How long has this story gone on and how many forms has it taken? It’s like this great concert- every song that passes is another lifetime. There are tragic songs and there are fuck-yeah-pump–your-fist-in-the-air songs. There are songs that seems like they just aren’t going anywhere at all and then all of a sudden peak and crescedo and you wonder what you were doing all that time in between. I do sometimes…
Each song… maybe we get something out of it, maybe we don’t. Each lifetime is the same but in this analogy, our own minds are the band. They are the guitarists and drummers and bassists and keyboardists and maybe the accordions, fiddles, violins, hand claps and triangle players as well. They are the whole orchestra. And we, our own consciousnesses are the conductors, the song writers, the visionaries at the helm. What song do we want to play today, we might as well ask ourselves when we awaken in the morning.
I'd love to hear from you. Send me a message here and
I'll do my best to get back to you as soon as I can.