Should we ditch the 'net???
posted by Rykk at 9:12 AM
Boneyard
I just read a VERY disturbing article on a new copyright law wending its typically boneheaded, all-about-business profits-and-artist-be-damned way thru our fallacious form of "representative government" that seems to be a big scam to make a ton of $$ for a few "registry houses" by essentially requiring (in typically governmental double-talk) artists to register for copyright - for a fee of course! - with multiple registry companies in order to prevent their work from being deemed "orphan works" and being used for profit by any and all who happen upon them. Here's a link for those who don't follow the mailing lists - http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&column=MindBiz&article_no=3605 - (it's kinda slow - give it time...)
Do y'all think maybe this site where I have registered some of my sold pieces might be one of those that would benefit hugely from this legislation? - http//www.fineartregistry.com/members/tags.php
I remember when I started to get my first pieces professionally printed for an upcoming art show in Atlanta that my printer - a man who has supported himself thru art festival selling for FORTY YEARS - was disturbed that I had galleries of basically all of my very best (read "showable to anyone other than my good ol' doggie bud, Lars") on the internet at Renderosity and DeviantArt. And on my own - stalled for the time being - website. He said I was just begging for image theft that way and his advice was to remove everything immediately, the sooner the better, and to show NOTHING on the internet.
Of course, vanity and the need to show my work to someone with less than four legs - lol - precluded this action and I did nothing and just continued doing what I was doing. Seemed to work out ok. I got lots of encouragement, which went a long way to firing up my enthusiasm, made a few sales - some for pretty decent $$ - and was able to have my work seen by thousands of folks who like that sort of thing. And now this - along with the creepy feeling I've gotten about DA in reading things that some artists have said on various mail lists and blogs.
So what do y'all think? As digital artists, imho, we're pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place in respect to showing on the 'net the fruits of our creative endeavors and to delete our galleries would be "suicide" as far as any real avenues to get our work seen. Very few of us - myself included - have the away time from our grinding work tediums to be able to hit the road and show at festivals. At least enough of them to make anything other than "play money". I'm thinking you either have to have enormous cojones (or whatever women have that is comparable - lol j/k) to be able to ditch it all and quit the day job, unwavering faith/hope in the commercial viability/worth of your art and it probably helps to be retired with plenty of free time on your hands to be able to do this sort of thing. And that is something that bugs me to no end because I like my steady paycheck and smoke like a freaken stack and have reached a point in life (the mid-life crisis thing) where I'm thinking in terms of time left to accomplish whatever and it doesn't look to me like I'll see any social security checks and long lazy days on the beach in Sanibel. Sorry - kinda morbid, huh - I'll quit. Here's something more optimistic...
The Good Life
There's got to be some way to do this fractal art thing "seriously" and/or show your art safely but I can't for the life of me get my head around it and figure it out. Too much brain damage, I guess. (but, as Tolkein said, "that is another story" - and nothing to do with drugs if you wonder - lol) Anybody got any ideas about where to go from here - or if maybe this article is just hyperbole? Do y'all think this legislation might force a lot of us who are trying to make something other than just a beloved hobby of our artwork to get our stuff out of the way b4 we get run over by some corporate truck?
Free as a Bird
c-ya!
Rick
Do y'all think maybe this site where I have registered some of my sold pieces might be one of those that would benefit hugely from this legislation? - http//www.fineartregistry.com/members/tags.php
I remember when I started to get my first pieces professionally printed for an upcoming art show in Atlanta that my printer - a man who has supported himself thru art festival selling for FORTY YEARS - was disturbed that I had galleries of basically all of my very best (read "showable to anyone other than my good ol' doggie bud, Lars") on the internet at Renderosity and DeviantArt. And on my own - stalled for the time being - website. He said I was just begging for image theft that way and his advice was to remove everything immediately, the sooner the better, and to show NOTHING on the internet.
Of course, vanity and the need to show my work to someone with less than four legs - lol - precluded this action and I did nothing and just continued doing what I was doing. Seemed to work out ok. I got lots of encouragement, which went a long way to firing up my enthusiasm, made a few sales - some for pretty decent $$ - and was able to have my work seen by thousands of folks who like that sort of thing. And now this - along with the creepy feeling I've gotten about DA in reading things that some artists have said on various mail lists and blogs.
So what do y'all think? As digital artists, imho, we're pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place in respect to showing on the 'net the fruits of our creative endeavors and to delete our galleries would be "suicide" as far as any real avenues to get our work seen. Very few of us - myself included - have the away time from our grinding work tediums to be able to hit the road and show at festivals. At least enough of them to make anything other than "play money". I'm thinking you either have to have enormous cojones (or whatever women have that is comparable - lol j/k) to be able to ditch it all and quit the day job, unwavering faith/hope in the commercial viability/worth of your art and it probably helps to be retired with plenty of free time on your hands to be able to do this sort of thing. And that is something that bugs me to no end because I like my steady paycheck and smoke like a freaken stack and have reached a point in life (the mid-life crisis thing) where I'm thinking in terms of time left to accomplish whatever and it doesn't look to me like I'll see any social security checks and long lazy days on the beach in Sanibel. Sorry - kinda morbid, huh - I'll quit. Here's something more optimistic...
The Good LifeThere's got to be some way to do this fractal art thing "seriously" and/or show your art safely but I can't for the life of me get my head around it and figure it out. Too much brain damage, I guess. (but, as Tolkein said, "that is another story" - and nothing to do with drugs if you wonder - lol) Anybody got any ideas about where to go from here - or if maybe this article is just hyperbole? Do y'all think this legislation might force a lot of us who are trying to make something other than just a beloved hobby of our artwork to get our stuff out of the way b4 we get run over by some corporate truck?
Free as a Birdc-ya!
Rick
8 Comments:
Copyright is notoriously difficult to defend, unless you have pretty deep pockets or are really well known. In reality, anything you post on the net is basically available to be stolen. If you don't want it stolen, don't put it out there. Ironically, if people ask for permission to use my stuff, I pretty much give it to them :) I do manage to make a bit of money from my stuff over at shutterstock but did the Math and realised that I was not even making minimum wage - yet. I create art as a form of recreation. If people can use it commercially, that's really icing on the cake.
That article you link is full of hyperbole and inaccuracies. There's a more reliable and balanced view given to the state of play here at dA
I'd also recommend reading the Witness Statements which were put to a House of Representatives' Committee hearing last month: they're linked from this page and make interesting reading.
Even if - and it's a very big if - registration became compulsory at some point in the future, I don't think it will make image theft any more prevalent than it is now.
The number of cases I have read of about people who have had images from the net used to commercial advantage by others is remarkably small considering the huge numbers of people creating and displaying that art. I think that's in part due to the fact that most post smallish images which aren't good for much else other than reposting on another site. There are way more horror stories around traditional art!
Ok, well at least this thread gets some constructive discussion going even if I might be needlessly concerned. I'll have to delve into this deeper, I can see.
A couple of sorta devil's advocate points to keep us going deeper...
1) Though it doesn't REQUIRE that one registers copyright, I wonder if the "due diligence" search for the owner of an artwork might only require that they look at the "accepted" registry houses and, having done that, covered themselves. One of the points raised was that it might end up being prohibitively costly for many to register their work one piece at a time.
2) I note that the person doing all the replying at the DA link is:
Daniel (realitysquared)
Copyright & Etiquette Administration Director,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.
Now wouldn't DA be one of the entities to profit immensely from legislation that required - in a subtle, round about way - registration? Especially if they became one of those registry sites? And they'd also get more $$ if they could just sell your work without your permission. Sort of listening to the wolf talk about how he's sworn off chicken for red meat...
BTW - this same DA guy also comes out in a reply and states that "Creative Commons provides no "protection" of any kind- Creative Commons exists solely to allow people to use your work without having to specifically ask you..."
Just some thoughts - hope we can all feel better or at least more informed (especially me - lol) as we hash this stuff out.
c-ya!
Rick
1.My understanding is that the "due diligence" search requires considerably more than simply looking at any registries.
2. It hadn't even occurred to me that dA might think about becoming one of the registries .... hmmm. I can't see that happening somehow because I don't think they'd want the extra hassle and admin work that would no doubt be involved but then dA always manages to surprise me and confound my expectations (usually in a bad way, lol) But whether they did or not, they wouldn't be able to sell your work without your permission.
The whole impetus behind the Orphan Works bill came from people and organisations who have a legitimate need or desire to use work (such as old photos) where the copyright holder is not traceable. Karen Coe's statement is enlightening on that aspect.
I believe he's right about the Creative Commons licenses. The explanation you get on dA if you choose a CC license when submitting says:
Creative Commons is a non-profit organization with a mission to expand private rights to create public goods, creative works set free for certain uses.
Offering your work under a Creative Commons license does not mean giving up your copyright. It means offering some of your rights to any member of the public but only on certain conditions.
All of Creative Commons licenses require that you give attribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Attribution Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request.
The core licensing suite will also let you mix and match conditions from the list of options below. There are a total of six Creative Commons licenses to choose from the core licensing suite.
Noncommercial Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only
No Derivative Works No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
Share Alike Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
Note: A license cannot feature both the Share Alike and No Derivative Works options. The Share Alike requirement applies only to derivative works.
Taking a License
When you've made your choices, you'll get the appropriate license expressed in three ways:
1. Commons Deed. A simple, plain-language summary of the license, complete with the relevant icons.
2. Legal Code. The fine print that you need to be sure the license will stand up in court.
3. Digital Code. A machine-readable translation of the license that helps search engines and other applications identify your work by its terms of use.
Using a License
If you chose a Creative Commons license, the small logo and license description will appear next to your deviation. It will link back to the Commons Deed, so that the world can be notified of the license terms. If you find that your license is being violated, you may have grounds to sue under copyright infringement. The machine-readable translation will be embeded in your deviation page.
Additional Resources
* More examples are available on the examples page
* Things to think about before selecting a license
* Detailed explanation of all licenses
* Wikipedia article
Courtesy of Creative Commons
Been looking around and went here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html
A few things bothered me...
Under "Response of the Copyright Community"
"...Some who oppose orphan works legislation have also objected to the removal of statutory damages, which are available under Title 17 in certain instances. A few have even asserted that statutory damages are an entitlement under the law that cannot be rescinded. We disagree..."
and
"...Statutory damages are not an absolute entitlement any more than copyright ownership itself is an absolute right..."
and
"...In cases of “innocent infringement,” the court may reduce statutory damages to $200...
...The fact remains that the possibility of statutory damages, however remote, is the single biggest obstacle preventing use in orphan works situations. In cases of non-willful infringement, statutory damages may be as high as $30,000 for each infringed work. In cases of willful infringement, they may be as high as $150,000 per infringed work.
We are not suggesting, in general, that the scheme of statutory damages is unjust. On the contrary, statutory damages fulfill legitimate and necessary purposes. That said, we do believe that in the case of orphan works, the rationale for statutory damages is weak...By definition, in the orphan work situation, the user is acting in good faith and diligently searching for the owner, and the owner is absent. The purposes of statutory damages, i.e. making the owner's evidentiary burden lighter and deterring infringement, weigh less heavily here. If the copyright owner is not identifiable and cannot be located through a diligent, good faith search, we believe the appropriate recovery is "reasonable compensation". (my quotes)If orphan works legislation does not remove statutory damages from the equation, it will not motivate users to go forward with important, productive uses. On the other hand, the prospect of orphan works legislation may motivate some owners to participate more actively in the copyright system by making themselves available....."
Here's a hypothetical and an opinion...
1)Say an artist sells a certain work in limited edition of say 200 for $500 a print. Over the course of the edition, that piece could (yeah right - I'd be lucky to sell TWO! lol) net the artist $100,000. So an image mill decides they want to print the thing and sell it for $100 in unlimited quantity. Sounds like this bill could potentially limit their exposure to a relative "reasonable compensation" pittance like $200. That trade-off would be a no-brainer for a medium sized corporation. Ya think? Not to mention that a bunch of people who bought the print start seeing it for sale at Wal-mart and start pounding on your door with torches, clubs and lawyers because their right to exclusivity has been breached. Happened even to Kinkaid when he over-sold his editions.
IMO, not much that's of REAL benefit to common folks like artists ever gets done by government entities. Read the list of claimants one either side and you see only $$ talking. I need to let all this and more sink in and might feel differently but it seems to me at first blush that under all the roundabout justification lies a bill that at its core seeks to limit the liability of entities that infringe the copyright of someone - especially if that someone hasn't got the wherewithal or the means to hire bigtime legal muscle, though they do mention legal fees incurred by the copyright holder. There would have to be a good definition of what constitutes a "good faith" search and the part about "making themselves available" and participating in the copyright system goes to the point made in the article about registering for a fee.
I'm going to read that link and have a ponder and reply after that, I just want to post this link to a News Item on dA, where the author of that article has had a response from James Boyle, co creator of the Bill. The LJ entry which Boyle links to is also worth a read.
OK: this is my interpretation of the parts you've quoted, accompanied by the usual IANAL disclaimer ;)
"Statutory Damages" is only one 'class' of damages; the other is "actual damages" See Civil Remedies .
As the existing copyright legislation stands at present, I believe that 'statutory damages' and Attorney's fees will only be awarded if the work has been registered. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation.
I'd been looking at US Copyright Law before this whole Orphan Works issue raised its head and it seems to me that the US Govt has already got copyright holders well stitched up!
Registration is not compulsory, but lack of registration would almost certainly have the effect of reducing any claim if the matter came to court and - if the work is of US origin - you would have to have previously registered the piece if the matter was to go to court and if you wanted/needed to be able to claim your Attorney's fees
If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
Even more restrictively, the Copyright Office website refers to Mandatory Deposit Although a copyright registration is not required, the Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. See the definition "publication". In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection
As a UK citizen who doesn't sell her work, I can breathe a sigh of relief that I wouldn't - in the extremely unlikely event I ever needed to! - have to jump through any of these hoops but the MD requirement came as quite a surprise to me: I've never seen a reference to that before when people have been discussing copyright issues. I may, of course, have misinterpreted it although I know of others who agree with me.
So, in the situation you describe in 1), I would say that you would theoretically have a valid claim for damages but not be able to claim your Attorney's fees (assuming you hadn't registered the work) and could even find yourself being fined as a result of it coming to light you hadn't complied with the MD requirement.
Cynically (who, me? ;)) I would suggest that the reason dA & other art sites don't make the requirement for MD public is - while possibly but unlikely to be out of ignorance - more likely out of the knowledge that it would reduce the number of people selling prints through their site. And we all know who makes the most profit on those - it sure ain't the artist.
Whoa - This MD stuff is news to me. Gonna have to look at it but I reckon you probably have it right. I went to the e-Copyright page once and it SEEMED like it was going to cost $75 a pop to actually register a work. No-Can_Do sez me!
"...And we all know who makes the most profit on those - it sure ain't the artist..."
LOL - ya got that right! Heck, the amount the artist gets doesn't even pay for the electricity it costs me to run my render farm to render up a decent print sized file! :-)
c-ya!
Rick
Post a Comment
<< Home