As aspiring artists and designers in today's world, we have to learn to contend with numerous aspects in regards to our personal and professional lives. Thus far, my main concerns have always mostly centered about meeting deadlines, process documentation, craft and the like.
But in recent months, I've been following a very disconcerting development in the creative works copyrights field that one of my former speech and debate team members directed me towards.
It's called the
Orphan Works Legislation, a proposed bill which seeks to change current US copyright law; something which has sparked intense debate both stateside and internationally.
What is the Orphan Works Legislation?Currently under under US copyright laws, you do not have to resister your creative works in order to own the copyright. (Sometimes referred to as "passive copyright.") But essentially, you own something as soon as you create it. There are international laws that also support this. Currently, within these copyright laws, we are allowed to sue for damages should those copyrights be violated, in addition to fair value.
However, the Orphan Works Legislation would drastically change that. Potentially under the bill, NOTHING you create is protected, unless you register it with a commercial registry. The real kicker in this? None of these registries artists currently exist. Additionally, the bill states that the registries would be run by private sectors, thus raising the potential for there to be numerous registries, rather than a single official channel.
Now, questions many are probably asking now:
who and why?
Who was this legislation written by?Orphan Works was started by 8 law students and a law professor named
Peter Jaszi at American University, who wants to overthrow the idea of authorship, because "individuals are small and creations by them should be owned by the public" because they're influenced by the public.
Why is this legislation being proposed?According to the bill, Orphan Works is here "to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide for limitation of remedies in cases which the copyright owner cannot be located, and for other purposes." To free up "old works." (In cases where artists have died, abandoned the work, etc.)
While the ends that they want to achieve might be justified, the means in which they seek to accomplish this are definitely not.
But by reading the bill, you can easily deduce another reason for this; and this brings out the fatal pessimist in me. Simply put: it's all about
money.Let's say in a hypothetical situation that this bill was indeed passed, and all artists would have to register all works they made in order to have copyright protection. In the US alone, there are millions of artworks being made each year. If the creators of those works want copyright protection, they'll have to pay a registration fee. You can imagine the enormous profit that could be potentially made from this.
There's also a
recent radio interview with Brad Holland of the Illustrator's Partnership, discussing numerous issues this legislation could have.
In the end, it is artists like us who will be hurt like this. It's not fair, and no matter how you wish to sugarcoat it, it's nothing more than petty theft. It's a slap in the face for artists and designers alike. It does away with an artist's right to exclusive right to copyright - it reduces the work we make to public domain, up for fair use.
Orphan Works Further Links:Orphan Works @ BlogspotOW at ALAASMPUS Copyright OfficeHouse of Representatives Hearing
