Replies: 102 Comments
on Wednesday, August 13th, walt said
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP
The webcast of the Orphan Works Roundtable is now available here:
videos.cmitnyc.com/asip.html
"A Seminal Event"
"Unprecedented"
"The most effective advocacy in opposition to these bills I have seen."
"The Gathering of the Tribes"
These are some of the comments we've received from last Friday's Roundtable on Orphan Works, conducted by the Small Business Administration. Artists, photographers, songwriters, musicians, writers and spokesmen for collateral businesses all made this the best attended Roundtable the SBA has conducted.
As one member of the audience said, perhaps the only good thing about the Orphan Works bill is that it's brought so many creative communities together. The full house is the best measure of the concern creators have about this effort to undermine copyright law.
Here are some of the key points to emerge from the discussion:
The high cost of digitizing and registering work with commercial databases will make compliance impossible for most artists.
This will cause billions of unregistered works to fall into the public domain.
To make money, commercial databases will have to promote and facilitate infringement.
Infringer-friendly databases will compete with artists for clients.
As one panelist summed up: this bill "will socialize costs and privatize profits."
If you missed this important industry event, please watch it now at your convenience.
Please forward this message and link to every copyright holder you know.
You may review the agenda, the panelists and their biographies on the Illustrators' Partnership blog:
ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/08/80808-sba-hearing-on-orphan-works.html
on Thursday, July 31st, walt said
The bill has been put on hold thanks to ohone calls and emails...
on Wednesday, July 30th, walt said
ORPHAN WORKS BILL HOTLINED
THIS MEANS IT COULD PASS THE SENATE THIS AFTERNOON
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS IMMEDIATELY
ASK THEM TO PUT A "HOLD" ON THE BILL:
S2913 THE SHAWN BENTLEY ORPHAN WORKS ACT OF 2008
TELL THEM YOU OPPOSE THIS CONTROVERSIAL BILL
ASK THEM NOT TO PASS IT WITHOUT A FULL AND OPEN HEARING
WARN THEM THAT IT WILL DO GREAT HARM TO SMALL BUSINESSES
To find your Senators' phone numbers go to the Illustrators' Partnership Orphan Works site:
capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
At the top of the home page, click on "Elected Officials"
You'll find a US map:
Click on your state,
Then "Senators,"
Then click on each Senator's name,
Then click "Contact."
This will give you their phone numbers.
Please phone and fax them both.
Please call everyone you know who is an interested party and tell them we must act immediately to prevent passage of this bill.
on Monday, July 28th, walt said
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP
More Groups Condemn Controversial Orphan Works Bills
JULY 15, 2008 The California Copyright Conference and the Association of Independent Music Publishers have announced a joint position paper condemning the Orphan Works bills. In a five page paper they conclude: "The Orphan Works bills are deeply flawed and would have serious unintended but far reaching adverse effects."
"The final report is the result of a collaborative effort from a panel of distinguished experts who bring together differing viewpoints on copyright matters," says Cheryl Hodgson, current President of the California Copyright Conference (CCC). "The unanimity of the voice with which they have chosen to speak underscores the reason all copyright owners should read and understand the issues."
These bills "threaten to erode fundamental protections for copyright authors and owners," the paper begins. The bills will "encourage copyright infringement and objectionable uses across the full spectrum of protected artistic works":
In the process of "helping" appropriate other people's personal property, the legislation promotes the incremental dismantling of one of our nation's primary economic growth engines. The Internet, computer and consumer electronics industries utilize vast amounts of copyrighted works to attract customers to their websites, from which they derive enormous profits from advertising and subscription fees, These industries have long sought to eliminate copyright protections and to avoid paying for the content they use to lure consumers.
"The Orphan Works bill has the potential to erode the protection that copyright owners have fought for over many years," says attorney Steve Winogradsky, past President of both the California Copyright Conference and the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP). "It puts the burden on the copyright owner to find the offending parties and either negotiate with them without the remedies currently available to bring about reasonable compensation or bring costly litigation. In short, for copyright owners, the Orphan Works bill is a disaster."
View Report www.brandaideblog.com/pdf/Position_Statement.pdf
More than 60 groups representing illustrators, photographers, musicians and writers now openly oppose this controversial revision of US copyright law. Over 112,000 letters have been sent to lawmakers from the Illustrators Partnership advocacy site.
Don't Let Congress Orphan Your Work
Write Congress and fight for your copyrights
Tell the House Judiciary Committee members not to support this controversial revision of copyright law. Send this e-mail message now:
capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/alert/?alertid=11618481
To follow current Orphan Works developments, go to the Illustrators Partnership Orphan Works blog:
ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/
on Saturday, July 26th, Toggle said
Huh?
Im the king. I'm the king.
I'm back on top.
on Saturday, July 26th, off switch said
NO TOGGLE - the Switch wins - it can stop. A toggle is only a scratched record - repeating the same simpled hiccup - over and over - it's destiny... The switch simply turns off while a toggle is something begging to be stopped - for else - it can only toggle, toggle, toggle...
on Thursday, July 24th, Toggle said
I win I win I win
Hooray yippie
I'm the king I beat the king
I'm the king of the comments I'm on top
I got the last word
I win I win I win I win I win
whoop whoop yip yip hooray!
.
.
Paul Cezanne, "It is the problem of the child to become an artist, it is the problem of the artist to remain a child."
...and guess what? The statement is fitting for I never wanted to be an artist, and still don't. I was chosen to be an artist and I am a damn good one!
And copyrights suck. They do nothing for fine artists (painting and sculpture).
bluuuuuzzzep!
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
Teachers hate being challenged.
bye walt
on Wednesday, July 23rd, TOGGLE said
1. Please paraphrase my idea.
2. What is it you are disagreeing with?
3. If it's so childish, why do you participate?
4. Once again, please recite your reason for having to have the last word and I'll do the same.
.
.
.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, walt said
I do accept others ideas. Just not yours in this circumstance. Its ok for you to disagree with me but not ok if I disagree with you. It's really quite childish.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
Please explain your reason for having to have the last word and I'll explain mine.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
You've written walt, that as a child you always wanted to be an artist. Why did you become a teacher instead?
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
Why is it impossible for you to accept ideas of others, walt?
on Wednesday, July 23rd, toggle said
Why must you always be right, walt?
on Wednesday, July 23rd, toggle said
Go make a large blue stainless steel cat like Koon's dog. You will lose the copyright case. Why are you such a pompous arrogant blow hard, walt?
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
Doesn't matter. None of it. It's just all about the money. Even you walty. Spend that teacher salary on a lwayer someday to protect your copy rights. lawyers money money lawyers copy rights lawyers money money lawyers money copyrights money momey money
Fine artist - 3
Teachers +3
lawyers +10
fine artists don't give a shit about coyrights
we just want to eat
buy the painting buy the sculpture
that's it
copyrights are for teachers, illutrators, photographers, and lawyers
so eat this
on Wednesday, July 23rd, walt said
I didn't write the law. But since it affects what I do at many levels I've made sure I have a fair understanding of it. If I copied Koons specific piece he could sue. But if I began doing work that referenced his style, his conceptual thinking, his colors, his technique without it looking like any piece he's actually done he might try to sue but probably wouldn't win.
On the other hand, he sorta agrees with you in some ways about copyrights. He has been sued over copying others works. He tried to argue that since he was commenting on art and society that it fell into the fair use category. Something to do with multiple reproductions of little 3-D ceramic dogs. I think he lost big time if I recall correctly.
There are many places you can look up the law to see what it says. The Graphic Artist Guild has a lot of information available although you might have to join to get most of it. But you can go to the U.S. Gov. Copyright web site and read the law for yourself. I have. And while I'm not a lawyer and would not attempt to represent anyone legally on matters of this sort it is valuable to have some education so you know where you stand.
I sat in a number of seminars, talked to lawyers about both copyright and trademark registration, registered a few things that were commercially published in part so they would be included in the Library of Congress archive. I've written my own contracts, I've read, researched and re-read contracts that I've signed. I don't think a lawyer would charge you for an introductory consultation. Well, you could find one who wouldn't anyway. I did at one point because we had a logo designed for a children's book library once and I needed background to make a good decision about whether to do it formally or allow it to stand as a common law kind of arrangement. Of course an unregistered trademark can be taken by someone else unless you want to fight it.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
Someone spends 8 years developing a style and someone else comes in and copies that style, and you think that's ok walty? This is what is clearly wrong with academia.
Academia promotes theft of idea over originality.
.
No wonder they threw me out. I have original ideas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
HERE IS PROOF FROM THE HORSES MOUTH THAT COPYRIGHTS ARE WORTHLESS...
"""did he copy actual pieces or your general style? It makes a difference."""
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
you having a good laugh cause you pissed me off?
on Wednesday, July 23rd, t said
Can't copyright style, huh. You got an answer for everything walty. Can I come shine your shoes for a dime and call you god? Or do you leave that for your students.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
I say we field this to a copyright attorney for a REAL answer.
"did he copy actual pieces or your general style? It makes a difference."
Come on walty, you got bucks, yo're a teacher
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
""""did he copy actual pieces or your general style? It makes a difference. """" walt said
Yes, and this differance would all be rectified according to who had the biggest and most expensive lawyers.
You really just don't know walty. Maybe if you partook of the real world out their making an honest living MAKING art instead of talking about it, then you would know.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
Go see how many stainless steel cats like koon's dogs you could make without being sued! ass
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
See? That's just the kind of pampered, padded, priveledged, and POMPOUS response one would expect from someone who makes their living talking about aty instead of making it. ass
on Wednesday, July 23rd, walt said
did he copy actual pieces or your general style? It makes a difference.
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
My last comment was a bit weak for I had spent another long hard hot day in the studio trying to make ends meet in a sagging economy. You see, no one gives me money for talking. That's what walt does. He gets money for talking about art, not making it, just talking because he is an art school teacher. That's great. Many think he is an expert on art because he is an art school teacher. Us 2% of artists who actually make a living on their art are just a bunch of dummies. We are so dumb that we don't know what copyrights are. We need teachers who stand behind the scenes talking, to tell us what is going on.
Well, this 2 percentor thinks copyrights are toilet paper. The only ones who benefit from copyrights are those who can afford attorneys. Had 3 colleges not thrown me out, maybe I would be a talker instead of a doer, also. But I ain't. So I don't have the easy money. I work for it! And in this economy, I'm a workin' it baby! So when some padded, pampered, and privledged teacher tries to guide the masses with propaganda, my rebellion kicks in and says what a crock of crap. I've spent a long time fighting to stay alive and fighting to produce art that is beyond the stymied strangleholds of academic garbage. I am purposely being kept poor in this town. This town has academic powerhouses that squash the 2%er's. I did not choose to move here and I can not afford to leave. Punish me oh teacher. Punish me for being creative. Punish me o town of mine. Punish me for being different. Punish my talent. Don't let me shine for I'd be taking light from the teachers of those mighty academic powerhouses.
Copyrights ha! Eat me. They have nothing to do with art, just garbage. Nothing but fat cat garbage. You wanna talk copyrights? I had a huge studio in a large building long ago. There were lots of other studios in the building also. The building was open most of the time. People could walk through. Well a blue chip artist set up a temporary studio in my town and copied my work. No one believes me because I'm an undiscovered artist. Everyone thinks the guy came up with something new. Now, you tell me uncle walty, which pile of dung should I look for those copyrights? Huh? Would copyrights be under the cat dung, the dog dung, or maybe up the rats ass.
COPYRIGHTS ARE CRAP! THEY ONLY PROTECT THE RICH!
on Wednesday, July 23rd, Toggle said
walty, go back and look at all the comments. It is clear how you evade challenges by whining. I have laid out numerous points against copyright law just to have you dance around in diapers. This all comes down to getting the last word. Yours, the arrogant know it all teacher, and mine the rebel genius artist. Sure it is clear that I detest academia. Hell, I was thrown out of a university after 3 years, a top ranked art school after 1 year, and Yale 3 days before I got there.
The teacher is never wrong. Bow down to the teacher. I lived with a teacher once. I know the ego that wraps and wraps and wraps around them. Go back and look at how you look down at all the comments directed to you. You can't discuss a thing. You just whine and whine and whine and whine.
COPYRIGHTS SUCK
THEY ARE USELESS TO THE COMMON MAN
COPYRIGHTS ARE USELESS TO THE STRUGGLING ARTIST
COPYRIGHTS ARE USELESS TO THE POOR ARTIST
COPYRIGHTS ARE FOR FAT CATS
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAW SO ARTISTS CAN COPY FRICKEN EVERYTHING THEY FRICKEN WANT
I display a message walt. You display only ego.
on Tuesday, July 22nd, walt said
You're welcome to your opinions Toggle. They are about all you've added to this discussion. I enjoyed showing you how silly, illogical and hypocritical they often are. Personally I think you're full of yourself. But you're welcome to those opinions all the same. On the other hand you've maligned higher education in general, my career, certain aspects of my profession, me personally and other people on this site. You've jumped to conclusions about information you knew nothing about, people you knew nothing about. But its a free country and your speech has not been curtailed on this blog. In fact aa has allowed you to speak your mind quite clearly. I don't see what you have to complain about. Oh yeah...only real artists get to whine about their circumstances. Sorry. Didn't mean to step on your toes. Somebody lay those egg shells back out on the floor. I'll try not to break any this time while in your presence.
I apologize to anyone still reading this thread.
on Tuesday, July 22nd, toggle said
I'm also sick and tired of you whining like a little baby every time you are challenged.
on Tuesday, July 22nd, walt said
I like that one. "Shut up!" So much for freedom of speech. Look...I'm the one invited to write the blog here. You had your chance to write one and say anything you like. And I'm not telling you to shut up. But you can't have it both ways.
Many fine artists access their copyrights all the time just like illustrators and photographers, writers, film makers, playwrites, poets, musicians, toy makers... But they aren't artists in your world are they? You do narrow it all down so it fits just right don't you?
By the way... I'm not a martyr. I'm doing just fine. You?
on Tuesday, July 22nd, Toggle said
Lets just go ahead and make this about you, walt. Forget about the copyrights. Since that's what you think is bugging me, lets go for it!
I'm sick and tired of how schools push teachers and students as artists shearly for the sake of increasing enrollment. I'm sick and tired of teachers calling themselves artists when their food comes from a paycheck and not by the art they make. I'm sick and tired of teachers getting all the shows because they ride on the coattails of the schools. I'm sick and tired of how the public is mislead about what an artist is by the monstrous marketing arms of schools. I'm sick and tired of how stupid college degrees on a resume gets people commisions over the quality of work. I'm sick and tired of teachers preaching crap that does nor apply to them or who haven't done the crap. I'm sick and tired of the arrogance. I'm sick and tired of the know it all attitude. I'm sick and tired of the inbreeding of schools where the school hires foormer students. I'm sick and tired of cities trying to retain graduates which furthers inbreeding. I'm sick and tired of the public buying bad inbred art 'cause it gets pushed by the mighty schools. I'm sick and tired of teachers trying to say what it's like as an artist when they paint 2 hours every other Saturday. I'm sick and tired about how schools do not tell the public what an artist really is. I'm sick and tired of how being a teacher is supposed to make your art good and make you an authority on art. Being an artist in this town with a monster university and an art school is like being an ant under plywood under steel under a car under a building under a whale under an elepahnt. Get it? Squashed! Inbred town bullcrap
on Tuesday, July 22nd, Toggle said
Wrong again oh lecturn occupier. I simply am exposing the fact that the wrong people are making the wrong decisions about copyright law. The artists always get screwed. That's what I said 45 comments ago. You can't be both. You can't be on both sides of the fence. You can't lecture like a teacher and cry like an artist. Truth is, all your opinions walt, are from behind the lecturn, not in front of it. If a politician was also a card shark, would you trust him?
Playing the martyr won't work walt. This has nothing to do with you personally. It has everything to do with a teacher trying to formulate public opinion on something that just does not have any bearing on them. Copyrights hurt fine artists for the benefit of photographers and illustrators. Walt, you make your living teaching, not by taking photographs, or doing illustrations, or making art. So shut up!
HELP FINE ART LIVE - ABOLISH COPYRIGTS
SAVE A FINE ARTIST - KILL COPYRIGHTS
THOSE THAT CAN DO. THOSE THAT CAN'T, TEACH
BUY ART - FEED THE ARTIST
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW
on Tuesday, July 22nd, walt said
There it is Toggle. Really that's what you've wanted to say all along. It's all you ever really want to say. That I am not an artist and that you are the one who knows all.
on Tuesday, July 22nd, Toggle said
Besides, isn't commercial art just art that people want and art that people buy, versus that stuff that teachers make that sits in closets?
on Tuesday, July 22nd, Toggle said
Sad part is walt, is that you don't have a clue. One cannot teach or learn what it takes or what it is, to be an artist. You don't know walt. You will never know, walt.
Placing your own life in the art one makes is the ultimate donation to the soul. Having the art you make put the food in your mouth, is what God intended when He made artists! Everything you make is everything you are.
Don't try to twist words, walt. We all know the differance between fine art and commercial art.
ARTISTS SHOULD DECIDE ART LAW
not teachers
not hobbyists
not lawmakers
not politicians
FREEDOM MEANS NO TO COPYRIGHTS
REPLACE COPYRIGHTS WITH ORIGINAL SALE
Sell it, then let it go!
FREE IMAGES FOR ALL
BAN COPYRIGHTS
on Tuesday, July 22nd, walt said
Does that mean that artists like Christo, Rauschenberg, Matisse, Diebenkorn, and so many others who accessed copyrights to sell prints and reproductions should be taken off the list of 'artists'? Do we take those who taught off as well like Hoffman, Diebenkorn, Balthus, Ann Hamilton, Kandinsky, Klee, Albers, Then there is Da Vinci who sold very little work, didn't teach but was simply 'kept' because of his talents... should we write a revisionist history doing away with all those who didn't make a living from their art?
I have a better idea...why not call all those artists who make a living from their work 'commercial artists' and finally truly level the playing field.
Anyway...thanks for keeping this blog alive Toggle. It's been real.
on Tuesday, July 22nd, Toggle said
Sailing is right. You are still sailing, sailing a bunch of gobblety-gook words through that thick air of who gives a rats butt. I think the simple reason you can't grasp the "original sale" concept is because your existence is determined by an institutional paycheck and not from the sale of your work. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF NON-ARTISTS DETERMINING ARTIST LAW !!!!
"Original Sale"; term used for replacement of copyright law. You sell it once, the original sale, then walk away from it. Let everyone everywhere have it to their hearsts copying content.
Along with "Original Sale", comes the long overdue re-definition of "ARTIST". Only those who make their livings solely on the sale of their work, is an artist. This rattles many for so many only THINK they are artists!
Come on...lets shake rattle and roll
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW
Time to re-define the artist!
on Monday, July 21st, walt said
I decided to take a break from this exciting thread and go sailing for a few days. So I'm picking up some of the discussion a little late.
If a work is not handled properly, if there is no market for the work, or if the market cannot be identified and pursued it can in fact never come to the light of day or only much later in time. This delay in publication is one reason for the longer time element giving the rightholder a longer time to figure out if and where the market is or to generate a market that may not seem to exist. But in most instances if a work doesn't see the light of day it is not because of copyright law so often but because the artist either didn't know how to market it or the work doesn't have an audience. IF there is demand for the work there will be someone who wants to publish it, or exhibit or purchase it. However the artist(or rights holder) may not want it to see the light of day. That also is their right under the law as I understand it.
That some historical works are being kept from the public is one of the arguments for this current attempt to change the law. In some cases, I believe there is an example using a photo recently found of Anne Frank, a historical photo might have a fuzzy past that no one can identify. Their argument is that out of fear of legalities they refrain from publishing the work. Although there is nothing to keep them from talking about the work and its impact and there is probably several kinds of fair use situations where said photo could be published...but fair use is a legal gray zone and hard to define. And anyone can sue even if they eventually lose. The simple solution is to write specific kinds of exceptions to current law that would clarify and allow fair use. Hitsorians, documentary film makers, librarians all cite problems with current law which would be solved with such a solution instead of the orphan works bill which is under consideration now.
AS to how long ago copyrights were established in this country, they've been around long enough for Thomas Jefferson to have a hand in their existance. Ben Franklin had several patents and copyrights (he was a publisher as well)Copyrights go back as far as early Venice in the 12th century I believe. But that law was short lived as most Western civilization retained the rights to the king or ruler who doled them out to either the highest bidder for publication or gave them as bribes. Some things were considered to be extremely useful to the populace and were ordered to be published often by several sources at once. Since the artist was a subject (owned essentially by the King) then their output was also considered the King's to do with as the ruler saw fit. The constitution doesn't define copyright law. It gives Congress the right to define and regulate. What it does say though has to do with the purpose of intellectual property and encouragement of innovation. It redifines intelectual property as belonging first to the individul who fixes the idea to something concrete for a period of time after which it returns to the people for the good of the country. This period of time also helps guarantee that there is someone who has a stake in overseeing that the work gets published in some form. This takes the load off of the government and puts the responsibility on the author or artist until such time that the idea finds an audience and a certain momentum has been built. They seemed to understand that the public would not always go looking for ideas other than the ones they've come to be familiar with.
I believe it was a 15 year term in the beginning before the material fell into the public domain. That was considered long enough for a writer or artist to garner a profit from the work before it was released to the public to use. That term has been lengthened a number of times. The process was made much less formal in the 1970's to fit better into international agreements with other countries.
on Sunday, July 20th, Toggle said
whoops wrong name...
on Sunday, July 20th, bmm said
so basically what you're saying bmm is that my message of freeing the land of unjust laws is a waste of time? In your eyes maybe. Wait a minute, do you even live in the U.S.? Are you one of those commie teachers like walt? ha ha
BAN COPYRIGHT LAW FOR A FREE SOCIETY
FREE THE IMAGES FOR A FREE SOCIETY
STOP THE BLACKMAIL - BAN COPYRIGHTS
COPYRIGHTS ARE LEGAL EXTORTION
FAT CAT COPYRIGHT LAW KILLS THE COMMON MAN
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS MEANS NO COPYRIGHT LAWS
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW
on Sunday, July 20th, bmm said
and I call you at 61, /your sad day - no matter who you say - no one listens - got better things to do - with friends, loved one, neighbors, playing with their pets, or themselves - anything beats this. So your room is 90 degrees - spread out some paper and sweat on it - then use that in some kind of expression of your humanity. Make yourself useful - most of humanity can - the others are instituted, or dead. Personally - I spend a bit of time when I see someone in dire need of it - then I sometime need the time - or, I find someone in greater dire need of my time - they are, usually happy you help them... People are usually even thankful, when you are helpful to them - such is humanity - thankful for life. It is really a simple concept. Really...
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
I just had to make walty gleam that his bloggy woggy hit 60 comments.
FREE ALL IMAGES FOR A FREE SOCIETY !!
*********** BAN COPYRIGHTS **************
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
Well thank you bmm! It's been in the 90's here with 100's in the studio. The studio office is airconditioned. Now it all comes together, eh? That's right, I have been getting lazy in the cool air and pushing some fundamental principles that wil shake up, stir around, and promote a heady gust of wind for the sails of art. Yes, I will always say, LET'S GET RID OF COPYRIGHT LAW !!!
I discovered a new energy ten years ago. Just like when Ben Franklin discovered electricity, there are no toasters or light bulbs that work with it. In fact, there isn't any test equipment for it yet. No one believes the work of an independent until it's smack dab in front of their stupid faces.
So now I also have to develope this energy on my own. And if I'm going to develope it, I'm not looking to replace some light bulbs. I'm looking to replace transportation as we know it.
Oh, is that too much of a focus?
on Friday, July 18th, bmm said
Toggle, you should write a book - it might have no point, other than what you imagine it might - but you really do have a great ability to fill space. That is a great trait for a newspaper writer - who takes a few facts and makes a 3 page article of them. You really should focus your talents and find a paying position to use your energy. You are just wasting you potential here. Start a movement, be an advocate, help people less fortunate than yourself. Volunteer in your town for the needy, or find an organization who can use your skills. You could be a Special Interest Lobbyist, or a public defender. Whatever, you don't really sound like an artist - cause you spend too much time here when you could be doing your art. You hide your identity - but if you would take any of the (Above) suggestions to heart - you might become famous! -BMM
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
late afternoon... (will this be the last word?)
The orphan works we should concern ourselves with more are the ones we haven't sold yet when we die.
.
.
FREE THE IMAGES FOR A FREE SOCIETY
-----NO MORE COPYRIGHTS----------
>>>>>>> ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW ^^^^^^^^
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
I don't need money. My landlord needs money. Some of my work is selling for more in the secondary market. Should I be pissed about that as well? Once again your logic is skewed by ego. You only think I'd be pissed about you making money selling prints of my work because you yourself can not fathom it. I truthfully believe that abolishing all copyrights and copyright law would greatly benefit humanity. I would love to have my work copied so freely that pictures would land in the hands of migrant farm workers in Afica.
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
You are absolutely wrong about trademarks. I suggest you speak with an attorney instead of acting like one.
A copyright can bury a photograph and keep it from being seen due to copyright enforcement, thereby violating the publics rights to distribute that photograph. Copyright law was written AFTER, WAY AFTER, the constitution was written.
The reason you argue so much and won't recognize anothers ideas is because you are a bullheaded, arrogant, know it all teacher who thinks he knows absolutely fricken everything in the whole fricken world! Grow up!
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
Oh...
There are local, regional, national, and international trademarks.
on Friday, July 18th, walt said
If you can't figure out how to speak freely without violating someone's copyright then you aren't as smart as I thought nor as talented an artist as I thought. The same constitution that guarantees free speech also establishes copyrights and Congress's role in regulating them. They saw no reason why both couldn't exist and I don't either. You are grabbing at straws looking for some emotional rhetoric to fire yourself up your spiral.
The framers established copyrights and pattents to encourage and enhance inovation. It isn't what I say but what the constitution says that establishes that ideal. You really have no grounding in any of this do you? Your like a kite without a tail just flapping in the breeze.
You can trademark your signature but not your signature style. That's what a trademark is... a specific mark used over and over again in the same way. If you change it you must re-register. If you developed some specific alloy or chemical substance that gave your work a unique quality you could pattent it. But if you use media that is common that anyone can buy in a store without subsequent developement then you cannot stop anyone else from using the same materials... even if they are using them the same way as you.If I do a knock off of your work then sign it with your signature not only am I guilty of trademark infringement but also of fraud. But if all I do is work in the same media as you even if the style is quite similar, even if I'm pastiching your style there isnt a thing you can do legally.
You can mock them for pastiching your style but you can't win a suit. You are quite good at mockery. If that's what you meant by enforcing your trademarks then ok.
And I promise you, if you found out I was making money from the sale of prints of your work you'd be breaking down my door for your cut. Don't kid a kidder. You need the money.
Let's go for 60!!!
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
ok so...
If an artist invents a medium and uses that medium for a period of time as to be a recognizable trait of their work, it can be trademarked.
If an artist employs a unique style of which becomes an identifier of that artist, and uses that unique style for an extended period of time, then that style can be trademarked.
Anything an artist does that is unique, becomes a representitive of the artist, is used for extended periods of time, and is an identifier of the artist, may be trademarked.
More precise language can be obtained from your lawyer.
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
word
(51)
on Friday, July 18th, Toggle said
The most novel of idea meets the highest adversity.
walty and his little buddy bmm failed to comment on free speech being hindered by copyright law.
Oh, and quite the compelling argument concerning trademarks vs. copyrights, not! Perhaps one of those lawyers that enforce blackmailing extorntionist copyrighting could answer some queries of yours!
FREE THE IMAGES!
FREE SPEECH = NO COPYRIGHTS!
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW!
on Friday, July 18th, bmm said
So most patience, Walt - one more Toggle-twat, and your blog achieves 50 comments - thanks to your ability to brag the hammer against the steel anvil. Peace - Brad
on Thursday, July 17th, walt said
You can't trademark a style. A logo, a slogan, a jingle, yes. But a style or medium-- no. You're so full of it. You really don't know what you're talking about.
on Thursday, July 17th, Toggle said
You are confusing copyrights with trademarks, walt. I have enforced my trademarks many times. As for you copying my work, making prints, and making much more money than my original sale to you? GO FOR IT! PLEASE! Everyone! Buy my work and copy the hell out of it! I think this is just the type of thing to shake rattle and roll this stagnant art arena.
NO MORE COPYRIGHTS!
FREE THE IMAGES! FREE ALL OF THEM!
True freedom of the press cannot survive with the binding chains of copyright law!
ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW!
on Thursday, July 17th, walt said
Suppose I bought one of your works. Photographed it and began selling the prints for more than I paid for the piece. Is that alright with you? I could make some money that way and since you've already sold me the artifact I own the idea as well. Good! done deal. I'll get on it tomorrow. I think I already have a distributor.
I've seen you in action. You think anyone who works in the same media as you is a thief. Your argument doesn't work because you don't even believe it yourself.
on Thursday, July 17th, Toggle said
Oh right, Ben was one of the few. The rest of the rebels all live in a van down by the river. Teachers are so fricken literal. Sheesh! You can be a rebel by wearing stipped socks while mowing the lawn.
Screw the orphan annie doesn't work bill. I'm the guy in class you hate or have already kicked out! Ha ha! Just say no to all copyright law! All of it sucks! Read below, I already said why.
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAW !!!
FREE THE IMAGES !!!!
SET THEM FREE !!!!!
on Thursday, July 17th, Toggle said
Ben Franklin was indeed a rebel. He was a leading figure in the rebellion that created the United States of America. Oh yeah, he discovered electricity too. He was loved, admired, and every woman wanted him. Gee walt, if that's a loser, I guess there's only one winner, God!
on Thursday, July 17th, Toggle said
Rebels buck the system. They may or may not be part of the culture. Off topic she goes....
Was Ben Franklin a rebel? He invented electricity. I don't know, maybe he was an acadamien. That's what we need though, another Ben Franklin! We need that someone that defies each and every law of physics and invents or discovers an entirely new form of energy.
This isn't off topic really. The point is that copyright law has gotton so fat and broad that the best thing to really do is start over! Get rid of it altogether! Walt, I have said over and over and over that copyright laws have no bearing on the common person. You have even agreed to that! So I can't help but to see your argument as nothing more than "I'm the teacher and I'm right, dammit!
The Nunn-Lugar bill, now that's some legislation worth reading!
ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW !!!
on Thursday, July 17th, walt said
Again your cliche is painting an over large picture which is ultimately untrue. I am not a jack of all trades...only things related to and tightly orbiting what I do. I'm a painter. Everything else is in connection to that. Everything I do depends on the knowledge and ability to express myself through my paintings.
As for the rebels saving the day? Not usually. While some wonderful inovation has come from places no one expected most innovation comes from those who are part of the culture. It just seems more likely for you that rebels do it all. But most rebels are failures. Only a few stand out and add something positive to the mix. They are truly rare and worthy of our respect.
As to Orphan works law...have you actually read it?
on Thursday, July 17th, Toggle said
Jack of all trades, master of none. 'Nuff said.
You fear change (in copyright laws). I say do away with them altogether. Common denominator? Copyright laws. What are we talking about? Copyright laws. Something you fail to see, want to see, or even listen to? The abolishment of copyright laws. Why? Read below (again).
You see walt, higher education only enforces the past. At best, it only advances that past. True innovation comes from the rebel. All your viewponts, observations, and puked back up knowledge, are nothing new. We need change. And changing copyright laws by abolishing them is a fantastic starting point to propell the arts into this new millenium.
ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAW
(and the Laws of Thermal Dynamics and that ridicules Relativity crap)
on Thursday, July 17th, walt said
I was being facetious. I'm proud of what I do...all of it, the painting, the illustration, the writing and the teaching. I make my living from the full gamut of my art. But that is precisely what bothers you isn't it?
None of this discussion really has anything to do with the orphan works issue. You probably haven't read the bill. You've shown nothing in your arguments of the possibilities pro or con. You only preach an overriding and contrarian dialectic. I said I was against the bill so you say you are for it. The bill has nothing to do with China. It has nothing to do with whether or not Illustrators are whores who sell it or Fine Artists are sluts and just give it away. Its just another excuse for you to criticize me and my career. Which is fine and you have that right. But lets be honest about it. And while we're being honest Toggle, lets be done with the anonymity thing. I thought we got passed that some time ago. Besides I'm sure by the silence that everyone knows who you are by now.
on Thursday, July 17th, Toggle said
Of all the elements in my last comment walt, you choose only to acknowledge your shortcommings. Are you the academic hack you speak of for truly, the only plague spoken of here affecting artists, is the result of the binding chains of copyright law.
Walt, you don't make your living by illustrating, taking photographs, or making fine art. You speak from a podium of observance, teaching, not by existence through essence of the soul, art. There is nothing better in the land than having ALL your time your own time! You spoke only of the negatives of being an artist for an observer does not hear the positives. The artist chooses to place the positives in their art. "Can you experiance?", Jimi Hendrix.
Someone from the field would help this discussion for academia concerns history not the making of history!
ABOLISH COPYRIGHTS WORLDWIDE
and while we are at it lets get rid of the laws of Thermal Dynamics and that stupid Relativity crap as well !!!!!!!
on Wednesday, July 16th, walt said
Get by, be pure, sell your work cheap, pay your bills make some more, whine and complain that no one appreciates you, that those artists who are making a living are cheating you, that your failure is all because of some academic hack who plagues your existance...yep I'm drunk on academic arrogance.
on Wednesday, July 16th, Toggle said
As painful as it was walt, I finally read all your tripe on your last comment. Instead of doing a line item veto as you did, I'll respond with reflection.
Extortion need not be physical. A cease and desist letter, tactics used when photographers and illustrators blackmail users of their images, is first, emotional extortion.
Illustrators and photographers extort mostly by threat, not litagation, for they are most often not fat cats (correction of walts misinterpretation).
Struggling fine artists are powerless with this law, all the old laws, and any copyright law. It's a moot point. Garbage. Dumb. Stupid. The fine artist is considered jealous because the illustrator uses extortion? I think most fine artists pride themselves in dying with a pure soul. Citing a history of prostituting images
doesn't mean it was ever right!
By golly, gee, it's copyright law that makes artists want to make original work. Man the crap is deep when saying copyright law promotes progression through elimination of copying. Are you out of your mind? Or just drunk from the arrogance pronounced via the teaching profession? Oh yeah, dem folk artists all knows dee copyright laws...... sheesh!
Lets level the playing field....world wide
ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAWS !!!
on Wednesday, July 16th, Toggle said
I got as far as the early part about China before I puked and had to leave the room of this boring academic trifling hogwash.
"Facts just chase the girls around", David Byrne.
When challenged, throw lots, and lots, and lots of words at the person! Get off the lecture box and say what you have to say consisely, walt!
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHTS!
China has no copyrights and does not recognize copyrights of other countries. Lets make this game fair for everyone! Petition congress to abolish all copyrights!
Only fat cats with deep pockets truly profit from copyrights for it takes litagation by attorneys to enforce them. Therefore copyrights are useless for the average artist and citizen of the U.S.
Illustrators and photographers fear losing copyright law for they profit highly via royalties and multiple sales of the same image. These people use intimidation and threats of lawsuits to extract payments from users of their images.
Photographers and illustrators flood the market with their cheap images for they make up for the low initial prices via licensing, royalties, and multiple sales of the same image. The fine artist suffers and suffers bad. The fine artist can only sell his image once and must therefore ask a much higher price than the low prices of the extortionist photographers and illustrators.
People in the U.S. are just about the only people in the world that can be sued for pasting and copying images off the internet. It is most certainly, a time for change!
The only fair thing to do, in so many ways, is to abolish the archaic laws of copyright.
Freeedom and fairness.
Everyone can sell their image. After that first sale, if it hits the public, then that image is free for all! Copyrights were before the internet. No copyrights is during the internet!
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGT LAW !!!
on Wednesday, July 16th, walt said
Toggle, your facts are a little skewed. Basically you’d send us back to the 12th century where only the extremely wealthy could afford to traffic in intellectual property. Today that would be corps like Google, Getty and Corbis. If copyright law is restructured along the lines of the Orphan works bill every major publisher, movie studio and internet group will make money from your work (if they find it useful) and all you’ll get is exposure. People die of exposure. [Your comments are in brackets.]
[China has no copyrights and does not recognize copyrights of other countries. Lets make this game fair for everyone! Petition congress to abolish all copyrights!]
Chinese artists have a cultural tradition of copying their Masters. But except for a relatively recent explosion in contemporary visual arts inspired by the west (the artists know to censor themselves carefully not to cross the government) there has been little innovation over the centuries in their arts unlike in the U.S and Europe. The most recent explosion in contemporary visual arts in China has more to do with the new relaxation towards Capitalist motivation than it does with the internet. You won’t find most of the more successful artists from China on the internet. (in part because it is heavily monitored and censored!) And at the moment they don’t really need it. The Chinese wealthy are buying art locally. And with the exception of a few Chinese artists who might see your work or my work and take the principle and style (neither of which is copyrightable-- (more on this concept later) neither you nor I will have much trouble with China personally. However our huge wealthy corporations do have problems with rip offs over there, and those are often even shipped back here and sold as bootlegged products…Nike has more problems with China than either of us ever will. A friend and I are currently exploring a project in China. So I’ve been getting an inside view of what is happening there.
You’ve painted the subject with a broad brush that ignores too many details. Therefore you’ve drawn some false conclusions. Lets see how China deals with copyrights once they have a strong, vocal group of artists who see the value of protecting their intellectual property as capitalism and democratic thinking continue to seep deeper into their culture. And remember that style and ideas are not copyrightable…only the physical image created with them in mind. Near knockoffs actually contribute to, broaden and extend the advance of ideas, whereas literal knockoffs rarely do.
[Only fat cats with deep pockets truly profit from copyrights for it takes litagation by attorneys to enforce them. Therefore copyrights are useless for the average artist and citizen of the U.S.]
This statement is in fact partly true. Some litigation is needed. Usually it is when a huge corporation infringes on a small artist or another corporate property. In fact most suits are between large corps. We hear about the David and Goliath suits because they are powerful stories. You know, “Little guy takes on the big Corporation!” But most suits in this country are between corporations not individuals. And most average artists have little use for copyrights. This is also true. But that is because they are not making something that is either commercially viable enough to be of value, have not got the education on copyrights they need to pursue them or the work simply isn’t very good. But if copyrights are abolished as you preach then ONLY the rich will be able to really profit from the use of other peoples labor and intelligence because they have the distribution system.
As it is now small artists do have legal protection. Most of the time a simple cease and desist letter will solve most problems. The harder part is policing ones rights. Since the laws were originally set up primarily with authors in mind who only write at most a hundred or so books with some essays, articles and other short writings in a lifetime it is easier to police an author’s more public career than it is thousands of works of art many of which may be bought and sold for private viewing. The internet has made it even more problematic for artists. But it is not insurmountable.
[Illustrators and photographers fear losing copyright law for they profit highly via royalties and multiple sales of the same image. These people use intimidation and threats of lawsuits to extract payments from users of their images.]
Yes, well Illustration is primarily designed to be reprinted. Therefore the primary sale is for one time use or usage in general. The original often sits in a flat file only to come out for exhibition purposes and sold later once there is some history behind the work. Often they are sold in estate sales after the artist is dead by their heirs. Usually to pay off back taxes. It is an age old tradition. Famous artists and not so famous artists used to sell the right to publish their images to engravers and printers as far back as Titian and before.
Illustrators are not however fat cats for the most part. This is what you really don’t understand. They make a reasonable living at best with only a few who become as famous as famous fine artists. But contrary to opinion ,whether a famous painter or illustrator, most don’t make that much money. They get to run with the rich and famous cause they are curiosities and add to the glory of the rich and famous. And many more fine artists have accessed the world of illustration and design than most of our generation believed. Rauschenberg was a good example. Not only did he paint and do his constructions, but he designed and illustrated all sorts of posters for various projects, illustrated a limited edition of Dante’s Inferno and probably other books that I’m not aware of. Fine artists have always been jealous of those among their ranks who could operate as illustrators. It takes lots of discipline and intelligence to make a good illustration that also crosses over into the world of fine art. Most hack commercial illustrators don’t pose any competition to a good fine artist. The operative word here is ‘good’.
Photography is by its nature a reproduction. Control of the original neg or pos is by the very nature of the process an intelligent use of the media. Now with the mixed media qualities of digital photography/art control is still a primary aspect of making a living from the work…the work is the intellectual concept and emotional aspect which gets reproduced in one form or another. Silly argument.
As for intimidation and threats of lawsuits it is primarily large corporations who use these tactics. A simple cease and desist letter is more often the tool sent to an infringer. it’s sort of like sending a letter to the guy who stole your lawn mower saying if you don’t return it I’m calling the police. Don’t be silly Toggle. This is the most ridiculous part of your entire argument.
[Photographers and illustrators flood the market with their cheap images for they make up for the low initial prices via licensing, royalties, and multiple sales of the same image. The fine artist suffers and suffers bad. The fine artist can only sell his image once and must therefore ask a much higher price than the low prices of the extortionist photographers and illustrators.]
This is a blatantly false statement and misunderstands the definition of extortion. Extortion is a coercive threat of violence against an innocent person to gain money. A copyright infringer is not innocent. Therefore threat of lawsuit is not coercive but self protection. Any artist can access copyright law as it now stands and use it to their financial advantage as long as they are reproducing their own original work.
[People in the U.S. are just about the only people in the world that can be sued for pasting and copying images off the internet.]
This is also an untruth. First off most usage of images off the internet are not commercial. Your teenage daughter who downloads a picture of her favorite boy band will most likely never reproduce that image as a way to make money. On the other hand if she begins to make money blogging about her favorite boy band , selling advertising on her site, printing T-shirts, coffee mugs and buttons and perhaps CD mixes of their copyrighted music with their copyrighted photo then the band will eventually find out and perhaps require her to pay their fees for use of their image depending on whether they see her actions as competitive or free marketing. And this will happen in the States, Canada, Europe, South America, Australia, parts of Africa and various parts of the east and middle east…any of the stable countries with copyright laws. However policing small time infringers is nearly impossible anywhere in the world. And in some places it has definitely become a cottage industry. For the most part everyone looks the other way. In some sense it is a kind of charity until it becomes a real competitive threat.
There is an original reason for copyright law that superscedes even the internet. Originality. In the past cultures copied themselves to the extent that much of their art and ideas were little more than copies of what came before them. Part of the reason the West and especially the U.S. moved so far ahead of the rest of the world was because we had a diverse culture and ideas (in their physical form at least) had to move away from simple repetition of previous solutions. Copyright and patent law has had a huge impact on progress. All the internet does is homogenize world culture while allowing some to find markets they would never have found before. But lets not have a messiah complex about it. It is probably not our final salvation. A useful tool like any other tool, the internet takes a good mind to use it well and careful law to make it fair.
on Tuesday, July 15th, Toggle said
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHTS!
China has no copyrights and does not recognize copyrights of other countries. Lets make this game fair for everyone! Petition congress to abolish all copyrights!
Only fat cats with deep pockets truly profit from copyrights for it takes litagation by attorneys to enforce them. Therefore copyrights are useless for the average artist and citizen of the U.S.
Illustrators and photographers fear losing copyright law for they profit highly via royalties and multiple sales of the same image. These people use intimidation and threats of lawsuits to extract payments from users of their images.
Photographers and illustrators flood the market with their cheap images for they make up for the low initial prices via licensing, royalties, and multiple sales of the same image. The fine artist suffers and suffers bad. The fine artist can only sell his image once and must therefore ask a much higher price than the low prices of the extortionist photographers and illustrators.
People in the U.S. are just about the only people in the world that can be sued for pasting and copying images off the internet. It is most certainly, a time for change!
The only fair thing to do, in so many ways, is to abolish the archaic laws of copyright.
Freeedom and fairness.
Everyone can sell their image. After that first sale, if it hits the public, then that image is free for all! Copyrights were before the internet. No copyrights is during the internet!
PETITION CONGRESS TO ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGT LAW !!!
on Tuesday, July 15th, walt said
The Orphan Works Mark-up for this week has been postponed. This gives us more time to email and fax members of the House Judiciary Committee. Write and ask them to support the amendments submitted jointly by the Illustrators' Partnership, the Artists Rights Society and the Advertising Photographers of America.
ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html
These amendments would:
Insure that the bill will only affect true orphaned work;
Insure that the bill will not violate international trade agreements;
Insure that the bill will not take effect until a market impact survey concludes it will not harm existing commercial markets.
Otherwise, ask them not to vote this bill out of committee until Congress can hold proper hearings into the harm it will do to small businesses, individual creators and ordinary citizens.
Our sample letter to House Judiciary Committee members can be deep linked here: capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/alert/?alertid=11618481
Contact information for House Judiciary Committee members can be accessed here: ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/house-judiciary-committee-contact-list.html
For Orphan Works Updates use our new Orphan Works blog: ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/
View the Orphan Works Forum Webcast from the Society of Illustrators:
www.unitedpgremote.com/society/soi_2008_05_04.html
Don't Let Congress Orphan Your Work
Write Congress and fight for your copyrights
If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com">illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Please post or forward this message in its entirety to any interested party.
on Tuesday, July 15th, Toggle said
Your futility enforces my viewpoints, walt.
PETITION FOR ABOLISHMENT OF COPYRIGHTS!
Sell it once, then let it go!
FREE IMAGES FOR ALL.
on Tuesday, July 15th, walt said
what's the point Toggle? arguing with you is like pissing into the wind.
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Avoidance isn't much of a debate tactic, walt.
on Monday, July 14th, walt said
go for it Toggle. Let it all out.
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Another point in the need to abolish copyright law.
I would love to abolish the strangle hold photographers and illustrationists have on the image market. They sell cheap because they can sell the image over and over and also get royalties. This crap hurts the fine artist who has one original item that is sold once. The fine artist has to sell high whereas the copyright protected photog and illustrators sell cheap. What would you do? Pay cheap to use or high to buy?
It's time to level the playing field... one step at a time! This new law sets the stage to eliminate the binding chains of copyright law. Equality for all. Sell the original image and release it to the world!
What side are you on? A handful of elitist photographers and illustrators? Or, the masses of fine artists and citizens of the United States of America?
Call, write, or email your congressperson. Tell them to pass this new law!
ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAWS !!!!
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Address the points walt.
Copyrights are hurting Americans more than helping. Copyrights are from the old days. These are the new days. Today we have globalization. In the old days, the USA could protect their copyrights all over the world. Well not anymore. Why should I have to be restricted from using images when people in China and other countries don't have too?
It's time for freedom!
Break the chains of copyrights!
Write and call the USA congress people.
SAY NO TO ALL COPYRIGHTS!
FREE ALL IMAGES !!!
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAWS WORLDWIDE !!!!
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Address the points walt.
Copyrights are hurting Americans more than helping. Copyrights are from the old days. These are the new days. Today we have globalization. In the old days, the USA could protect their copyrights all over the world. Well not anymore. Why should I have to be restricted from using images when people in China and other countries don't have too?
It's time for freedom!
Break the chains of copyrights!
Write and call the USA congress people.
SAY NO TO ALL COPYRIGHTS!
FREE ALL IMAGES !!!
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAWS WORLDWIDE !!!!
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Address the points walt.
Copyrights are hurting Americans more than helping. Copyrights are from the old days. These are the new days. Today we have globalization. In the old days, the USA could protect their copyrights all over the world. Well not anymore. Why should I have to be restricted from using images when people in China and other countries don't have too?
It's time for freedom!
Break the chains of copyrights!
Write and call the USA congress people.
SAY NO TO ALL COPYRIGHTS!
FREE ALL IMAGES !!!
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAWS WORLDWIDE !!!!
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Address the points walt.
Copyrights are hurting Americans more than helping. Copyrights are from the old days. These are the new days. Today we have globalization. In the old days, the USA could protect their copyrights all over the world. Well not anymore. Why should I have to be restricted from using images when people in China and other countries don't have too?
It's time for freedom!
Break the chains of copyrights!
Write and call the USA congress people.
SAY NO TO ALL COPYRIGHTS!
FREE ALL IMAGES !!!
ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAWS WORLDWIDE !!!!
on Monday, July 14th, walt said
thanks for the update from the Illustrators Partnership Brad. I just got back from parts west and hadn't had time to include it...and thanks for the support. I'll ask AA to do some cutting here.
on Monday, July 14th, walt said
Toggle you are giving yourself away. I always try so hard to respect your anonimity but you always give yourself away.
As to w j hammer's racial hatred all I can say is it must be hard to realize you've been left behind by evolution.
on Monday, July 14th, Brad said
AA - "Hammer's" entry should be cut from this string - we need monitors - Contributors need to be able to cut out the snuff-offenders who have nothing to contribute but their ignorance. It is difficult for the normal visitor to glean info from comments when they must surf thru garbage and hate-mail... BMM
on Monday, July 14th, bmm said
Walt,
It seems, on any given Sunday, dust will fall out of the rafters - sorry it was on your watch. - bmm
on Monday, July 14th, bmm said
Update:
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP / 14 July 2008
As we wrote yesterday the House Judiciary Committee may mark-up the Orphan Works Bill this week.
Here's a short letter we're proposing for Committee members. Please feel free to modify it and use it as your own.
Dear Honorable ________________,
As an artist and a small business owner, I'm writing to oppose H.R. 5889, the Orphan Works Act of 2008 as currently drafted. Please support the amendments submitted jointly by the Illustrators' Partnership of America, the Artists Rights Society and the Advertising Photographers of America. Otherwise, please do not vote this bill out of committee until Congress can hold proper hearings into the harm it will do to small businesses, individual creators and ordinary citizens.
While I support a bill that would give libraries and museums a legitimate expansion of fair use, H.R. 5889 is far too broad. It would cause trillions of dollars of private property to be transferred into the control of a few corporate databases with no guarantee as to how these assets will be protected, used or abused. It will undermine the passive copyright protection that all citizens now enjoy - and that threatens individual creativity, freedom of expression and the right to privacy embodied in copyright law.
There is no reason for the reckless scope of this bill. It is based on a Copyright Office study of orphaned work. Yet it will permit the infringement of contemporary work by creators working in today's commercial markets - a subject the Copyright Office never studied. Its stated purpose is to let libraries and museums digitize their collections and let ordinary folks duplicate family photos. But these modest goals can be met with a modest expansion of Fair Use. I do not believe citizens should have to hand over their personal intellectual property to a few corporate special interests. The unintended consequences of this bill could be a rights grab of monumental proportions.
Please look behind the talking points of the special interests promoting the Orphan Works Act. Do not support a major revision of copyright law without an open, informed and transparent public debate.
Sincerely,
We recommend using this template letter 2 ways:
Email it to House Judiciary Committee members (see our site for links)
Download the text of this letter, copy it onto your own letterhead and fax it to members of the House Judiciary Committee. We provided their contact information and fax numbers for you here.
--
Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
--
Over 60 organizations (list on our site) are united in opposing this bill in its current form. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.
Don't Let Congress Orphan Your Work
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
You callin me uneducated? a newbie? unprofessional?
I call you an arogant part time hobby artist.
Copyrights are crap. new law old law. it don't matter. the real artists always will get screwed. and i mean the artists who actually live by what they make. Make money on the original. screw copies. let everyone make copies. it's the original that counts. if i can take a picture of it with my cell phone or rip net pics then it's mine! that's the way it's gonna be baby! Get used to it you cry baby!
You think anyone gives a crap about copyrights in China? Lets make it a fair game. ABOLISH ALL COPYRIGHT LAW WORLDWIDE!
on Monday, July 14th, walt said
Toggle, you are on the mark when it comes to educating oneself. Yes, many images are stolen or referenced... some of these fall into the gray area called fair use having to do with social commentary which is considered to some extent good for the creative dialogue of the nation.
Other uses are considered purely commercial. Most corporations, magazine or book publishers, filmakers, etc. have established contracts specifying usage and fees they are willing to pay for an image. These contracts are in fact the result of copyright law. Most relations are guided by existing law. It is only the infringers, at this time a fairly small percentage of the total, who require threat of litigation or actual litigation. I've worked with a number of these contracts over the years personally. That's why I know what this is about. As to having something stolen? Yes, I have. A logo design I did a number of years ago for a not for profit was swiped by another not for profit in another part of the country. My design had been featured in Art Direction Magazine. While there were some minor variations made to the design it was obvious by both the main image idea and even the color usage that it was my design being appropriated. We decided not to sue for two reasons. 1st I did it as a gift...not for money. 2nd, since the two not for profits were helping two distinctly different populations in to distinctly different parts of the country there would be little if any bleed over of brands. Neither organization had much money and I never lost anything in the process.
No lawyers were required to come to this conclusion. However, if an artist ever decides to license their work for prints or other reproduction purposes a good copyright lawyer should be consulted to establish some rules of operation.
And again you are right... most artists will never be infringed...in fact are more often infringers themselves. Again some education concerning copyright and simple plagiarism is desperately needed.
Much of what is happening in the debate today is because with the digital age a large number of uneducated people are now participating in what used to be a profession. The Arts. Those professionals used to know something about the law, about plagiarism and what it meant to the creativity of the field and about the committment to their chosen field. Now there are a lot of...shall we call them newbies? who are not professionals, have no sense of the way things work to insure quality and simply see the net as a free for all... No rules, no disciplines no responsibility to anything or anyone.
But I doubt that Toggle has read the bill. So I'm not sure any further discussion will be useful or positive. If you are concerned either way please contact your congressional reps and senators.
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
My apologies for last nights tirade. All artists are winners.
You can't stop someone from copying your work. If you are rich you can hire lawyers if someone does copy your work and if you are willing to spend more on attorneys than they are, you might get them to not copy it anymore.
Copyrights are worthless. So, get your money for the original and quit crying.
on Monday, July 14th, bm said
An article in The New York Times "The Image Is Familiar; the Pitch Isn’t" seems to suggest what toggle writes has some weight.
"Artists have been appropriating images from Madison Avenue for decades. But what happens when the tables are turned? In recent years a number of advertising campaigns have seemed to draw their inspiration directly from high-profile works of contemporary art. And the artists who believe their images and ideas have been appropriated are not happy about it." The New York Times July 13, 2008
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/design/13fine.html
on Monday, July 14th, fuck_jewish@yahoo.com">William j.Hammer said
**** you Israel!!...**** you mother n u r really a cocksucker of ur father dig....
on Monday, July 14th, Toggle said
Yeah right, bmm. I bet no one here has ever had to enforce a copyright. I bet no one here has even had any of their work copied. I bet no one here is even good enough to copy. Yer all talk!
You people are losers! Copyrights don't mean anything. It's all money! Got it? No one wants to copy your work but if they did you would have to pay lawyers if the people who are copying tell you to take a hike.
Face it! You are all talking about something that has never nor will ever apply to you! Copyrights are worthless garbage. It's all litagation and who ever has the best lawyers, wins!
Sorry. You have no rights. Money always wins.
Abolish ALL copyright law!
on Sunday, July 13th, bmm said
Toggle Copyrights are worthless to those who do not make the effort to take the time to educate themselves...
on Sunday, July 13th, toggle said
Copyrights are worthless!
Give examples of these supposed negotiations. I don't believe it.
Only blue chip artists can afford litagation.
You must be kidding me.
You don't have a clue!
You go ahead and try to litagate a copyright. I'll betcha anything you'll squeal and run with your tail between your legs as soon as that lawyer tells ya how much it costs just to get started.
All this talk fer nuthin.
Copyrights don't mean nuthin.
They just some richy ass crap.
No money no nuthin. period
copyrights are for rich people.
They are worthless
on Sunday, July 13th, Walt said
In fact copyright law has protected many artists without the need of attorneys for some time. The mere threat of a law suit is often enough to do the trick in terms of collecting fees. Many companies negotiate in good faith. If you do away with the law then why would anyone negotiate anything. And it all depends on the value of your intellectual property. If it is worth something to someone else I promise you'll be able to afford the attorney. But if we give up our rights to our own invented property then we deserve all that we don't get for it.
Here is another bulletin from the Illustrators Partnership: Looks like the time is drawing to a close.
From the Illustrators Parnership:
We've had word that the House Judiciary Committee may mark-up the Orphan Works Bill this week. This is the session where Committee Members will propose, accept and reject amendments to H.R. 5889. After markup, the bill could be reported out of the House Committee and go to the floor for a vote.
We've submitted several critical amendments for consideration: These would limit the scope of the bill to affect only true orphaned work. Unless such amendments are adopted, we believe the bill should not be reported out until its impact on small businesses can be determined. Here's our summary of the issues at stake in the House version of this bill:
Q What is the Orphan Works Act?
A: A proposed amendment to copyright law that would impose a radically new business model on the licensing of copyrighted work.
Q: How would it do that?
A: It would force all creators to digitize their life's work and hand it over to privately-owned commercial databases or see it exposed to widespread infringement by anyone, for any purpose, however commercial or distasteful.
Q: How would it hurt me if I didn't register my work?
A: The bill would let infringers rely on for-profit registries to search for your work. If your work is not in the databases, it's a potential "orphan."
Q: What about my unpublished work?
A: The bill would apply to any work, from professional paintings to family snapshots, home videos, etc., including published and unpublished work and any work ever placed on the internet.
Q: How would these databases work?
A: No one has yet unveiled a business plan, but we suspect they'd operate like stock houses, promoting themselves as one-stop shopping centers for licensing art. If you've registered your work with them, they'll probably charge you maintenance fees and commissions for clearing your work. If you're a publisher or art director, they'll probably charge you search fees. If you're an infringer, they'll probably charge you a search fee and issue orphan certificates for any unregistered work you'd like to infringe. We assume different registries may have different terms, and any start-up terms will of course be subject to change.
Q: How will the bill affect the market for commissioned work?
A: It will be a gold mine for opportunists, favoring giant image banks over working artists. Some companies will probably sell access to orphans as royalty-free work -- or they'll harvest orphans and bundle them for sale as clip art. Other companies can harvest orphans, alter them slightly to make "derivative works" and register the derivatives as their own copyrighted product. Freelancers would then be forced to compete against their own lost art - and that of their colleagues - for the new commissions they need to make a living.
Q: But the bill's sponsors say the bill is just a small adjustment to copyright law.
A: No, it's actually a reversal of copyright law. It presumes that the public is entitled to use your work as a primary right and that it's your legal obligation to make your work available.
Q: But isn't the House bill an improvement over the Senate version?
A: Only for those who intend to operate commercial databases. These registries will exist to make money. To make money, they'll have to do a lively business in clearing work for infringements. That means making their databases infringer-friendly.
Q: But isn't the House bill better because it requires an infringer to file a Notice of Use, documenting their intent to infringe?
A: The House bill creates a very low threshold for infringers to meet. They'd only have to file a text description (not the image itself) of the work they want to infringe, plus information about their search and any ownership information they've found.
Q: But won't that let artists consult the archive to see if their work has been infringed?
A: No, as currently written, the Notice of Use is a dark archive, which means you won't have access to it. If someone infringes your work and has filed a Notice of Use, you wouldn't know about it.
Q: Then how would I know if my work is in the Dark Archive?
A: You wouldn't, unless a.) you discover you've been infringed; b.) you sue the infringer in federal court; c.) the infringer asserts an Orphan Works defense. Then you can file a request to see if the infringer has filed a Notice of Use to infringe your work.
Q: Then what good does it do me for the infringer to file a Notice of Use?
A: It's of no probative value to you at all unless you go to court. And if you do, you'd better be sure of winning because otherwise, without the possibility of statutory damages and attorneys' fees, it will be too expensive for you to sue. If the Notice of Use helps anyone, it actually helps the infringer: it lets him prove in court that he followed the prescribed protocol to "legally" infringe your work.
Q: Then shouldn't we ask Congress to change the Dark Archive to an open one?
A: This would still place an impossible burden on you. Can you imagine routinely slogging through a "lost and found" containing millions of text descriptions of works to see if something sounds like one of the hundreds or thousands of illustrations you may have done?
Q: So should the infringement archive be changed to display images rather than text descriptions?
A: If so, you'd have a come-and-get-it archive for new infringers to exploit works that have already been identified as orphans by previous infringers.
Q: The bill's sponsors say the House version includes specific instructions on the requirements for diligent searches.
A: No, read the bill. It's full of ambiguous terms like "reasonable" and "diligent" that can only be decided by courts on a case-by-case basis. That could take a decade of expensive lawsuits and appeals. How many millions of copyrights will be orphaned before we learn how the courts ultimately define these vague terms?
Q: Then what can we do to improve this bill?
A: We don't believe the bill can be patched up to mitigate its harm to creators. The Orphan Works matter should be solved with carefully defined expansions of fair use to permit reproduction by libraries and archives, or for family photo restoration and duplication. Narrow exceptions like these would also meet the needs of other orphan works usage without violating artists' rights as defined by the 1976 Copyright Act, The Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPs Agreement. These copyright-related international trade treaties are not just a matter of law. They codify longstanding business practices that have passed the test of time.
Q: What can we do now to oppose this legislation?
A: If you're opposed to the House bill in its current form, contact members of the full House Judiciary Committee. Ask them to adopt our amendments limiting the scope of the bill to affect only true orphaned work. Tomorrow, we'll email you a short basic letter which you may use as a template.
--Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership
Over 60 organizations are united in opposing this bill in its current form. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.
Don't Let Congress Orphan Your Work
To use the Orphan Works Opposition Website just go to this link:
capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
Put in your zip code and follow the instructions. Your letters will be addressed and sent automatically. It takes less than 2 minutes to fight for your copyright.
If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com">illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Please post or forward this message in its entirety to any interested party.
on Sunday, July 13th, toggle said
Enforcing copyrights requires litagation. Litagation requires attorneys. Attorneys cost money.
Copyrights are useless.
on Sunday, July 13th, walt said
Toggle, you can copy anything that is in the public domain now. But most of what has already been done is boring. What incentive would there be to do anything really new without copyright protection? All most would ever do is use someones original thoughts to comment upon. The new idea would become a rarity.
on Sunday, July 13th, Toggle said
Get rid of all copyrights! Open the table to everyone! The artist may get their images copied but then artists can then copy anything anywhere they choose! Besides, copyrights only protect those who can afford lawyers!
on Sunday, July 13th, walt said
dear anon, here are several links to help you understand what the bill is all about.
Read the legislation's impact on visual artists
House Bill capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?billid=11320236
Senate Bill capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?billid=11322171
For more information about Orphan Works go to the
IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185
on Saturday, July 12th, Brad Michael Moore said
I keep these updates on my website, to and alert those at #artmesh - a private group international group of artists, collectors, and curators. I constantly use "Illustrator Partnership" links to call, email, write, and petition U.S. Congress members and committees - I can only hope others are picking up their pens and voices as well. After all, if American Corporations and Special Interests think they can just take, slight of hand, others art for their own purposes - they will soon be infringing upon the art of all world citizens and world copyright laws. Before you know it - not only will the world be charging our current administration for war crimes - American will be found guilty for walking over all humans rights - not just those of their own citizens who could have taken the matters of government into their own hands - as it was intended by the Founding Fathers of our once great America.
on Saturday, July 12th, Anon said
Now if only you'd explan what this Orphan Bill thing was.
on Friday, July 11th, Mark said
Thanks Walt.
It may do no good but I am also contacting my local newspapers and local TV (news) stations.
One can also go to congress.org to send notice to your congressmen/women.
on Thursday, July 10th, Ellen said
Walt-
You have been a WONDERFUL advocate for all of us! The information that you have provided on the Orphan Works issue is essential for artists to know about and to respond to in order to keep all of our hard work protected.
Thanks, Walt!
on Thursday, July 10th, Faergen5@excite.com">Geanee said
Am interested in hearing more about the Orphan Works. Thankx
