http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/brad-holland-responds-to-public.html

Warm regards,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor / Myartspace Blog
http://www.myartspace.com/blog

The second reason I’m responding is to express my desire to see the marketing / advertising world to change. Why don’t agencies openly take credit for the work they do? If this were the norm, it would be easier to shop for firms to work with and the client could wear the firm’s brand with pride. Why should clients entrust their brands with individuals who don’t market themselves to the fullest? We need to stop seeing this client – agency relationship as a master-servant relationship and start seeing it as a partnership. What’s good for our client is good for our reputation. With our brand on the media, there is no question of authorship.

As for the argument of “I found this work that was stolen and I couldn’t find the real author, therefore I am not culpable”, the person who stole the work to begin with is the person who should be prosecuted and should be documented in the second infringer’s “research”. Just as receiving stolen goods is a crime, using stolen works should also be and the first infringer is still to be tried. As for an individual’s likeness. There is no disputing this. You are who you are. If someone uses your likeness without your permission and doesn’t have a release, this is a violation of your privacy not the copyright you own on your likeness. The first court these go to may read the letter of the law as strictly as the nay-sayers above, but on appeal, no higher court would rule for either infringer mentioned above. This law is not meant to defend the theft of works that are a year old. It is meant for books that are out of print from publishers that are out of business written by people who cannot be found. Judges are people. They will interpret the law and it is their interpretation that sets precedent for the courts. (pessimists see reason one above)

i personally hate copyrighting. i wish there is no copyrighting at all and everything becomes for free. this is just my opinion

Appalling. It makes me sick that you’re even allowed to “design” and “sell” artistic services to others. You obviously don’t have anything worth a copyright.

But as you say, that is a separate matter.

Orphan Works,
Copyright Extensions, and the DMCA,

though I agree there are more pressing issues.

Also, the 2008 bill has a different definition of a reasonable search which seems to require people to register their copyrights to ensure that they are protected. (Otherwise, how are they going to be in the copyright database?). It is my understanding that, as current copyright law stands, you can register your copyright even after it has been infringed upon and still sue the infringer. (It has to be registered so you can sue.) This is because, of course, the copyright is created when you create the work. The bill effectively makes this implied copyright useless while not explicitly doing away with it. That in itself is enough to make this bill dangerous.

By the way, I don’t buy the party-line that this bill is good for educational institutions and libraries. They are already covered under fair use.

The less copyright the better. In fact, I say we return to the founders copyright length.. what is it, 14 years?

Heck with 70 – 120 year copyright protection (sometimes not even at the time of the work, at the arbitrary time of the authors death)

And why should IP extend beyond the lifetime of the author?

I realize orphan works and copyright length are two separate issues, but its all intertwined into the system we have here, which, if it continues to exist like this, will keep most of you from ever seeing the treasures owned by cultural heritage institutions.

Like you, I am concerned that H.R. 5889 would place the burden on the artists to register their work and that it would lessen consequences to those who violated copyrights and damaged artists’ careers. Creators deserve protections and legal recourse if their work has been stolen, and any reform of the copyright system must balance issues of outdated or indiscriminate copyrighting with the very real concerns of artists protecting their livelihood. (…) Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue with your thoughts in mind.

Indiscriminate copyrighting? Huh? Well, I’m glad I’ve got a friend on the ‘Hill.

It all seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem (sound familiar?). Is there something broken about current copyright law? Moreover, aren’t there more pressing issues that our representatives should be concerning themselves with?