The return of Orphan Works

In Orphan Works Land, no news has been good news, but that's about to change.

US Copyright Register Marybeth Peters told Intellectual Property Watch that orphan works legislation is expected to be introduced within the next 10 days. It is her understanding there may still be some issues in the House version to be resolved, and there are some stakeholders - such as illustrators and other artists - "who are probably going to lobby pretty hard against it."

Peters said this issue is important to her, and the fact it came so close to passing last year is almost bittersweet. "What I hope it isn't ... is it's one magic moment you get" to finally get it passed, then it doesn't happen, she said.

We don't mean to disparage the Register's comments. She's had a long and distinguished career at the Copyright Office. But her statement deserves a reality check. Illustrators are not opposed to an orphan works bill. We're opposed to this bill.

We're opposed because its scope far exceeds the needs of responsible orphan works legislation.

Moreover, illustrators and artists are not the only stakeholders who oppose it. At last count, more than 83 creators organizations are on record against it, representing artists, photographers, writers, songwriters, musicians and countless small businesses.

Last year, we proposed amendments to the Orphan Works Act that would have made it a true orphan works bill. The amendments were drafted by the attorney who was chief legal counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in drafting the 1976 Copyright Act. The amendments were co-sponsored by the Artists Rights Society and the Advertising Photographers of America. They can be found here: http://ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/07/hr-5889-amendments.html

On July 11, 2008, we submitted those amendments to both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. In our preamble we wrote this:

As rights holders, we can summarize our hopes for the Orphan Works Act simply: to see that it becomes a true orphan works bill, with no unnecessary spillover effect to damage the everyday commercial activities of working artists. We'd be happy to work with Congress to accomplish this. No legislation regarding the use of private property should be considered without the active participation of those whose property is at stake.

Last year more than 180,000 letters were sent to lawmakers from our Capwiz site. These letters did not come from obstructionists. They came from citizens whose property is at stake. They may lack the resources of big Internet companies and the access of high powered lobbyists, but last year they spoke. They asked only one thing: that Congress respect their personal property rights and amend this bill to make it nothing more than what its sponsors say they want it to be - a bill that would affect only true orphaned work.

We urge this Congress to listen.

- Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner for the Board of the Illustrators' Partnership

______________________________________________________________

For news and information, and an archive of these messages:
Illustrators' Partnership Orphan Works Blog.

Over 83 organizations opposed the last Orphan Works bills, representing over half a million creators. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.

Doing plenty of evil

Google's unofficial motto is "Don't be evil."

The thinking is that doing the right thing breeds trust and respect for the brand and company among customers that in the long run outweighs doing the underhanded or unethical for a short term gain.

It's a nice philosophy.

It would be nice if Google actually practiced what they preached.

In the first three months of 2009, Google reported a profit of $1.42 billion. That's a lot of money. And it was made during the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

You would think that a company that was still making fistloads of cash would be willing to pay illustrators. You'd be wrong.

Over the past few months Google has been asking many illustrators to contribute artwork so people can personalize the appearance of the soon-to-be released browser, Chrome. They have the audacity not to pay. Understandably some rather prominent illustrators have said no.

Google says the they do not pay for these projects, but instead offer terrific exposure and a unique opportunity to promote the use of illustration.

This isn't promotion. Its exploitation. Its evil.

A company as big as Google should pay for the use of illustrations like so many other businesses, both large and small, do every single day. They certainly can afford to pay who work for them.

The work that illustrators do adds value to all types of projects and products. They deserve to be compensated for the value they add.

By they way, Google doesn't give away its services or products for free.

Why should Google expect the independent contractors working for them to give away their work?

Hooray for Tamalewood

One of the more interesting things about being an illustrator is that you never know when your going to get the call to do a job.

Last Friday afternoon I received a message from Angela Moore at the Santa Fe Reporter. She wanted to know if I was available to illustrate a cover on a a feature about the film industry in New Mexico, or as they call it, Tamalewood.

It was a cover, so without thinking too much about it I said yes.

The story touched on how the state had passed a loan program for the film industry and how the biggest beneficiaries of it weren't local filmmakers, but the big Hollywood studios. As a result, the state hasn't generated any real permanent or good paying jobs related to the movie industry and instead has become a labor colony for the studios. The whole story is here, if you would like to read it

Of course there was a catch. She needed the final art on Monday. Luckily, I have a very understanding fiance when it comes to things like this.

So I spent a good part of my Friday evening generating ideas and sketches and fired them off. I chose to play with the idea that New Mexico was doing a lot heavy lifting by subsidizing the big Hollywood studios

Sketch 1. Like Sisyphus pushing a rock up the hill.

Sketch 2. Hollywood as a burden on the backs of New Mexico.

Sketch 3. The star-struck day laborer.

Saturday morning I received a couple of emails from Angela. She seemed happy with the ideas I sent, but was leaning toward sketch number two, but needed to run them by the editors first.

About an hour an a half later I received another message saying the editor liked number 3 because the state being star struck was part of the problem. She had one request though, make the reel bigger and look more like a burden.

So with that request in mind, I proceeded to final and fired off the finished project first thing Monday morning. Happily, Angela thought the work looked fabulous so there was no need to make any changes.

There is a great deal of satisfaction in turning around something quickly like this, enough to make working for the weekend enjoyable.

Barron Storey at SI

Life after Black: The Visual Journals of Barron Storey will be at the Society of Illustrators from Wed June 10 through the end of July. There will be an opening reception Friday June 12 at 6:30. The show should provide an interesting look at one illustrator's process. Check it out if you are in the area.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

Here's a great video that illustrates the sometimes absurd nature of client requests and getting paid. Most clients or potential clients are not like this, but there are more than a few looking to get something for nothing. Without fail, these types of clients are the most difficult to work with, requesting endless revisions, deciding to change the concept after sketches have been approved and grabbing reproduction rights that were never negotiated, among other transgressions.



Tip of the hat to Heidi Schmidt and David Airey

Rejection and Acceptance

I moved to Brooklyn just before the beginning of last spring. Shortly after moving I began exploring my new home by venturing out on a run with the purpose of getting lost and trying to find my way back home. I have done this everytime I've moved. Its the best way to learn your way around, at least in my humbel opinion.

On one of the first runs, I traveled down Flatbush Ave. from Grand Army Plaza. About a mile down the road, I turned left onto Washington Ave. and quickly found myself crossing Sullivan Place.

I thought, "Hey, Ebbets Field used to be around here." So I turned and jogged away from Washington Ave.

Sure enough, a block away was McKeever Place. The intersection of Sullivan and McKeever was the site of Ebbets Field, the home of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Arguably, the place is more famous in death than it was in life. Since its destruction, the tiny stadium has been written about, sung about and served as the inspiration for another ballpark in Queens.

Today, there is little indication that a ballpark ever stood on the spot. Instead a public housing complex dominates the landscape.

That day, I wasn't the only person looking for the site of the old ballpark. There were a few other people looking for some sign that there used to be a ballpark here.

As I turned and continued on my run I conceived the image above in my minds eye. Upon returning home I quickly scribbled a very crude version in one of my sketchbooks. In my free time a short time later I put together the finished version.

Fast forward to Spring 2009. I thought this would make a lovely New Yorker Cover, a tribute to ballparks in the city that had been torn down, but not forgotten. It was timely, since the city was tearing down another beloved baseball stadium and another building that hosted its fair share of baseball games. I could just picture it on the newsstands, so I sent it off as an unsolicited submission.

Of course, the editors at The New Yorker didn't think it was quite as great as I did. I received a polite letter thanking me for my submission, but that the editors could not use it at this time.



Rejected!

Of course, almost immediately that nagging self doubt begins creeping in. Maybe this image isn't quite as great as I thought. Ordering all those postcards with this on it may have been a mistake. Oh crap.

Luckily, before I plunged to deeply into despair I received notice that this piece of art would be included in the 2009 Communication Arts Illustration Annual. I had entered this before I sent it off to the New Yorker and then promptly forgot about doing so.

Acceptance!

Maybe this image isn't that bad after all.

I guess if there is lesson here, aside from inspiration striking anywhere, its that my work isn't a good as I think it is, sometimes, but not nearly as awful as I'm afraid it is either.

By the way, if you're an art diretor, art buyer or someone who commissions illustration, I have a few postcards left. Send me an e-mail or leave me a message in the comment section and I'll be happy to add you on my mailing list.

Giving your extra two cents

Here's a friendly reminder that the price of a first class stamp increases two cents next Monday, May 11. The price of mailing everything else goes up, too. With the United States Postal Service losing a ton of money, there is also the chance that postage prices could increase again later this year. Buy your forever stamps now.