So this has been at the fore front of my mind recently as I am doing art for a client that is using the art for profit. It is being manufactured into a product. I explained the process about limited use rights and she was completely agreeable and then I had an inquiry from another potential client that wanted me to create art for them and they wanted all the rights to the art work. What will the art be used for, I inquired? I don't know yet, was the response. I am not faulting the client for not knowing what they wanted to art for but it did not sit right and I am not going to be letting my art go with all rights without a fair fee which the client decided they could not afford. The funny thing is I called a couple of my freelancing friends and realized that there are some artists that do just let their art go for the quick fix of a couple hundred bucks AND a good portion of the time we work away without contracts. (ouch, that's me on the contract thing)Hmmmm, does this sound smart to you? Not if you want to protect your lively hood, not if you believe that it not just your time for sale for all the years of experience that led up to you portioning out your time and talent efficiently. I started think that in all my art I had only one trademarked logo and one contract with Disney that gave up all the rights. The Disney contract was actually limited to North America so it was NOT ALL rights. Not to mention that I was well compensated and was very pleased with the job.

I did run across this article about the copyright symbol here. This does not answer all the usage questions but this is a good start to the dialogue.

Another blog will be about the copyright legislation that is coming up....yikes! Oh wait I will use my hot air now....This is the Orphan Works Bill which I think the language still sucks on...read this. Am I mistaken? "Orphaned art" (art that one cannot find the owner of) can be used in nonfiction books and on websites not for profit? Please that is every bodies website that does not use commerce! And non fiction books? I just got done illustrating a book about wine, that's non fiction. How about all my friends that make a living doing what we call "educational" work for text books? Will they not get that work anymore because someone can reuse someone elses orpahned work? What publisher or individual is going to hunt down a piece of art or an old photo from basically anytime before 2008 that you did not stick a copyright sign on? "Oh I thought it was Orpahned!" will be the cry heard around the world! There needs to be a serious penalty in place if you were just a dip and decided to to research it. And how could you PROVE that? Maybe I am misunderstanding this bill, but I think this is terrible. Can't find the artist for an old piece of art?! GET A NEW ONE. With so much trouble going on in the the US are we really going to by in the idea that just because the Copyright office prepared a report in 2005 that things really need to change to HELP us keep up with the world economy? PLEEEZE, in this humble girls opinion I will just remind everyone of a profession that have practically ceased to exist because of people having their heads in the sand. Called a TRAVEL AGENT lately? Remember when those people had jobs? The airlines snuffed them out because they did not want to pay a $25 user fee with each ticket issued by a travel agent and as a long term result as people were encouraged to by their tickets in the Internet not through an agent as a result airline customer loyalty went into the TRASH can. All the rewards programs mean nothing to the consumer and the airlines then started doing dramatic and terrible changes based on ideas that where NOT remotely customer friendly. Ask anyone whose flown lately-think the airline was trying to keep your business based on loyalty? THEY DON"T EVEN KNOW HOW ANYMORE! And all there research does not believe your loyalty makes a difference. Take out extra leg room in coach because all people want is a cheap seat...That was the line we were fed! Believe it? No, I don't either. If businesses still used travel agents and travel agents, yes, steered business towards airline with good loyalty programs intact they might actually be friendly skies. there might be loyalty all the way around. I am speaking as a flight attendant here....and I know I may appear to be drawing conclusion but was it the NY Times did too so go with me here. The serious ticket price wars via Internet shopping for seats were seriously self inflicted by the airlines themselves trying to take the travel agent out of the equation. And if you hoenstly think traveling more passenger friendly now, let's talk. I am not talking pricing, I am talking perks and service.

Am I digressing? Most likely, but what IS the actual point of exposing an artists work for the public to use so freely? Who is this bill actually good for in the long run? Remember all the old presidents gathering around and telling us to get on board with NAFTA? I remember thinking at the time, is this REALLY the best for us, our country and how we trade ( or import)...how much free trade do we actually need? Now on the news politicos are saying "well....Nafta has hurt us in the long term. DUH? I am just some chick with an BS in graphic art and I saw that and the airline thing happening. This "Orphan Works Bill" feels the same to me. The current copyright law is not as broken as you might think so please do not try to fix it.
Feel free to send this link to your congressman, ha! Artist need to get out of our studios and speak louder-don't just let photographers do you talking on this issue. How many time have you seen a book with the authors photo credited and not the cover illustration?