Artists, Musicians, Photographers - You Can Lose All Rights to Your Own Art!
Below is a paraphrase of the linked article.
Read it and contact your Congresspersons or suffer the ultimate loss of rights to your works!
Every sketch, painting, photo, sculpture, drawing, video, song and every other type of creative endeavor. All of it is at risk!
If the Orphan Works legislation passes, you and I and all creatives will lose virtually all the rights to not only our future work but to everything we’ve created over the past 34 years, unless we register it with the new, untested and privately run (by the friends and cronies of the U.S. government) registries. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone wishing to steal your personal creations won’t successfully call your work an orphan work, and then legally use it for free.
In short, if Congress passes this law, YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY FROM YOUR OWN CREATIONS!
READ THIS:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1
The last page has links as to where you can voice your opinion. Get on it!!
59 Comments
Sonne said 6 months ago
link doesn’t work...but if thats true...what. the. fuck.
quakerninja said 6 months ago
Horsebites is this for realz. So I can start yoinking any "owned work" and call it my own and no one can sue me. looks like a may print notorious f.a.t. after all.
horsebites said 6 months ago
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1
a killer wombat said 6 months ago
if this happens I am finding every person responsible for passing it, finding all the drawing they have ever done, their kids have ever done, anyone related has ever done and just selling them. Not changing a thing.
seibei said 6 months ago
boingboing recently posted something refuting this, so I’m hoping they’re right.
skull with hair said 6 months ago
if this happens does that mean i can make TWLOHF shirts? if so ill vote for it.
horsebites said 6 months ago
Ha! Who knows!?
Sonne said 6 months ago
this is bullshit. we need to start an emptees petition against this fucking trash.
derekdeal said 6 months ago
im about to wipe out my whole flickr/photobucket account. For serious
hideouscarwreck said 6 months ago
this is exactly the reason why i don’t post any of my artwork on the internet.
godmachine said 6 months ago
that was the next set of words out of my mouth!
who runs/monitors emptees? if we set up a petition- can we have it sent by someone to those who matter?
who will start the petition and put it into easily digestable english.
safe.
derekdeal said 6 months ago
artsists cant do business if they dont post images in some capacity, next thing you know, go daddy will be saying they own my images because i used their mail server to transmit files. Its a slippery slope.
SentimentalNate said 6 months ago
I just wrote 5 Senators urging them to have the sense to oppose this peice of worthless legislation. I’m going to start writing more. Here’s the link for the contact info of our elected officials so that you can voice your oppinion too.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Lets put democracy in action and let them know how we feel!
MykeCatastrophic said 6 months ago
+1
everything is about to go. I’m not taking any chances with this shit.
hideouscarwreck said 6 months ago
yeah, i know what you mean. though i don’t create art for business purposes [not yet anyway, maybe in the future]. i’d kind of like to just have an online gallery of all my work, like on deviantart or something, but i refuse to because there’s always that chance of it getting stolen or ripped off.
a killer wombat said 6 months ago
there is no way this shit will go through.... every credible artist through out history will be completely irrelevant. I could just take a dali and claim it as my own and print it.
this is why i like Canada’s view on art. Not only do they protect their artists more but if you build a building you have to spend 20,000 on public art around it. They maybe our hat but fuck they know how to add some style.
if it does pass prepare for the economy to stop. Everyone in a design / art related field should just stop working. There would be no marketing, the world would literally stop because these masters of their craft take pride in their work. And if it holds no royalty, there is no pride in claiming what you have done.
heroes said 6 months ago
people can only steal what you post online just be vigilante about the size of the work you post keep it to small thumbnails
godmachine said 6 months ago
dont panic people- there are greater artists out there with more to lose- chillax.
myspace used to own everything on their sites till our Billy Brag took em to court.
I doubt it will pass in europe (they riot about bread going up a few pence in france!)- but anything is possible in the usa.
this doesnt scare me - nor will i be remving anything from the web.
LaurieShipley said 6 months ago
Wow, a another pathetic way for the government to instill fear into the people. Who the fuck thought of the name "Orphan Work"!?
quakerninja said 6 months ago
here is a petition link sign up
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/no-to-orphan-works-act.html
SentimentalNate said 6 months ago
Just signed it
MykeCatastrophic said 6 months ago
godsloadedsociety said 6 months ago
all this would solve is outside sources coming in and doing the work for you.
and Canada will never be a hat. more like the trophy at the top of the bookshelf.
a killer wombat said 6 months ago
but with the constant fear of a depression all ready going on the dumbest thing they could do to boost the economy is outsource work.
godmachine said 6 months ago
signed
derekdeal said 6 months ago
signed
hideouscarwreck said 6 months ago
signed
horsebites said 6 months ago
Ok, I was just informed on this counter active article.
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
eesh.
Sonne said 6 months ago
+1
ez-kun said 6 months ago
well, i support you, from Europe:) sorry, but this is just like a new reason for Michael Moore to do a movie. sorry, but just so you know, there are other places in the world where laws pass even if they’re absurd!
this one, impossible, i think. while you have the source of your works, they can’t steal shit.
greggrillo said 6 months ago
SentimentalNate said 6 months ago
Taken from the article:
"Honestly? This is the state of things already. As I pointed out to karine, the Copyright Office does not employ an elite squad of cybercops searching night and day for infringing uses of copyrighted works. They don’t have that kind of money. Identifying infringing uses, sending the infringer a takedown notice, and bringing legal action if the infringer refuses to stop infringing are already your problems. They will continue to be your problems for the foreseeable future."
There may not be cyber cops, but there are Manticores :)
Still, despite her article, I don’t like the idea of copyright reform. Even after her points, I still don’t see a lot of reasons for reforming the copyright laws. It seems like the only thing she brings up is old pictures of grandma and grandpa. Don’t most people have access to scanners these days? I mean, I guess I can see where the line gets a little fuzzy if you wanted a print shop to help you out, but this reform makes me uneasy about copyright reform someday becomming what this thread got us all afraid of. Also, one last thing, who’s to say she isn’t an art theif that wants to misinform us all into forgetting about this law so that it can pass easily. In this day in age, staying educated on these kinds of issues and topics is priceless.
quakerninja said 6 months ago
So who wants to start a site called DBO with me Designed By Orphans, like DBH but with no original work what so ever.
and yes I’ll even chip in to print To Write Love With Her Face With Waste Matter Discharged from the Bowels after Food has been Digested. or (TWLWHFWWMDFBAFBD) for short.
LaurieShipley said 6 months ago
Ha!
ChadDoesDesign said 6 months ago
signed,
isn’t it true that after you create the work you hold the copyright for 73 years?
Reilly said 6 months ago
Life of the creator + 70 yrs.
I’ve been getting emails about this for months and I think this whole thing is bunk.
I don’t think this bill even exists.
i came from nothing said 6 months ago
I know this to nearly be fact in the Uk - after quite a few meetings with lawyers (c) stands for nothing, they cant do anything to cover the company from its design being used, the only thing that can protect a company is - TM - this can be legaly protected
Gato Ranch said 6 months ago
Ok, I feel kinda bad. I sent Richard that initial info (a friend sent it to me), and I’ve done some further research since and:
There is no such legislation before Congress (there was a bill in 2006, but it was never voted on; Marybeth Peters of the Copyright Office recently spoke before a subcommittee, but that’s not a bill), and Simon is flat-out wrong about every concern he raises (tht’s the guy who wrote the article in the original link).
Read this counter-article:
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
But yes, go ahead and sign the petition. It is good to be aware that we could lose our rights as artists at any moment... jana
PS - Yes I’m a real person I swear:
http://www.myspace.com/janamillerphotography
LaurieShipley said 6 months ago
You have some really great photography Jana! I love all the Hot Rod shots. Awesome awesome!
And I saw that you had a H.E.L.L. banner on your profile, they are amazing people.
Randomentity said 6 months ago
this is just more 1984 shit to destroy our creative freedom.
as long as we believe in what we do, we can’t be stopped.
Reilly said 6 months ago
lol
*Raises fist*
i came from nothing said 6 months ago
get some first...
horsebites said 6 months ago
Wah wah wah. There goes spreading the word, ha!! Oh well, glad to see Jana on Emptees!!!
Terror said 6 months ago
I are signer #3796!
StereoKris said 6 months ago
wow...
so not cool if this happens.
Randomentity said 6 months ago
may i point out that i designed Gojira destroying the twin towers...
Kolby said 5 months ago
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS’ PARTNERSHIP
Orphan Works: No Myth
We’ve seen “Six Misconceptions About Orphan Works” circulating on the Internet. It’s a well-reasoned piece, but has one problem. The author cites current copyright law to “debunk” concerns about an amendment that would change the law she cites.
How would the proposed amendment change the law? We’ll get to that and other questions in a minute. But first, let’s answer the broader charge that news of an Orphan Works bill is just “an internet myth.”
Q: There is no Orphan Works bill before Congress – one was introduced in 2006, but it was never voted on.
A: Correct. The last bill died in Congress because of intense opposition from illustrators, photographers, fine artists, and textile designers. The Illustrators' Partnership testified against it in both the House and Senate. http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00203
Q: So if the bill is dead, why warn everybody about it now?
A: Because a new bill is due out momentarily. According to Andrew Noyes of the National Journal:
“Legislation aimed at reworking a portion of U.S. copyright law dealing with ‘orphan works’... will likely be a priority for the panel headed by House Judiciary Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., in the spring...
“American Library Association copyright specialist Carrie Russell said her members are ‘excited about having orphan works legislation’ move this session,’” adding: “the House effort is ‘so close to being a done deal that we’re on the edge of our seats.’" -Intellectual Property -Progress Seen on Developing 'Orphan Works' Legislation, by Andrew Noyes © National Journal Group, Inc. 02-21-2008
Q: But if there isn’t a new bill yet, how can we know what’s going to be in it?
A: Our information indicates the new bill will be basically the same as the old one. According to the Copyright Clearance Center:
“Subcommittee chairman Howard Berman made it quite clear that he intends to introduce new orphan works legislation shortly... It is likely the new bill will look very similar to The Orphan Works Act of 2006.”http://oncopyright.copyright.com/2008/03/17/orphan-works-are-back-on-congress%e2%80%99s-radar-screen/
Q: But if it’s due out shortly, why not wait until it’s been introduced before we oppose it?
A: To quote from the Copyright Clearance Center:
“Since this is an election year, and re-election campaigns will be in full swing by late summer, new orphan works legislation will probably be fast-tracked to reach the floor of the House by mid-May”. http://oncopyright.copyright.com/2008/03/17/orphan-works-are-back-on-congress%e2%80%99s-radar-screen/
Since that would give us only a month to notify artists, we decided to start now.
Q: Do we have any direct corroboration for these press reports?
A: Since the last bill died, we’ve met with:
- Chairman Berman
- Attorneys from the Copyright Office
- Representatives of the House and Senate Subcommittees
- A lobbyist for Getty and Corbis. (Getty and Corbis oppose the bill, but are negotiating for favorable concessions.)
Q: Where did we get the idea that the Copyright Office wants to impose for-profit registries?
A: That proposal has been there from the beginning. Two examples (with emphasis added), the first from page 106 of the Copyright Office’s 2006 Orphan Works Report:
“[W]e believe that registries are critically important, if not indispensable, to addressing the orphan works problem...It is our view that such registries are better developed in the private sector..." http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
And on January 29 2007, twenty visual arts groups met in Washington D.C. with attorneys from the Copyright Office. The attorneys stated that the Copyright Office would not create these “indispensable” registries because it would be “too expensive.” So I asked the Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs:
Holland: If a user can’t find a registered work at the Copyright Office, hasn’t the Copyright Office facilitated the creation of an orphaned work?
Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries.
Holland: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register?
Carson: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest!
- From my notes of the meeting
This exchange suggests that if Copyright Office proposals become law:
- Unregistered work will be considered a potential orphan from the moment you create it.
- In the U.S., copyright will no longer be the exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Q: What does it mean to say your copyright is an “exclusive right”?
A: Under existing law, “[a] copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work…Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered (emphasis added).”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Copyright#copyright:_an_overview
Q: Why does this exclusive right matter?
A: Two big reasons:
- Creative control and ownership: No one can use or change your work without your permission.
- Value: In the marketplace the ability to sell exclusive rights to a client triples the value of your work.
Q: So how would the Orphan Works proposals endanger that right?
A: It would allow anyone who can’t find you (or who removes your name from your work and says he can’t) to infringe your work. Since infringements can occur anytime, anywhere in the world, they could be countless but you might never find them.
Q: So?
A: So:
- Under this bill, you would never again be able to assure a client that your work hasn’t been – or won’t be – infringed. Therefore
- You would never again be able to guarantee a client an exclusive right to license your work. This means
- Your entire inventory of work would be devalued by at least 2/3 from the moment this bill is signed into law.
Q: But the “orphan works problem” isn’t just something dreamed up by evil corporations to steal your vacation photographs. It’s an actual problem faced by academics, librarians, and others.
A: In drafting the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress weighed the issue of older works whose owners can’t be located. They concluded that the problem it created for users was outweighed by the benefits of harmonizing U.S. copyright law with international copyright law.
“A point that has concerned some educational groups arose from the possibility that, since a large majority (now about 85 percent) of all copyrighted works are not renewed, a life-plus-50 year term would tie up a substantial body of material that is probably of no commercial interest but that would be more readily available for scholarly use if free of copyright restrictions...
“[I]t is important to realize that the [1976] bill would not restrain scholars from using any work as source material or from making ‘fair use’ of it; the restrictions would extend only to the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copies of the work, its public performance, or some other use that would actually infringe the copyright owner’s exclusive rights (emphasis added).” SOURCE: H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 136 (1976) - Quoted on pages 15 –16 and 41 - 44 of the 2006 Orphan Works Report http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
Q: But the backers of the Orphan Works bill say it would merely amend the law to solve the problem of old work whose owners can’t be found.
A: It would solve the problem alright! But it would do so by making a potential orphan of any work by any artist, living or dead. This would be like trying to solve the crime problem by making everything legal.
Q: How would it orphan “any work by any artist, living or dead”?
A: As we testified before the Senate subcommittee in 2006: “The inability to distinguish between abandoned copyrights and those whose owners are simply hard to find is the Catch 22 of the Orphan Works project.
“Put simply, if a picture is unmarked, it’s impossible to source or date it. Therefore this amendment would orphan millions of valuable copyrights that cannot otherwise be distinguished from true orphaned works - and that would open the door to cultural theft on an unprecedented scale.” http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00203
Q: But the Copyright Office says the infringer would first have to make a “reasonably diligent search” to find the copyright holder.
A: Yes, but last time, this opened a Pandora’s Box of problems. No one was able to draft a foolproof definition of a “reasonably diligent search” (remember that the infringer would have a serious financial incentive not to find you). So the Copyright Office proposed registries.
Q: Why registries?
A: Because a search of registries would allow the infringer to legally claim he had made a “reasonably diligent search.”
Q: And the problem with that is?
A: You can’t find a picture in a registry if it’s not there. Any picture – published or unpublished, professional or personal – that hasn’t been registered could therefore be orphaned by a successful orphan works defense - even if the artist was alive and otherwise managing his copyrights.
Q: But if you do become aware of an infringement, you can always claim a “reasonable fee” from the user.
A: Another Pandora’s Box because:
- Infringements can occur anytime anywhere in the world; therefore
- You would have to search every publication, every website, everywhere - on a regular basis - to see if anything you’ve ever done has been infringed.
- This would be an impossible task - but
- Even if you did find an infringement, you’d still have to
- Locate the infringer and get him to respond; and
- While the infringer would only have to make a “reasonably diligent search” to find you,
-You would have to make an absolutely successful search to find him.
- Then, if you were able to track him down and get him to respond, you’d have to
- Settle for whatever he was willing or able to pay you; or
- Take him to Federal Court; but remember
- If the court accepts the infringer’s claim that he made a reasonably diligent effort to find you,
- You’d get no more than what he was willing or able to pay you in the first place; but
-You’d be out-of-pocket for legal expenses; and
- There’d be no limit to the amount of damages and legal fees the infringer could get from you in a countersuit.
Q: But what if you do sue an infringer and win? Then can’t the court award you full costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee?
A: In theory, yes. But here’s how a full-time litigator, advising us in 2006, said it would happen in real life:
“Under current law, infringement cases follow two scenarios:
“Scenario One: If a copyright owner has registered his copyright, he can get statutory damages and attorneys fees. As a result, it is relatively easy to find a contingency fee lawyer to take these cases. (That’s because the copyright owner doesn’t have to pay the lawyer; the infringer does). In addition, the copyright owner usually finds that he gets more in settlement than he pays in legal fees, if he decides to hire an hourly-rate lawyer.
“Scenario Two: If a copyright owner has NOT registered his copyright, he can only get actual damages. In these cases, it is usually impossible to find a contingency fee lawyer [because in these cases, the copyright owner will have to pay - and may not be able to]. Moreover, it is often not wise for the copyright owner to litigate these cases anyway, because the settlement value is so small.
“Under the orphan works legislation, ALL infringement scenarios are, as a practical matter, Scenario Two.”
Q: But the Copyright Office says that infringers who act in good faith need “certainty” that they won’t be penalized for using an “orphaned” work:
“Most [commenters to the Orphan Works Study] agreed that statutory damages and attorneys fees should not be available [to copyright owners] because those remedies create the most uncertainty in the minds of users (emphasis added).” - Page 7/Orphan Works Report http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
A: Maybe so, but under this bill
-You would never have certainty because you’d never know if, when or where your work has been infringed.
- Yet the infringer would be guaranteed the kind of certainty the law would deny you.
Q: The Copyright Office says that user certainty is “essential to encouraging the use of the [orphaned] work.” -Page 7/Orphan Works Report
A: The issue of certainty for the user/infringer is the lynchpin of the whole Orphan Works issue, so let’s take it step-by-step:
1. Congress can’t pass a law to make you register your work or put copyright symbols on it because these formalities would violate the obligations and commitments of the United States under the international Berne Copyright Convention:
Berne/Article 5(2) “The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality (emphasis added).” http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/5.html
2. So because Congress can’t impose formalities on you, the Copyright Office crafted a recommendation that would expose your work to infringement if you didn’t impose formalities on yourself.
3. They say this “limitation on remedies” is necessary to guarantee “certainty” to the good faith infringer of your work.
4. But uncertainty is the only mechanism the law gives you to protect your work from thieves.
5. There is no Copyright Bureau of Investigation; no Copyright Police Force.
6. You are responsible for policing your own copyrights – and penalties for infringement are the only weapon the law gives you.
7. Fact: most creative work is never registered with the Copyright Office and most infringers know it. So
8. If an infringer wants to rip off your work, he can guess that a.) you may never find out about it; and b.) it probably wasn’t registered anyway.
9. He may guess correctly but – he can’t be sure – and this uncertainty is your key safeguard against unjust infringement, because
10. If an bad actor guesses wrong, he’ll be liable under current law for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, plus attorneys fees.
11. This is a powerful incentive for a thief not to risk stealing our work.
12. So it turns out that in the real world, uncertainty in the mind of a bad actor is the only weapon you have to protect your copyright. Remove that uncertainty and you remove the only realistic safeguard the law provides.
Let’s say that again: Without uncertainty, thieves can reasonably gamble that their thefts may never be detected, the work they steal won’t be registered, the owners of the stolen property will never find them and – if once in a while they do get caught – they can simply say the property had no name on it when they found it and dare you to sue them. From that point on, the risk will be all yours.
The Dog that Didn’t Bark In 2006, visual artists banded together and flooded Congressional offices with faxes protesting the harm the Orphan Works Act would do to professional artists.
Lost in the swamp of debate over “reasonable searches” and “reasonable fees,” no one stopped to think that the bill had been written so broadly that the inclusion of unpublished work would expose even personal and private work - such as sketches, diaries, family photos, home videos, etc. to infringement. This issue was the dog that didn’t bark. The January 29 2007 exchange with the attorney from the Copyright Office finally woke the dog:
Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries.
Holland: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register?
Carson: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest!
This radical expansion of the public domain makes this legislation much more than an issue of copyright infringement. Its unintended consequences would amount to a violation of private property and potentially, of privacy itself.
In a 2005 paper submitted to the Copyright Office, legal scholars Jane Ginsburg and Paul Goldstein warned that Orphan Works legislation must precisely define the scope of its mandate or fail to uphold our country’s commitment to international law and copyright-related treaties:
“[T]he diversity of [orphan works] responses highlights the fundamental importance of precisely defining the category of ‘orphan’ works. The broader the category, or the lower the bar to making the requisite showing of due diligence, the greater the risk of inconsistency with our international obligations to uphold authors’ exclusive rights under copyright. Compliance with Berne/TRIPs is required by more than punctilio; these rules embody an international consensus of national norms that in turn rest on long experience with balancing the rights of authors and their various beneficiaries, and the public. Thus, in urging compliance with these technical-appearing rules, we are also urging compliance with longstanding practices that have passed the test of time (emphasis added).” -Item 1/page 1 Orphan Works Reply Comments http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/reply/OWR0107-Ginsburg-Goldstein.pdf
It may sound absurd to argue that the unintended consequences of this legislation will raise privacy issues. But the absurdity arises from the Copyright Office’s inversion of basic copyright law. On page 14 of the Orphan Works Report, the authors write:
“If our recommendation resolves users’ concerns in a satisfactory way, it will likely be a comprehensive solution to the orphan works situation (emphasis added).” http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
Yet any law that permits users to commercialize the private property of others cannot be “comprehensive” if it “prejudices the legitimate interests of the copyright holders.” See Article 13/The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#1
This includes unpublished work and personal expressions as well as works intended for commercial use. Authors’ rights are exclusive. Public interest cannot compel anyone – artist or private citizen – to publish his or her work. So by what right of eminent domain can Congress assert a sweeping right to let others publish it for them?
The Copyright Office has stated that they’ll regard their recommendation as “satisfactory” if it makes millions of copyrights, no matter how valuable, available to users, no matter how worthy, under a system that would introduce permanent uncertainty into the markets of professional creators and into the lives of ordinary citizens. By placing the wants of users over the rights of rightsholders, the Copyright Office would invert the simple logic of copyright law, which in 2006, one artist expressed very clearly this way:
"If you find a creative work, you may not know who created it, but you know you didn’t.”
Despite 127 pages of the Orphan Works Report, you need only common sense to tell you this: The primary goal of copyright law is not to make creators’ work available to others. If it were, there’d be no need for copyright law at all: everything would be free for anyone to use. Copyright law exists primarily to protect the property rights of creators and secondarily, to extend the benefits of the creator’s work to the public. It does this by defining specific, limited exceptions to the creator’s exclusive license. In doing so, the law promotes the useful arts and provides certainty to users and creators alike. Invert the law and you invert the only way it can benefit society.
- Brad Holland © 2008 with additional research by Cynthia Turner, for the Illustrators’ Partnership
The author has given his permission to post or forward this article in its entirety to any interested party
Brad Holland is a self-taught artist and writer whose work has appeared in Time, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, the New York Times and other publications. He is a member of the Society of Illustrators Hall of Fame. His satire on the art business,”Express Yourself, It’s Later Than You Think” was first published in The Atlantic Monthly www.newyorkartworld.com/commentary/holland.html “First Things About Secondary Rights” appeared in The Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, published by the Columbia University School of Law weblog.ipcentral.info/holland_ColumbiaLaw.pdf
Cynthia Turner is a certified medical illustrator and a Fellow of the Association of Medical Illustrators (AMI). She is a founding member and Board member of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America, and a member of the Society of Illustrators. She creates original illustrations for medical publishers, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms and their agencies.
For additional background on Orphan Works, go to the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185
If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: 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.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
To have your name removed from this mailing list, send a reply email with “Remove Name” in the subject line. You will receive verification.
cajun metal said 5 months ago
+1
derekdeal said 5 months ago
agreed
godmachine said 5 months ago