Re: Panzer's posting on the Public Domain Enhancement Act

["Carrie Russell" <crussell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Panzer offers a different perspective on how the proposed
public domain legislation will negatively impact artists. (see below)
But please explain to me why it would be harder for an artist to
complete 
a renewal form than it would be for a major copyright
aggregator/company? 
Why would this be so onerous? Regular ol' people complete copyright
registration forms all of the time, so what's the big deal? According to
the legislation, the renewal forms are going to be easy to complete and
widely available on the Web.

I am also confused about the "publication" concern.  If the copyright
term is life of the author plus 70 years, wouldn't the artist's heirs
know the date that their relative died and wouldn't they be able to add
50 to that date to know when they should file a renewal? 
What am I missing here?

-Carrie Russell
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Robert Panzer" <rpanzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Cross Posting: Public Domain Enhancement Act
Message-ID: <NHBBKNJCEGJPJNCEDCPBAEGNCGAA.rpanzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Mr. Pomea states:

	" HR 2601 creates a simple mechanism....."

"This process would not be an undue burden for the copyright holders
(who
today must pay a fee when they register with the U.S. Copyright Office)
and
would realize significant and important public benefits."

If we are speaking of corporate copyright holders, then perhaps the
added
formality is not a big deal.  For individual rights holders, such as
fine
artists and photographers it is a big deal.  I believe that the
interests of
individual rights holders have largely left out of this debate and
most
debates about copyright policy.

The formalities of the pre-1976 copyright act and pre-1989 signing-on
to the
Berne convention (copyright notice no longer required) were solely
responsible for the entry into the public domain of likely tens of
thousands
of works of art and photography.  By joining the Berne convention, the
U.S.
committed to end the onerous formalities (even though we still have
some,
like registration, which it is my understanding is not allowed under
Berne),
which have been unique to our country.  Now, in the interest of the
"public", some want to go right back from where we came.  Yes, Disney,
Microsoft, Sony and all the book publishers will make sure everything
is
done right because each of their properties is worth thousands to
millions
of dollars and they have staffs of lawyers and the like to keep up with
the
law and file everything just right.  But the artist (or later the
estate)
who created say, 100 works per year over a lifetime, often with a
relatively
low value each, especially the relatively unknown artist, will likely
not
have the knowledge, time, money or organizational skills to fulfill
onerous
formalities. The past proves this. And for fine art, determining
"publication" date is sometimes impossible.  I know of no good legal
definition of "publication" when it comes to works published as one
copy.
The 1976 statute and the 1989 lifting of the copyright notice
requirement
were meant to get rid of some of the many problems inherent in the 1923
act.
This bill moves us right back to the problems of the past.

A new law with new formalities would essentially give the fullest
protection
to those who stand to make millions, while the less "successful" will
lose
their rights.  In the worlds of entertainment and publishing, most of
the
time, the value in a copyright occurs within the first few years of
distribution to the public.  Also, the primary value comes from
reproduction
rights; mass media is distributed through numerous copies.  With fine
art,
it is often just the opposite.  The value in copyright often comes
well
after a work is created, after the artist has become well known through
the
sale of original works, which may end up in museums. It is then when
artists
typically become aware of the importance and value of copyrights and
when
they are in a position to actually earn income from such rights.  But
then
it may be too late.

It seems that the world of creativity outside the U.S. has managed to
function pretty well without copyright formalities, yet we in the U.S.
keep
coming back to them because we are a society which looks to legal means
as a
way to view and control everything.  This method is often good for
politicians and large corporations but tends to hurt individuals and
individual creators.  The more complex we make our lives the more
difficult
it is for us to carry on and actually have normal ones.

Sincerely,

Robert Panzer
Executive Director
VAGA (Visual Artists and Galleries Association)
VAGA represents artists' copyrights

 

Carrie Russell, Copyright Specialist
American Library Association
Office for Information Technology Policy
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW  Suite 403
Washington, DC 20004-1701
(202)628-8421
crussell@xxxxxxxxxxx