People to Steal Your Content for Profit
Imagine you take a funny photo or create a humorous illustration and post it to your blog.
Now, someone comes along and grabs your image. If you have a copyright notice on it, they might even strip that out, either intentionally or because they cropped the image for whatever reason. Then, they eMail it to their friends. Maybe they claim they took the photo or drew it. Maybe they were just joking around.
Anyway, those friends eMail it to their friends who in turn spread it along to their friends. Eventually, no one even knows the source of the original image that you created.
Somewhere along the line, someone thinks that would be a good idea for a t-shirt. They ask their friends where the image came from. They don’t know; it came in an eMail.
Maybe if there was a copyright database somewhere, the person who wanted to make the t-shirts could check that. So, say that there is, and he searches the database for images of soda cans, to see if he can find the image you created. Nope. Maybe you listed it under “cola cans” or some similar situation where your description and someone else’s description may not match exactly.
At any rate, it seems like he conducted a reasonable search for the copyright owner, no? Now, you could argue that he should assume the image is protected by copyright and not use it, unless he can clearly demonstrate that it is in the public domain.
Unfortunately, if the Orphan Works Act goes through, that will flip that kind of thinking on its head.
Instead, after conducting that “reasonable” search, he can conclude that the work is orphaned, and he can use it. He can even create derivative works based on it, and put his own copyright on it!
Now, say that he sells t-shirts, and pockets a cool $500 profit with it. That’s $500 he made off of your work. And, you’ll never see a dime of it.
You could sue, but it will cost you more in legal costs than the $500 you might win. Assuming you win, of course. You see, under the Orphan Works Act, he just has to show he made a “reasonable” search to find the copyright owner. And, you cannot recoup legal fees or statutory damages like you can under current Copyright law.
So, the Orphan Works Act would make it open season for Copyright infringement.
After all, for the Copyright infringer, the rewards will be even greater than the risks. And, if they just go after the little guys when they infringe Copyright, they can improve the risk/reward ratio by decreasing the likelihood that their victims will have the means to go after them, especially if they make small amounts of money that aren’t worth the court costs.
You would be tempted to wonder what kind of mind-numbingly stupid people would come up with a plan like this. Maybe a consortium of crooks?
Nope. It’s the U.S. Congress. You can read more about the Orphan Works Act here.
Of course, you must also realize that, if this act passes, the only people that will be able to protect their work are the rich. And the big corporations.
And, therein may be the truth behind the apparent stupidity.
As anyone who watches TV or movies these days, it’s amazingly clear that Hollywood is largely creatively bankrupt. They’re running out of ideas. They’re “reimagining” old series or importing ideas from overseas.
But, under the Orphan Works Act, they would have an expended pool of ideas from which they could borrow steal ideas. You see, where someone like Disney would certainly have the means to go after you for Copyright infringement if you start selling t-shirts with Mickey Mouse on them, you probably don’t have the means to go after them for stealing your ideas, especially if you cannot recoup legal fees or statutory damages!
So, if you’re a small-time content creator, the Orphan Works Act will make an open season on your work. Not only will you have to worry about the scrapers and other content thieves that are out there, which will grow exponentially under the Orphan Works Act, you’ll also have to worry about big entertainment conglomerates stealing it too.
Contact your Senator today! And, just hope the big corporations don’t already own him or her.
Even amended as suggested by the various guilds, this is still a bad idea. Encourage your Senator to vote against it entirely, amended or not!
[...] Protected by Copyright, while it lasts. Don’t let Congress vote away your rights to your creative works! [...]
Dan,
This is indeed sad!
Just yesterday a website pinched my guest post from John Hewitt’s Writer’s Resource Center blog (the very same day it was posted), posting it in its entirety on its blog. And though this work wasn’t “orphaned” and this situation has nothing to do with direct monetary profit, (at least as far as I know), the blogger had no right to post my content without my permission–despite including my byline and linking to both my and John’s blogs. This individual not only infringed my copyright, but violated John’s exclusive right to post this piece to his blog. I’ve told the individual to take down the post and can only hope he or she will do so soon. (By the way, the individual changed the title of the post, which does make one wonder about motive.)
Having our intellectual and creative property stolen is no joke! Good for you for drawing attention to this misguided Act.
Jeanne
There are, no doubt, works that are true “orphans.” The copyright owner (or his or her heirs) may not are if anyone uses it or not. But, this proposed Act just opens up too much potential for abuse, and even unintended abuse. It’s difficult enough now to convince people that things they find on the Internet are not in the public domain.
So, any potential benefit of the act (in the cases of true “orphan” works) is far outweighed by the potential risk to copyright owners. If we are to err, we ought to err on the side of rightful owners. If that means inconveniencing those that would like to use a potential “orphaned” work but cannot because they cannot track down the copyright owner, then so be it.
It’s also about protecting your work as well, and being able to restrict its publication, as in your example. There could be cases too where much of the value of a work is lost if it is published too widely without the owner’s permission. He or she may be able to sue for damages (which would mean what the court determines “reasonable” royalties should have been) but not for legal fees or statutory damages. But, those damages he or she might win, might never be equal to what he or she might have gotten upfront (plus royalties) in a deal with a publisher or studio.
And, it’s not just about money either. A creator might intend something for only limited release or to a more limited audience. The creator should be able to control his or her right of expression too.
If given the choice between being able to use an “orphan” work and risking losing the rights to my work or not being able to use “orphan” works and not risking losing the rights to my work, I’m going to go with the latter.
If you cannot find the copyright owner of a work, and/or cannot confirm that it is in the public domain, don’t use it! It’s that easy!
I agree, Dan.
As for the piece that was put up without my permission, the website took it down yesterday–after comments were left on their blog by John, me, and Michele Tune (Writing the Cyber Highway), who also has one of my guest posts on her blog (a post that ran simultaneously with the one stolen from WRC).
But, would you believe that just today I received a Google Alert telling me that another one of my articles is posted to a British site–and this one has removed my byline, changed the title of the piece, chopped a few paragraphs off the end, and added a few words/phrases to the piece as anchor text for its own links, which it also added. People are incredible! I left a message via the site’s contact form outlining what they need to do if they want to continue to use the piece (which includes paying for a usage license via Constant Content, where I have that article posted for sale). I also told them they need to restore my byline and the entire article back to its original condition–or remove it from their site immediately. We’ll see what happens.
Jeanne
In a capitalistic society, money is made by the most ruthless - which is the golden rule of
capitalism. Like I said before, I use pictures from other sources on my blog all the time, and
99% of the people out there actually appreciate it, especially because I give them full credit
and link to them. If someone uses my stuff or republishes a section of text - as long as they
give me credit, I am appreciative of it. If someone makes a million dollars off of something I
wrote and didn’t give me at least half the money and full credit for writing it, I would hunt them
down and they would literally disappear…hahaha. I provide my own police:) One of the greatest
thieves of all time is Bill Gates. He is actually THE GUY who helped change the rights of an owner
and enabled him to protect his own work. It’s funny though, considering that WindowsXP was blatantly
stolen from an open source BSD - and people think Microsoft actually came up with it!
I’m going to disagree with you there. Capitalism is about private ownership (whether by individuals or corporations) of property and the right to use that property (including intellectual property).
If you don’t mind people using your work so long as they give you credit, that’s your right. You control (in theory) how others may use your work.
For me, I don’t want anyone using my stuff without my permission. Quoting is one thing; copying sections or whole works in their entirety is another. And, that’s my right.
The problem that we have is that we’re tending towards becoming a plutocracy, if we’re not there already. Or, at the very least, we have an oligarchy.
People like to blame “big corporations” but I think the blame has to be with the politicians. They are supposed to look out for us but they don’t. They interfere in things they shouldn’t. They use the “general welfare” clause to cover everything and anything they want to meddle with.
You cannot blame the corporations. If politicians were meddling with things that affect you, and you had the money, wouldn’t you hire the lobbyists and make the campaign contributions necessary to get things to go your way?
Mind you, if the politicians stayed out of such things, the corporations would be spending that money on advertising or making better products. And, there wouldn’t be as much corruption in political circles. The reason for political corruption is because the politicians have allowed themselves to be corrupted. And, they’ve done that not only by taking those campaign contributions and whatever else, but also by meddling in things they should have left alone.
But they meddle. And things spiral out of control. Instead of competing in the marketplace, companies compete in the lobbyist circles. Sometimes, they’ll even make pre-emptive strikes to keep potential competitors down before they can pose a threat.
The result is that the little guy draws the short stick.
The problem isn’t free market capitalism, because we don’t have that.
“And, just hope the big corporations don’t already own him or her.” Is it even possible to find a politician whose every idea and opinion isn’t already purchased by someone?