maradydd | The Orphan Works Act of 2008 still doesn't exist; try again Thursday

People. Really. When are you going to learn?

The Illustrators' Partnership is at it again, claiming that they've been sent a draft of the Orphan Works Act of 2008. (No THOMAS link provided, because guess what -- there's not one.) "They haven’t officially released it yet," they claim, "but we’ve been told the Senate will do so this week."

O RLY? Time to do a little digging.

See, the thing to understand about Congress -- indeed, any legislature -- is that it's full of rumors. The entire U.S. legislative branch, from the Speaker of the House down to the lowest congressional page, is as gossipy as a high school lunchroom. Legislators like to know what their fellow legislators are up to, and if you want to substantiate a rumor, the best thing to do is to talk to someone on the right committee.

I picked up my trusty mobile phone and looked up the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Why, look at that -- one of my Senators, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), sits on it. I figured I'd start with her office, since I bug them pretty frequently about issues I care about -- they might even know my voice by now. A cheerful staffer picked up on the second ring, and I introduced myself and explained what I was looking for. She couldn't find anything in their database (not surprising, since neither could I), and just to make sure we were on the same page, I pointed out that I was looking for a bill that hadn't been introduced yet, but which I'd heard was likely to be introduced this week, and asked whether anyone on Sen. Feinstein's staff had heard anything about it. She put me on hold, and came back a few minutes later to apologise; no one in the office knew anything about it. I thanked her for her time, and hung up.

Strike one.

Next step: the head of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Unfortunately, no one in Sen. Hatch's office was around. (This happens when you call close to 5pm Eastern time.) I tried one of his state offices, but they said I'd need the Washington office to help me. Oh well. I'll try them tomorrow.

Ball one.

Next step: the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). (He's also the head of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property belongs, which makes him a good bet for information.) This time, I got a guy who searched through the records, again couldn't find anything, and suggested I talk to somebody in the office of the Committee on the Judiciary. I thanked him and let him route the call.

Strike two.

The staffer for the Committee on the Judiciary searched through everything they had, still couldn't find anything, and said I could talk to their press secretary if I thought that would help. I said sure, it was worth a try, so he tried to raise her on the phone, but only got her voicemail. I left her a message explaining the situation (bill hasn't been introduced yet, heard it was going to be introduced this week, any information on it would be awesome, thanks), left my phone number, and hung up.

Half an hour later, the press secretary for the Senate Judiciary Committee called me back. (Now that's service!) She said that the bill was probably going to be introduced tomorrow, and she'd be happy to send me a press kit about it. I gave her my email address, and inquired as to who will be sponsoring it. As it so happens, the sponsors will be Sen. Leahy and Sen Hatch. I expressed my surprise, since the person I'd talked to at Sen. Leahy's office hadn't known about it, and she said it was probably because the other guy wasn't a Judiciary Committee staffer; she only knew about it because she was. Ok, no big deal then.

Saved by the bell! As I said before, a phone call to someone on the right committee will substantiate (or disprove) any rumor. Your legislators have their phone numbers on the Internet for a reason -- when you have questions, call them.

Still, no points to the Illustrators Partnership for saying "OMG THERE'S A BILL" but failing to disclose the sponsors or how people can get information about it for themselves. As I've said here and elsewhere, my only dog in this fight is making sure that people can get the information to make informed decisions. I'm not a fan of organisations who say "trust us, we have the data, we've interpreted it, no need for you to worry your pretty little heads over what it actually says, just listen to what we say and repeat our take on it to all your friends." A responsible organisation will give you the source material so that you can make your own decisions.

And now I'll do just that. For starters, here's all the contact information for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I spoke with Erica Chabot, Judiciary Press Secretary for Sen. Leahy. Give her a call at (202) 224-2154 and she can hook you up with the press materials. (I haven't received them yet; I expect them some time tomorrow.)

You can also contact the offices of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who are co-sponsoring the Senate bill. Note that I got farther with the Judiciary Committee itself than with Sen. Leahy's office, but once the bill's actually introduced, you'll want to contact its sponsors and the members of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property to give them your opinion.

If the bill is introduced in the Senate tomorrow, then it should be in THOMAS by Thursday morning. I'll be keeping an eye out for it, and will post at length about it once I've had a chance to read through it. (I also owe the Illustrators' Partnership a response to their response to "Six Misconceptions About Orphaned Works", but I have this thing called a "day job" that keeps me a little busy.)

More later.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thanks for making this post. I was seriously doubting the internet freakouts over this topic.

You are made of win.

Orphan Works Act does not exist? How do you explain this Libraian's OOPS! She pulled the link because the official introduction has not occured. So if you want to play technical games, go ahead. The Partnership seems to be doing it's job -telling artist what congress is in fact doing.

http://mollykleinman.com/2008/04/23/oops/

Britt Griswold

Let me get this straight.

A link that was removed is evidence of existence? Huh? How's that work, exactly?

As the librarian author is a supporter of the Orphaned Works Act, she has no reason to lie. The fact that Meredith is implying that no such bill is in the works because it is not on the congressional registry is disingenuous in my opinion. And to suggest that the Illustrator's Partnership is somehow lying when they say thay have seen recent versions of the Draft is indeed an acid tone to take. There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling artist to be prepared for the worst, and that it will come on fast. They were right on two years ago, so what reason is there to believe they do not have their facts straight now?

Britt Griswold

I didn't see Meredith imply there was no bill in the works. She reported what various Congress staffers told her, and one of them told her that, yes, indeed there is a bill that is going to be introduced.

I think what there is to object to here is the fact that the Illustrators Partnership claimed to know about the bill but did not provide people with any information about it, even though that information is not secret. She did the work that they ought to have done, if they were responsible in warning people about it -- finding out who is sponsoring the bill, asking for the press kit.

The exact point M_ was making is that the release about the possible bill should have included the information needed to substantiate it and to form an educated oppinion of it.

To quote: "As I've said here and elsewhere, my only dog in this fight is making sure that people can get the information to make informed decisions. I'm not a fan of organisations who say "trust us, we have the data, we've interpreted it, no need for you to worry your pretty little heads over what it actually says, just listen to what we say and repeat our take on it to all your friends." A responsible organisation will give you the source material so that you can make your own decisions."

When you are sending out a call to arms RE: anything, include more than just your opinions. Give facts, sources of facts, or other routes to informaion so that those you wish to convince can decide for themselves. We are not sheep.

Note the second half of the title of this post: "try again Thursday," when anything introduced in the Senate on Wednesday will be in THOMAS.

Did you actually read beyond the first semicolon?

Thanks for the great research and leaving your trail for others to follow. Definitely more credible that way. I enjoy your writing as well, and please, keep it up. Thanks again for discussing this subject.

Glad to be of service! I hope the breadcrumbs make it easier for other people to do research like this on their own -- the information really is out there, right at our fingertips, if we take the trouble to look for it.

I'm curious to see what information is in the press kit they said they'd forward... will this be for public dissemination or just private viewing?

if you have the right people lined up and you're in a position to recieve a copy, considering how much attention you've recieved at this point, i hope that you'll post a link... if you need space to host it if it's a ZIP or PDF or whatever, let me know... i have some you can use.

wether this is true or not, eyes need be on washington. you've said it yourself, rumours spread like wildfire, but also, so does information. it may or may not be a rumour, but in the slight change that it isn't, i'd like to stay informed and know about it.

Posted! It was text, so I've cut-and-pasted the entire thing, unchanged, here (http://maradydd.livejournal.com/376191.html).

Thank you so much for the above info......Have called and asked for a copy of what it to be presented.

Good on you! The government's job is to work for us -- always remember that. :)

I am an artist and I have to say I am confused about this issue now that I've read what you had to say (after just listening to the Brad Holland interview - an artist I respect profoundly.) I do applaud your efforts to get tangible evidence either way and would appreciate your continuing to post on the subject.

Meredith The IPA has stated they received the bill and two hours later the rest of the industry also posted that they had it. What's wrong with you? Can't you just admit you don;t know what you are talking about?
Dp the industry a favor. Sit back and think before you post.

I'm with you on the need for more facts and less FUD. We (Fractured Atlas) are hoping to put together a forum or hearing on the bill sometime soon. In the meantime, I've posted my own thoughts on the FA blog (http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blog/2008/04/28/orphan-works-act-of-2008/).

All the info I see is dated April... it is now May and I don't see any update. Is there any? Did anyone get back to you on "Thursday"?

Am I alone in not understanding just what I am to be alarmed about? I am not sure what the issues are. I have had no information on just what is to be changed that Congress is planning.

This blog makes the most sense of a rather senseless, tho emotional, topic (the actual subject of which I am not sure of). As a citizen, even more so as an artist, holding your work as your own is key to our way of seeing the world. But this round of internet email seems knee-jerk to me. Lots of fuss, time, energy, etc and no substance.

Thanks for being an island of reason in a morass of confusion.

I don't know any of the other debate about this issue, and I applaud the way you followed up on this, but two things about the bill have caught my eye. Firstly, I don't know why it's necessary. Secondly, the bill establishes 'reasonable compensation' as what a willing buyer and seller would pay. For random internet art....what's that? Commission rates? I'm not an artist so I have no idea what those are.

In practice, that could amount to "We'll use your art. If you catch us, you do some paperwork and we fork over fifty bucks. Then we use someone elses art."

The barrier to that is of course punitive damages, which 'tort reform' of this nature is usually designed to preclude.

-TheDeadlyShoe

The Orphan Works Act of 2008 still doesn't exist; try again Thursday

no subject

no subject

Orphan Works Act does not exist?

Re: Orphan Works Act does not exist?

Re: Orphan Works Act does not exist?

Re: Orphan Works Act does not exist?

Re: Orphan Works Act does not exist?

Re: Orphan Works Act does not exist?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

just the facts

It takes a smart person to be able to say they are wrong.

More facts, less FUD

Any News in May???

Reasonable limits