Please read the following page:
You have until close of business today (7th September 2011) to send your submission to be viewed by the committee.
Here's what I sent:
Summary
Artists should have the right to
profit from their own work
Artists should have the moral
right to their work
Copyright should automatically be
assigned to the artist
Due diligence should be a matter
of course for orphan works
Art should be protected in the
same way and manner as music and writing
Instead of curtailing artist's
right to their own work, education about copyright and copyright
infringements should take place
The government should not bow to
the pressure of Google or other interested parties that want to
steal artists right to their own work.
The UK should assimilate its
copyright and intellectual property laws with the rest of the EU
Considering that the internet is
already facilitating a 'take what you want' attitude the government
surely should not support and sanction this attitude
- Loss of revenue due to the fact
that artist are not 'allowed' to profit from their own work.
Detailed argument
According to the following laws:
1 Everyone has the
right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to
enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.
2 Everyone has the right to the protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary
or artistic production of which he is the author.
piracy of copyright work is a breach of the copyright
holder's human rights;
the copyright holder is therefore entitled to legal
redress;
and, because 'so far as possible, primary legislation
and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way
which is compatible with human rights', legislation drafted and
enacted subsequent to the enactment of the Human
Rights Act 1998 must also be read and given effect in a way which
is compatible with human rights.
the attempt to relieve artists of their rights is unlawful and
unjust. The moral right of an artist to his/her own work should be
unwaivable and copyright automatic as it is in current UK copyright
law, EU and UN law.
For any artist who tries to make
a living from his/her art, this new law would make it impossible to
make a living as it does not take into consideration the needs of the
artist as a business. From web portfolios to personal websites,
blogs, print on demand art sites etc to licensing and commissioned
work, the artist cannot rely on word of mouth alone but has to make
use of the internet to promote his/her work. However, inherent in
this kind of promotion is the danger of art being stolen and/or
plagiarised. This doesn't just take place with the odd person lifting
an image for a party invitation, but includes big businesses taking
advantage of artists, point in case,
Paper Chase. The details
of this can be read
here
Most artists cannot afford big corporate lawyers to deal with such
infringements and are therefore relying on the law to be clear and
just so these cases can be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
For artists who license their work additional issues become a
problem. For example, if an artist issues an 'exclusive license' this
means that the art cannot be used for anything or anywhere else. If
the art is used, e.g. because it is stolen, the artist is in breach
of contract and can be sued for damages through no fault of his/her
own.
Visual artists are separated from performance/music artists and
writers and copyright seems to apply to one but not the other.
Detailed information about automatic copyright for music artists
(creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound
recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of
published editions )
here
These rights include the artist however, the new law would
separate artists from other creators don't and not be applicable to
artists in the same way as copyright laws are for musicians and
writers. Copyright should not be a matter of lobby but a matter of
just laws.
There is no due diligence or 'evidence' expected for anyone
wanting to use 'orphan works' commercially. On the internet images
can be copied and pasted and then copied and pasted again, cropped,
the colour changed, etc until the original source of the image gets
lost in translation, which will make it difficult although not
impossible to find the creator of any works. However, unless there is
logged evidence of a company actually looking for the originator and
looking hard, it will mean that any image can be used by anyone
claiming they 'thought' it was an orphan work. This is unacceptable
for art as a business.
In cases of copyright infringement the law should be clear and
just and allow for damages to the artist's business. Currently there
is no need to register your copyright as it is automatically granted,
although there are companies offering a free registration that logs
the time and date of the copyright. See, for example,
http://www.cdateit.com/,
http://myfreecopyright.com/,
http://www.freecopyrightregistration.com/
however, requiring artists to pay for the registration of their work
is only viable for those artists who already have a profitable
business, for start up artists this would be an impossible
expenditure. In which case, with the new law these artists would have
no protection against copyright infringements.
Instead of loosening up the IP
laws and allowing big companies to profit from artists' work, the law
should tighten up the law and make it easier for artists to enforce
their copyright and hold on to their moral rights.
The new law would be the equivalent of someone going to a
supermarket, taking what they want and leaving the store without
paying. When reprimanded the customer could say, but you didn't
register your right for me to pay. Theft is theft and stealing
someone's art is just as wrong as taking anything else that doesn't
belong to you.
There is far too little information about copyright and copyright
infringement being made public or taught at school. Pupils are
encouraged to copy/print art and photography from the internet and
use in their school work. There are more cases than I care to
remember where art is stolen from the net and then used to make a
profit.
Feel free to use the information I've provided in your letter. 
Posts
