While the country is focused on the state of the economy and the recent vote, which rejected the $700 billion bail-out for financial institutions, the U.S. Senate has passed controversial legislation that “threatens the livelihoods of everyone who relies on copyright for a living.”

I’m talking about the “Orphan Works Act,” which was first introduced early last spring. Read the full text of the bill here.

Tom Richmond, MAD Magazine cartoonist, stated “There is no way a logically minded individual can think that the Orphan Works act is a good idea and will help promote the creation of creative works, as it claims. It will seriously damage the livelihood of the very creators they somehow seek to encourage to create.”

It isn’t just cartoonists and illustrators whose livelihood will be impacted by this bill. Musicians, writers, bloggers, photographers, and many other creative artists will be affected. Here is a list of all organizations opposed.

As David Rhodes, President of the School of Visual Arts has said, the Orphan Works bill would socialize the expense of copyright protection while privatizing the profit of creative endeavors.

Here is an example, from Ted Rall, president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC), to help people gain a basic understanding of this bill.

Let’s say, for example, that a book publisher wanted to print an editorial cartoon in a history textbook. Currently a typical reprint fee for such use is $250. Under current copyright law, a publisher who gets caught using such work without permission would be liable for three times the standard rate—in this case, $750. A judge could order the books impounded. If the cartoonist had to hire a lawyer, a judge could make the violator pay his or her attorney’s fees. These provisions deter most would-be copyright violators.

Under the Orphan Works Act, the deterrent effect of punishment would all but vanish. If the cartoonist learned about the infringement and tracked down its perpetrator, all the publisher would have to do to avoid the triple penalty would be to claim that it engaged in an as-yet undefined “good-faith search.” In the cited example, the aggrieved cartoonist would receive $250. He or she would have no way to remove the image from a book that he or she might find objectionable—say, one that advocated reprehensible political views. There would be no compensation for legal fees, or the time and effort involved in tracking down lawbreakers. And that’s assuming the artist were ever to learn about the illegal usage.

Or, in other words….

© Nick Anderson