* <<F7L.0764>> There are no orphan works.

Let me first begin by apologizing for what may be a lack of depth in
this letter.  If it comes off as somewhat half-cocked, it is because
I was only made aware of the Notice of Inquiry two days before the
closing date for comments, and have only had time to inform myself
in-brief on the issues under review and some of the proposals to
address them.

I am a professional illustrator, and the monetary value of my work
lies solely in the legal strength of my copyright to it.

Copyright protects three groups: it protects authors of original work
from exploitation of their labour-product without just compensation;
it protects patron-publishers who invest in the production of new
work from having their investments undermined; and, likewise, it
protects rights-holders who have purchased copyrights or licenses to
pre-existing work from having their investments undermined.  These
groups: authors, investors, and traders, are the only parties whose
time, talent, expertise, and capital are involved in the production
of new work and the fair trade of pre-existing work; as such, they
are the only parties whose needs and rights should be taken into
consideration when draughting any new copyright legislation.  Any
future alteration of copyright law which would weaken the protections
for these groups must be seen as a failure.  Moreover, any alteration
of copyright law which weakens protections for these groups in order
to benefit third parties who would profit by the labour and
investment of others without compensating them must be seen as a
complete perversion of copyright law.

The outrageous proposition of abolishing the current institution of
automatic copyright – certainly the most important component of the
Copyright Act of 1976 and an international tradition more than a
century old amongst signatories of the Berne Convention – can only
benefit parties who seek to monetize the labour-product of authors
and/or the investments of patron-publishers and rights-holders
without compensating them.  It would be a shameful ethical regression
for the United States, and a boon to pirate publishers and other
copyright infringers.

The concept of "orphan works" is an absurdity.  The idea that an
author's work, when lacking clear attribution, should suddenly fall
into the public domain is ludicrous in an age where media can be
digitized, stripped of attribution, and distributed to a million
Internet users in the space of an hour.  Could anyone really be so
morally vacuous as to think that an automobile with its VIN removed
should suddenly become a free car?  If a work cannot be sourced
and/or rights cannot be obtained to publish it, IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE
PUBLISHED outside the well-established scope of fair use.  It's
certainly better for authors if new work is commissioned instead, and
at least commerce is taking place if alternative pre-existing works
are found and licensed.  Creating a system which legitimizes the
exploitation of so-called orphan works can only encourage the
intentional orphaning of work by unethical actors.  Simply because
the mechanisms do not currently exist to link all digital works back
to their authors we cannot take the position that all digital works
are inherently authorless.  There are no "orphan" works; there are
simply works that have been circulated by third parties unbeknownst
to the author.

EVERY work has an author.

EVERY author is entitled to compensation for the exploitation of
their labour-product.

EVERYONE is an author. Not just novelists, easel painters, recording
artists, or other professional authors – EVERYONE.  Moms snapping
candid photos of their kids, teens writing empassioned blogs,
children smearing poster paint on construction paper – they are all
originators of literary and artistic works and have a moral right to
the exclusive ownership of their labour-product, their intellectual
property.

Any future copyright law which would only protect authors or
rights-holders whose work had been registered with a private registry
would be nothing short of a legal mandate for the establishment of a
kind-of copyright protection racket, a system by which authors and
rights-holders would have to pay protection money to enjoy the legal
rights that the citizens of 167 other nations of the Berne Union
enjoy for free.  Furthermore, the implementation of any
registration-required system would potentially invalidate the
copyrights of the untold billions of pre-existing unregistered works,
and that, in turn, would doubtlessly incur a frenzy of claim-jumping
by unscrupulous actors seeking to register illegitimate claims.

In short, the only people pressing for orphan works legislation are
people who want something for nothing – people who want to use
others' work without paying, and who don't want to pay for the
creation of something new.  The only people pressing for
registration-required copyright are those who seek to profit from the
copyright-registration business.  Authors, patron-publishers, and
rights-holders stand only to suffer devaluation of their labour and
assets and to incur an increased cost of doing business if either of
these schemes are put into law.

DO NOT consider abolition of automatic copyright.

DO NOT consider the institution of a buy-in copyright system.

-----

Rather than revoking our current automatic copyright system, I would
like to see the US Copyright Office offer a trusted timestamping
service

--
Excerpted from:

PUBLIC NOTES (F)
http://alph.laemeur.com/txt/PUBNOTES-F
©2015 Adam C. Moore (LÆMEUR) <[email protected]>