Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle editorial cartoonist, has written a blog post on the personal impact of the Orphan Works Act on artists if it is passed.

And written from the artist’s perspective: “Why does this matter to me?

• Creative control and ownership: No one can use or change my work without my permission.
• Value: In the marketplace my ability to sell exclusive rights to a client triples the value of my work.

The Orphan Works Act would end that exclusive right because

• It would let anyone who can’t find me (or who removes my name from my work and says he can’t) to infringe my work.
• Since infringements can occur anytime, anywhere in the world,
• My work could be stolen countless times, but I might never find out about it.
• That means that under this bill, I would never again be able to assure a client that my work hasn’t been - or won’t be - infringed.
• Therefore I would never again be able to guarantee a client an exclusive right to license any of my work.
• This means my entire inventory - my life’s work - would be devalued by at least 2/3 its potential worth from the moment this bill takes effect.”

As AAEC President, he earlier joined the National Cartoonist Society in an open letter to congress warning that passage of this legislation would severely hurt artists.

A week or two ago I found this sarcastic but reasonably well written and equally misguided “Six Misconceptions about Orphaned Works” post that tries to debunk the proposed Orphan Works legislation as not being the monstrosity creators think it is. The author is incredibly naive in that she believes the Orphan Works bill won’t change US Copyrights in a fundamental way, and she cites current copyright law in her debunking attempts when those laws will no longer apply in several real ways if the Orphan Works bill becomes law. She sees it as a way to be able to archive and possibly preserve works that would otherwise be lost in time because they are truly “orphaned”, like Grandma’s family photos. That is of course one of the simple reasons behind the legislation, but nothing is simple and this proposed law is like giving someone the right to scratch an itch they have but they need to use a sledgehammer to do it.

…

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. Misguided people like the author of the “Six Misconceptions about Orphaned Works” seem to think it’s more important to be able to make copies of Mom and Dad’s wedding pictures than to protect the ability of creative professionals to make a living.

If you make a living in any way be creating intellectual works i.e. art, illustration, writing, etc., then this proposed legislation is of vital importance to you and your livelihood. Read up on it, and follow the suggestions of the folks at the Illustrator’s Partnership and contact your state representatives. In the meantime, you’ll be seeing all the images on my website begin to be replaced by ones with a giant, ugly copyright and my name watermark on it.

Read the whole thing. It’s worth it.

The Illustrator’s Partnership of America is worried that many of the groups that have opposed this bill before have said they will not oppose this latest round.

Several groups which opposed the bill last time will not oppose it this time. They’re ready to concede defeat in return for concessions for their groups. They’ve also insisted that no other visual artists speak out against it. They say we must all capitulate in order not to endanger the concessions they want. They say we have to show Congress that artists speak with one voice: theirs. That creates a problem.

Not all visual artists have the same stake in copyright protection. Who owns the copyrights to your high school yearbook photos? Your wedding photos? Bar mitzvah pictures? How often has that ever been an issue?

If you are concerned about this legislation, please visit the IPA for the latest news regarding the Orphan Works bill.

Additionally, according to E&P, Susie has explored the option of taking Shoe to King Features where they have promised a $350,000 signing bonus as well as additional licensing and sales support that Susie feels TMS is lacking. While TMS has matched the signing bonus, but apparently Susie feels Kings licensing and sales promises make their offer more enticing.

UPDATE: E&P senior editor Dave Astor has posted a follow-up that includes a brief response from TMS. TMS executive John Twohey has stated that Susie “cannot unilaterally move the rights” of Shoe to King Features (or any other syndicate) because the current contract has clauses “that gives us the opportunity to match any offer Blue Ridge Salvage receives from another syndicate, and we have done that.”

I’m not a lawyer, but here’s what it sounds like. There is a right of first refusal in the 1995 contact that allows TMS to extend the contract, but they are required to match any offers from other syndicates. If they can’t match it, then the feature is free to leave. TMS has met King Feature’s $350,000 offer and thereby feels it has fulfilled its contract and the 2008 contract date should be extended. Susie recognizes there are non-quantifiable opportunity options, such as sales and licensing, that TMS is not providing or is incapable of providing. The 1995 contract may have been narrow in what it deemed as a counter-offer thereby only requiring TMS to counter quantitative dollar amounts. The 2000 letter Susie seems to be using, sounds like a weak loop-hole, but her best shot at moving Shoe to King Features.

“The CBLDF holds its biggest auction of the year at Comic-Con, and this year brings some amazing one-of-a-kind items to raise money for free speech! This year’s items include original art by Jim Lee, Jeff Smith, Todd McFarlane, Paul Pope, Neil Gaiman, Brian Bendis, Jim Starlin, David Lloyd, Juan Santacruz, Terry Moore, and many, many, many more!”

In addition, pre-bids will also be accepted online:

“Online bids will be accepted starting Monday, July 16 until Friday, July 27, 10:00 PM PST. All bids must be emailed to info@cbldf.org with “CCI SD AUCTION BID” in the subject line. Be sure when bidding to use the item name as it appears on the website.”

Those interested can see preview art here.

A snippet from the Star:

The trial heard that Wicks used a “file by pile” method. The case also heard that his son Vincent never put garbage in his garage, which was used mostly for storage.

The Superior Court judge in the case, Thomas Lederer, reserved his decision, expected within a few weeks.

The case centres on the legal definition of abandonment.

Lederer warned the defendants that “the onus is very high here to prove specific intent” to abandon the drawings, either expressly or by inference.