A comprehensive bill to reform copyright, in particular address Sec. 115 licensing for compositions as well as orphan works, has gained more support. (Note: I spoke on this bill in Vegas last week, and remain supportive of some portions and skeptical of others.) A letter (PDF) was sent late last week to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking Democrat Conyers supporting the Copyright Reform Act of 2006, which has seen its markup delayed. The signatories were the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), the American Federation of TV and Radio Artists (AFTRA), the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), Church Music Publishers Association (CMPA), Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (The GRAMMYs), National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), the Recording Artists Coalition (RAC), SESAC, Inc. and the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA). Some of these groups have objected previously to this bill, and in the letter they reserve the right to object if certain problems aren't addressed, including letters of direction and orphan works.

A colleague of mine seems to feel that orphan works legislation is in doubt due to increasing concerns about illustrators and similar artists. I think the concerns she raises are valid and I have said so repeatedly. But these problems have always existed and are not worse now than when the bill was introduced, and in many respects they are a problem for illustrators with the Internet in general, not just with orphan works legislation. That said, I remain queasy about the notion of any legislation that limits the rights of artists who suffer infringement.

On letters of direction, I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I gather some artist groups fear that labels to whom they owe money due to not yet covering advances might use letters of direction to divert songwriting royalties to apply to their promotion/distribution debt. It's unfortunate that the federal government is intimately involved in what should really be something handled in the market.

I must quote one paragraph from the letter, and I will make no editorial comment about it:

Further, we are outraged that the Consumer Electronics Association and Public Knowledge would claim to speak on behalf of creators while consistently working to erode the current legal protections of our intellectual property.

Okay, one editorial comment. I have repeatedly stated that I don't pretend to speak for artists. I do support them, though, and my wish is that they function in a free market with strong IP rights so they can speak for themselves.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 4:51 PM | Legislation and Legislators

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)