Teddy Talk: Creating, Collecting, Connecting

Oh, eek!  I didn't mean to imply YOU were hysterical, Luann.  Gosh, no.  Just the stuff I've been browsing on the web.  Your response was totally reasoned. 

I really appreciate, too, the further explanation on trademarks since my own knowledge is based on definitions from the web and not remotely on personal experience or legal advice.  Thanks for that!

I've been writing more to the "Teddy Talk readership" than responding to any one post in particular, because I know that as little as I know, it's more than some, and less than others -- like you!!

So sorry if my words came out differently than they were intended!  Basically, I just want to help artists be informed so they can protect themselves.  Same as you!

And it's actually nice to know someone personally who's suffered the trademark process.  I know now who to approach if/when the issue comes up for me...

Yay, Luann, for doing some serious homework!   You rock!   Thanks for the very detailed report and your legwork on this issue.  I'll be curious to hear where this ends up, since most of what I've been reading is interesting and emotional and reactive and intellectual and also, kinda vague and speculative at the same time.  It seems like this legislation has reared up more than once and threatens to become active again, hence the current hysteria over it.  Or at least, that's what my little bit of browsing has indicated.

I do know a trademark is a different animal entirely than a copyrighted piece.  The orphan works legislation would apply mostly to images (photos, patterns, logos, designs), considered orphaned, and their use by third parties to whom they do not belong, which most artists believe constitutes theft, especially if no real good faith effort to locate the copyright owner ever actually takes place.  I think that's where the hysteria I'm reading all over the web is coming from.  Artists -- many of them photographers and folks who post images to the web -- are really afraid they'll lose their livlihood if huge corporations, with bottomless, deep pockets, start using their images without granting credit or royalties, and then if/when caught, hide behind the excuse that "We tried!!" when asked, "Did you seek out permission to use?"  Plus, the legislation has in the past proposed a very insubstantial cap on remedies to the injured party -- the photographer.  As I mentioned above, what good would it do the photographer to receive $200 for the theft of his/her image, if the company that stole and used it earned a $2 million profit from advertisements featuring that photographer's work. And so on.

A trademark such as "LuLuBears", especially one that's been officially registered (don't know if yours has been, I'm just using you as an example) is a different animal.  From Wikipedia:

So, for instance, this is a trademark.  It conveys instantly the entire branding concept and product offerings we associate with Kelloggs (here in America, anyway).  This is protected, if registered, by trademark law, and does not relate to the Orphan Works legislation, as I understand it.:

But this image, below, which isn't trademarked, is copyrighted and belongs to me.  I own all rights and I reserve all rights to the use of this image.  If what I'm reading becomes real and the worst case scenario plays out, it's possible that Orphan Works legislation would allow a company to use my image to advertise a product without my permission, by simply saying, "Well, we looked for the owner, but couldn't find her.  And the image wasn't registered, so we felt okay to proceed."  If this image was used to advertise, for example, "Alice Does Dallas," Vivid's newest [INVALID] flick, I think my reputation as a squeaky clean (more or less) bearmaker might take a bit of a hit, and I'd certainly be less than thrilled with my art being used in such a way.  And if my work were to be used in that way, I'd for sure want to see some cashflow in return for my massive discomfort and possible loss of clientele!!:

Anyway... I pretty much know only half of what I'm talking about here, and didn't remotely mean to stir hysteria of my own by posting about this legislation.  Rather, I just wanted people out there in the bear world, fellow artistic types who care about such things, to be AWARE that these issues are in circulation.  I, for one, had never heard of Orphan Works legislation prior to yesterday when it popped up right under my nose on another forum.  I was a bit abashed at my utter un-inform-ed-ness, to be honest.  And if, in fact, such legislation goes live again, in the near or distant future, I just thought it would be nice for all of us to know about it and be in the loop, so we could have a voice, individually and collectively. 

At this point, as I said, I'm neither freaking out nor entirely soothed.  I haven't read everything and I don't know enough to be entirely informed.  I'm just... cautious, and learning.  Watching.  Thinking.

Luann, let us know what you hear back, and bless you for your thoroughness and gumption.  Seriously.

And, also seriously... did you actually read that 100 page document???

I bow to you.

Here's another, less emotional take on the ORPHAN WORKS concept. 

http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html

The issues are complicated and I'm not done reading thru them all, such that I can come to my own conclusions.  All I know, at this point, is that some of the changes being proposed in this legislation have the possibility of becoming loopholes allowing the abuse of artist rights.  Whether stated somewhat hysterically (the first link I posted) in a rather doom-and-gloom kind of way, or with greater calm and control (the link just above), that possible loophole is something I'd rather avoid, that I think is bad for artists.

Read and decide for yourself!!  And most important, stay informed.

It is interesting, and I'm still reading myself.  The problem, as I see it, is that while the bill purports to do one thing, in reality, it may serve less as a "functional" bill than as a loophole which allows mass abuse.  The biggest problem as I've been able to determine so far is that even if foul play is determined, there are limits on compensation, or compensation is disalllowed entirely. 

It would be a crying shame for a photographer, for instance, to have an image stolen and used to advertise, say, cigarettes, without permission.  The bigger shame icing that cake is that if this bill or one like it passes, the photograper isn't entitled to credit or royalties.  What about the photographer who is deeply opposed to cigarette use?  What about the impact on his/her career?  And the folks who find and use the "orphaned work" -- remember, all that means is that they could not find the copyright owner to ask permission -- have maybe reached 8 MILLION consumers with that photographer's image.  And maybe have made $20 MILLION dollars using her image (without permission) to advertise THEIR product.  And she saw not one whit of cash or credit for it.

Even more interesting... this exact scenario has actually happened.  Read here about the true story of "The Blue Girl":  http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/ … term=00235

And guess what?  The photographer of "The Blue Girl" sued and won a settlement against the tobacco company that essentially stole her image.  That won't be possible once the Orphan Works legislation goes into effect, because her remedies will be limited.  The huge firm that found and used her image without permission claimed they looked for her, but didn't find her, and thus concluded her image was "orphaned."  For now, that doesn't work as an excuse and copyright law allows abused parties certain remedies.  In the future, if the Orphan Works bill passes, these remedies are lost.

I'm not getting all radical on this issue, but if there's even a hint of truth to the abuses people are suggesting might be possible, I think it's important that all artists of any ilk get informed.

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=page … 605&page=1

This is a lengthy, small print article that takes a few minutes to read, but it's so important!!!

The article describes a piece of legislation before Congress -- ORPHAN WORKS legislation -- that will, if passed, make it necessary for artists to register EVERY work (pattern, painting, poem), FOR A FEE, in order to protect that work from what is essentially theft.

The long and short of it is that right now, copyright is automatically granted, whether you register your work or not.  The ORPHAN WORKS legislation before Congress will allow anyone to use your unregistered (or "orphaned") work without giving you credit or royalty payments.  That means anything you've posted here, on flickr, on your blog, on DeviantArt, or on another forum; at shutterfly or snapshots or picture trail; or anywhere else on the web; essentially becomes "public domain" and your rights as owner are eradicated.

I haven't done any research on this -- this article was shared at my art card site by a fine artist who's "in the know" -- but if this is true, it's a nasty, complicated, and expensive shift in how things have been done to date.

If, just to pose an example, it will cost $5 per work to register, that means I would have had to spend over $500 in the last year alone, just to register my web-posted artist trading cards, to protect them.  And I swap them for free, other than my out of pocket cost for postage stamps.  I'd never be able to afford to register all my cards, so they'd either go unseen (except by their recipients), or ATC trading would be my first hobby to go after this bill is passed.  Heaven help us.

Imagine how much less fun and informative and gorgeous and enriched our own Teddy Talk forum would be, without photographs -- because none of us could afford to post those photographs, for fear they'd be turned into an ad for "Teddy Beer", the newest high-octane alcoholic beverage for the hairiest of men.  And so on.  Without registration, our images would be considered "orphaned" and could be used by, say, tobacco companies; [INVALID] producers; and the like; without accountability to them, or compensation or credit to us.

It's a mad, mad world.

Who came up with this dumba** idea anyway???

Gorgeous, Jenny.  Your work just gets better and better.

I am currently driving myself crazy with attempting to create my own realistic eyes for bears & dolls.  AARGH!   Nothing wrong with the awesome premium eyes I use currently; I just wanted to do the impossible, apparently, and try something new.  Clay, resin, hand-sculpted, molded -- you name it, I've tried it.  And yes, I've read every last tutorial on the internet.  Seriously.  Short of buying someone's proprietary methodology and about a gajillion dollars of equipment, I'm kinda stuck.  That's my creative "other craft" du jour.  This past month or so.

I also dabble in artist trading cards on a regular basis.  Right now, in addition to regular themed swaps -- I'm in a Marie Antoinette chunky book swap and a coffee/tea themed ATC swap right now -- I'm part of a Tarot Deck project (deadline for artwork looming!  Eek!) with my main trading site, IllustratedATCs.com.  I'm also helming a collaborative journal project for that same site on the theme of COLORS which will publish some time this summer.  The submissions for that, so far, are fantastic.

Last, I'm known to fiddle with my website and blog design from time to time.  In fact, as I re-imagine a new kind of POTBELLY BEAR, I'm also re-inventing my website and blog, in my head.  Coming soon, if I don't tear my hair out first!!

Nancy rocks my socks off.  She's superwoman.

Congratulations, Nancy, on a wonderful achievement!  Will your next book be, "101 Perps to Break?" 

... ha!  Until JUST now, when I tried again for grins, and now it's NOT happening.  I WAS able to use "back" to return to your blog.  Maybe something changed somewhere.  I don't know.  I'm just glad to see the stuckness issue has gotten unstuck.

:)

PS Aleta... I notice you have a bird's nest under a bell jar.  Pretty!  Question, though:  I have some finch nests myself, but unlike the one you're showcasing, mine are covered with bird poop because they were well and fully used by the birdies.  Is your nest faux or is there some "clean the poop off" step involved in showcasing bird's nests that I need to become familiar with?  LOL...

Yes, yes, of course... and thank you for asking!  I've just added you to mine as well.  :rose:

Aleta... The problem might be a Firefox thing, or some setting that I never actually SET on Firefox, but the browser set for me.  It shouldn't have anything to do with my own blog or its server (unrelated, and I don't always get to your blog from my own but sometimes from TT, for example)... and it might have to do with YOUR settings on your own blog.  I don't know but I just want to figure out how to fix it!  Hopefully someone with more know-how will pop in here and give us all a clue about what might be causing this.  Seriously, it's never happened to  me on anyone else's blog (yet) and it happens every time I click one of your pics to see it bigger.

(pouts)

Ha!  Dilu... :)

Of course I do that.  All the time.

Which reminds me, Aleta...

When I visit YOUR blog and click on and upsize YOUR photos, I can't get back to your blog by using the "back" button on my browser (Firefox.)  No idea why.  I just stay stuck on that particular photo. Maddening, because inevitably, I want to read more.  Has anyone else ever commented on this to you?  I've never encountered this on any other blog.

You're special.

GREAT pictures!  I love "visiting" shows via the internet, but I'd rather be there in person.  Especially in Denmark!

Shelley Thornton
Patty Medaris Culea
Patti LaValley
Deanna Hogan
Arley Berryhill

Beautiful blog!  I LOVE your background.  I wanted to leave a comment but couldn't figure out how.  Did you disable comments, or maybe are you still learning the ropes with the whole blogging thing?  It's totally overwhelming at first, that's for sure.

I'd love to swap links with you, Miss BearHaven.  My blog is:  www.potbellyarts.typepad.com

I'll add you right away to mine!

Welcome to the blogosphere!!!

All right, Sue Ann!!!   You shine.

BEAUTIFUL venue, Daphne; you put on such a pretty, light and airy show.  I'm so glad it was hard work AND a fun, successful event.  Everyone looks like they had a great time.

I love show photos, too... thanks so much for sharing them with us all.

I'll be there Saturday as a visitor!  Can't wait to see you then!

Wowza, Judi!  Just spectacular.  I love seeing the before pictures, too; it's amazing how much character and detail can be added with shading and color.  Your leopard is just beautiful, hun.

Very nice!!!

That looks very nifty, Brenda; I'll have to give that one a look.  Thanks for sharing that tool & your link!

What an incredible idea!  I've joined your flickr group (love flickr!) and sent you an email.

You rock, girlfriend!           

Ha!  That's the spirit, Sue! :)

It's the worst when things break that you depend on, and that are expensive and even take research to replace in an intelligent way.  It seems like such an UPHEAVAL, doesn't it?  I feel for you; there's so much other stuff that needs attending.

Maybe you really should take it as a sign from above that it's time for a giant plasma screen HDTV...??... and maybe to take a week OFF exercising, too. 

Now where's that chocolate..??? 

Very, very sweet, Brenda! :)

People who say animals are dumb don't know animals.  I swear, my escape artist dog Maggie has now learned to wake me up by depressing the latch on our front door handle, which she does AFTER she wriggles out of her six foot, mesh-topped, chain-link kennel, and THEN climbs over a second six foot wood plank yard fence by JUMPING to the top edge and then scooching her body over the top.  Every day, all day long she does this.  She's maybe the smartest dog on earth.

Thanks to everyone for your notes and help.  Ellen Borggreve has found me a current copy and I'm covered in the immediate future.  I'm still looking into the best way to subscribe; Berta's suggestion so far is my best lead but the problem with that one is that the "next issue" won't come until December 2008.  That's almost a year away!  And I am so not a patient girl.  My next step is to check with Conde Nast directly or maybe ask around at some less-local bookstores -- like the ones 2 hours away, where I drive my kids to their dad on a semi-weekly basis.

It's maybe the hardest publication I've ever tried to lock down. 

Anyway, I'm really thrilled with everyone's help and send many thanks for all the great ideas and offers to purchase.  You guys are the best!

GREAT lemur!!!