* <<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) <adam@laemeur.com>