|
AUGUST 29, 2006
Here's an article about Clay
Bennett's reign as president of the AAEC. Posted with permission from Editor & Publisher.
AAEC President Clay Bennett Recalls
the Year That Was ... Very Busy
By Dave Astor
Published: August 29, 2006 12:01 AM ET
NEW YORK When Clay
Bennett became president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists
last Sept. 1, he thought he'd have a busy year. The AAEC leader
was wrong -- it turned into a VERY busy year.
"The job ended up being even more
involved than I feared it would be," Bennett told E&P
as his presidential term nears its conclusion on Thurs., Aug.
31. He'll be succeeded this Friday by President-elect Rob
Rogers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and United Media
Bennett -- whose Pulitzer Prize-winning Christian Science Monitor
cartoons are syndicated by that paper's news service -- said
things were busy "right off the bat" last year. A new
management group was starting to run the AAEC's business operations,
and the AAEC's Web site (EditorialCartoonists.com ) was going
through a massive expansion.
Then, in November, the organization learned
that its Denver convention hotel for June 2006 was pulling out.
So the AAEC had to scramble to find another hotel in Denver barely
six months before the meeting. "Luckily, we didn't have
to camp out behind Mike Keefe's home," quipped Bennett,
referring to The Denver Post/Cagle Cartoons editorial cartoonist
who co-hosted the convention with Ed Stein of the Rocky Mountain News and United.
As fall turned into winter, two Tribune
Co. dailies -- the Los Angeles Times and The Sun of Baltimore
-- eliminated their staff editorial cartoonist positions. (Mike Ramirez was laid off by the Times and
Kevin "KAL" Kallaugher took a buyout from The Sun.)
Around the same time, the AAEC held its massive Black Ink Monday protest, in which 80-plus
cartoonists created about 125 drawings criticizing the shrinking
state of their profession.
Bennett said the action unfortunately didn't
get any cartoonists rehired or create many new positions. But
he said it drew attention to the problem -- and generated more
than 1,000 e-mails to the Tribune Co.
Then the Danish cartoon controversy exploded.
While Bennett was a very visible AAEC spokesperson on other issues,
he kept a low public profile on the Muhammad drawings to avoid
any chance of endangering kidnapped Monitor colleague Jill Carroll.
Rob Rogers and AAEC Vice President Nick Anderson, the Houston Chronicle/Washington
Post Writers Group cartoonist who'll succeed Rogers as President-elect
this Friday, did most of the organization's talking, though Bennett
helped behind the scenes. In early February, the AAEC issued
a statement supporting freedom of expression for cartoonists
while also noting that Islamic anger over the Danish drawings
was understandable -- but violence was not.
A few days earlier, the AAEC was involved
in supporting Tom Toles of The Washington Post and Universal
Press Syndicate after the Joint Chiefs of Staff criticized a
Toles cartoon about the carnage caused by the Iraq War.
All in all, "it was a very active
year for cartoon news," said Bennett. "With every new
story, there were statements to be made and support to be rallied."
He recalled doing dozens of media interviews during his yearlong
tenure as president, and sometimes spending three hours a night
at home writing e-mails relating to AAEC and cartooning issues.
The AAEC's June convention absorbed a lot
of Bennett's time, too, though he emphasized that much of the
work surrounding the Denver meeting was done by aforementioned
co-hosts Stein and Keefe.
But Bennett, 48, emphasized that his busy
year as president was worth it: "It's not a job I aspired
to take. But when I was asked, I was glad to oblige the AAEC.
Fortunately, I was able to pay back just a little bit what the
AAEC has given me over the years."
The eight-year Monitor veteran -- who's
married to cartoonist/painter Cindy Procious -- has been an AAEC
member since 1981.
Bennett is relieved that he'll soon get
back to "obsessing just about my cartoons." But he
has mixed feelings about suddenly having time to start the long-delayed
task of stripping the wallpaper from his living room. "Being
AAEC president is the best excuse for getting out of chores,"
he laughed.
As immediate past president, Bennett will
remain on the AAEC board after Rob Rogers takes over -- but obviously
have less responsibilities. "It's Rob's baby now,"
he added. "Let him change the diapers!"
Dave Astor (dastor@editorandpublisher.com)
is a senior editor of E&P.
 AUGUST
28, 2006
Congratulations to Boligan!
I'd like to congratulate our own Angel
Boligan for winning the international cartoon competition in
Rhodes, Greece, with the cartoon at the right. Visit Angel's cartoons.
|
AUGUST 24, 2006
Visit our all new MSNBC Week
in Review Slideshow!
Matt Bors
I like to draw special attention to unusual
editorial cartoons when they come in - and pay some special attention
to cartoonists who don't get enough attention. I enjoyed the
cartoon below by Matt Bors, who wrote a few words about the
cartoon below.
Media Activity Sheet:
For this comic, I have had the Sudan skull map idea for about
a year now and have been trying to figure out something to do
with it. I came up with the Activity Sheet idea and have been
trying to get it in a paper these last few weeks and the Cleveland
Free Times picked it up. Next fun game for the kiddies will be
out before November and will be a board game for us Ohioans trying
to make it to the voting booth (Blackwell is making it increasingly
difficult).
My approach is usually centered around
verbose, multi-panel, multi-punchline comics. I prefer longer
formats and try to squeeze full pages out of alt. weeklies whenever
possible. I see more options and flexibility in multi-panel stuff.
There is something to be said for artists that can distill an
issue into a powerful one panel cartoon, but for most issues
I see it as limiting. In a longer comic I can hit the funny bone
a few times and not have to resort to drawing Donkeys, elephants,
or giant pins with people's name on them. The downside is a lot
of people (Editors of daily newspapers in particular) aren't
into wordy, sort-of-more-edgy comics (if I may describe my stuff
that way) and feel an editorial cartoon should be only a single
panel with a quick punchline. My stuff is geared toward the alt.
weekly crowd more, but I don't see any reason why my stuff couldn't
find a wider audience in dailies. I think editorial cartooning
is bound to move in this direction.
I also enjoyed
Matt's cartoon below, ripping the wretched New York Times for
running no comics and having no editorial cartoonist. See more of Matt's cartoons here. E-mail
Matt.
As everyone knows the New York Times doesn't bother printing
comics except in the Sunday paper (I would have voted for replacing
Judy Miller's articles with Family Circus - we could have learned
more!). Not only do editorial cartoonists have to deal with the
rapidly diminishing staff jobs, but papers that don't even bother
to run a single comic! I'm not sure who started the trend, but
the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times are also anti-comic.
It doesn't set a good precedent when the largest papers in the
country do away with comics completely. These big papers are
always eager to review the latest graphic novel of the moment
and do the same old "comics aren't for kids anymore"
articles.
-Matt Bors
AUGUST 20, 2006
What's in One Name?
I've often thought that it would be great
to have only one name, like cowboy gunslingers Paladin and Shane.
Rock singers can be such superstars that they only require one
name, like Madonna, Cher, Sting or Bono. One name is cool. My
personal heroes are Lassie, Flipper, Shamu, Snoopy and Spartacus.
Great artists and composers are referred
to by one name. Most people would be hard pressed to think of
the full names of Michelangelo, Raphael, Monet, Degas, Rembrandt,
Brahms, Bach or Beethoven - we think of them all by one name.
To be known by only one name implies success
or infamy. We talk about "Hitler" more often than "Adolph
Hitler." "Walt Disney" became only "Disney."
After a slow start with "Mickey Mouse," Disney went
on to name more than 90 percent of his characters with a single
name, from each of the seven dwarfs to Pinocchio, Bambi, Dumbo,
Cinderella, Simba, Ariel and Aladdin. One name is so cool.
It's not just the cartoon characters; the
cartoonists themselves often go by single names. The top three
editorial cartoonists in Canada are Cameron Cardow ("Cam"
of the Ottawa Citizen), Thomas Boldt ("Tab" of the
Calgary Sun) and Terry Mosher ("Aislin" of the Montreal
Gazette). Around the globe cartoonists are expected to choose
a single name. Usually the single name is the cartoonist's last
name; sometimes it is a combination of the artist's names, like
Mexico's Antonio Neril Licon ("Nerilicon"). Thailand's
Stephane Peray is "Stephff." Cuba's top cartoonist
is Aristedes Esteban Hernandez Guerrero, but his pen name is
simply "Ares," which is much easier to digest. Other
top international cartoonists go by their first names only: Antonio,
Pancho, Arcadio, Christo, Dario, Tayo, Petar, Olle - the list
goes on and on.
Single names are less common among American
cartoonists. The late, great Virgil Partch was known as "Vip."
Kevin Kallaugher, the former cartoonist for the Baltimore Sun,
is "Kal." Many American cartoonists sign their cartoons
with their last name only, but we don't call each other by our
last names and we would expect attributions with our cartoons
to list our full names. Many cartoonists, like me, put both their
first name and last name into their signatures on their cartoons.
Going by one name is not always a matter
of choice for a cartoonist. Newsweek magazine is known as a showcase
for editorial cartoonists, and it is their policy never to mention
a cartoonist's first name. Newsweek takes the cartoonist's signature
out of his cartoon and prints the cartoonist's last name in tiny
type under the cartoon. In Newsweek, political cartoonists Larry
Wright, Dick Wright and Don Wright would each be called, "Wright."
Editorial cartoonists Kirk Anderson and Nick Anderson are both
"Anderson."
Going by one name is cool, when it is a
nickname, or when it is a name that someone chooses for himself.
When somebody else chooses to call me by one name it shows disrespect,
much in the way that a drill sergeant talks down to his troops
in boot camp. I can't imagine Newsweek referring to George Will's
column as being written by "Will." Photographers and
illustrators also get two names in Newsweek credits; only lowly
cartoonists are limited to one name by Newsweek's "longstanding"
policy.
I suppose it is the nature of the profession
for cartoonists. One name will have to suffice. We get no respect.
(But what we do is cool.)
AUGUST 18, 2006
Our new MSNBC.com week in
review slideshow is up!
I just got back from a two week vacation
and I'm digging out from a heap of phone messages and emails.
Stay tuned for more blog postings soon. Sorry for the hiatus!
AUGUST 4, 2006
I was sorry to read that Bob Thaves, creator
of the innovative comic panel Frank & Ernest, died
Tuesday in Torrance, California. He was 81. Bob drew his strip
for more than thirty years; it ran in more than 1,300 newspapers
as part of the NEA package. I met Bob a number of times through
the National Cartoonists Society; he was a great guy and he drew
a great strip.
Our new Cartoon Week in Review
is up on MSNBC.com. With all the
news happening now, it can't be missed!
 AUGUST
1, 2006
NEW CARTOONISTS
I've added some new cartoonists to the
site; visit their archives over in the daily
updating section of the site. I'll introduce them to you
here, first is Aaron
Taylor, a young cartoonist who recently won the John Locher
Memorial Award as best college cartoonist of the year; he works
for the Daily Herald in Provo, Utah. Take
a look at Aaron's archive.
The cartoonist below is Michael Kountouris
from Athens, Greece. Michael draws in a wordless international
style that an American audience is not accustomed to seeing,
but which is very popular with international cartoon competitions.
Michael has a long "CV" or resume
listing a gazillion prizes he has won in international contests
- international cartoonists spend a lot of time on their "CVs"
- the longest CV with the most awards is the manliest. American
cartoonists rarely enter these competitions, and don't really
understand them, but the contests are what cartoonining is all
about in most of the world where there is not much of a market
to support our art form. Many of these contests are huge productions
with nice cash prizes. It all seems very strange to American
cartoonists who are used to making a living from the clients
who print their cartoons. Visit Michael's archive.
 Our
next new cartoonist is Malcom Evans from New Zealand. Malcolm was
a regular contributor to our site some years ago - take a look at his archive and you'll see
that there are lots of oldies there from his previous stint with
us. We're delighted to have him back. The Evans cartoon below
is about Europeans fleeing from Lebanon last week. I told Malcolm
that Americans saw news about Americans fleeing from Beirut,
but when you label it "Europeans" and don't mention
Lebanon, we won't understand it. Maybe I'm wrong.
The last new cartoonist (under Malcolm's
cartoon) is from Effat Muhammad of Egypt, who we can count
on for a steady stream of anti--Israel invective, which is typical
of cartoons from Arab countries. His cartoons are mild by Middle
East standards, and our readers are likely to think they look
quite foreign. Effat is also returning to our site after a hiatus.
|
JULY 30, 2006
We have a new Cartoon Week
in Review up! Come look!
There is a tiny reprieve as the Orphan
Works Act worms its way through House Judiciary Committee. Consideration
of the bill has been postponed until after Congress' Summer break
in response to opposition from the textile industry. Artists
are still urged to send letters to the Jusiciary Committee members
and to their own congressmen opposing the bill. For more information
visit: www.illustratorspartnership.org
JULY 27, 2006
COMIC CON
I went to the San Diego Comic Con last
week, which set my schedule into "catch-up" mode for
another week and I'm just now getting caught up. To those of
you who complained that I haven't been drawing cartoons for a
week ... sorry.
I've been going to the Comic Con for years
and it has been amazing to see it grow. I'm told that attendance
this year was well over 100,000 and that the fire department
closed down the convention center on Saturday because it was
too full. I believe it. The place was packed like never before.
As a political cartoonist I don't fit well
into Comic Con, and most of the crowd has little interest in
what I do, as I rarely draw big muscles, blood and sex. But the
crowd was so large that I could sit in one place and a steady
stream of political cartoon fans came up to visit. Aside from
the madness of my e-mail box, I don't have much interaction with
editorial cartoon fans, so the Comic Con is fun for me. That's
a photo of me in the National Cartoonists Society booth, where
I hang out.
Lots of aspiring cartoonists write to me
for advice, and the first advice I usually give is that they
should visit Comic Con regularly, to get proper perspective on
the cartooning profession, how vast and varied it is. I spent
most of my career as a cartoon illustrator, working for the Muppets,
and for toy and entertainment companies, so I see lots of old
friends and clients at the Comic Con. A lot of business is done
there, and many cartoonists are recruited for new assignments.
Corporate talent hounds are on the hunt for new cartoonists and
properties. Comic Con is a place to see and be seen both for
cartoonists and for people dressed like Klingons.
And for old cartoonists like me, the Comic
Con is a vast family reunion, more geared to the early days of
my career, before I switched careers to become a political cartoonist.
JULY 19, 2006
Congress Hears About a Tobacco Company Stealing a Cartoon
I'm impressed with the work of Michiko Stehrenberger, a cartoon illustrator
and character designer who has a wonderful, energetic, feminine
style. Take
a look at her site.
Michiko had one of her drawings stolen
by a tobacco company and she tells the ugly story in a letter
to the House Judiciary Committee which is fast-tracking the Orphan
Works Act, legislation that would take away the ability of artists
to defend their copyrighted works. The "Blue Girl"
artwork that was stolen from Michiko is shown below, along with
the tobacco company ad that incorporated the stolen art. Thanks
to Michiko for allowing me to post her letter and artwork here.
Cartoonists and aspiring cartoonists
should write to congress now to urge their own congressman and
the House Judiciary Committee to defeat the Orphan Works Act.
Go to the
Illustrators Partnership web site for more information on
the bill, sample letters and contact information on where to
write.
 July 12, 2006
Congressman Jim McDermott
1035 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1212
Seattle, WA 98101-1399
RE: HR 5439
Via Facsimile
Dear Congressman McDermott,
As a constituent and small business owner,
I am writing to express my opposition to the Orphan Works Act
now before the House Judiciary Committee.
This bill concerns me deeply because for
15 years I have made my living licensing my work to major corporations
and media outlets. I have taken great care to protect the value
of my intellectual property and I am concerned that the provisions
of this bill have been drafted so broadly that it will undermine
those efforts and undermine the value of my work to my clients.
For me, the issues at stake are not hypothetical; they are a
matter of experience. I would like to offer a brief account
of my own experience as a cautionary example of the damage this
bill could do.
The Orphan Works Act would limit or remove
penalties for infringement of works whose owners are said to
be hard to find. The claim is that this will provide a safe harbor
for responsible users of works whose creators have died or abandoned
their copyrights, and the premise is that the law will be used
by those acting in good faith.
I was the plaintiff in a recent copyright
infringement case, however, and I can testify that the full remedies
of the law were necessary for me to prove that the infringement,
which involved the removal of my name from a registered work
of art, was a willful act
one conducted in bad faith by a major corporation which would
not, even when confronted, admit to their abuse of my property
rights.
Because existing copyright law permitted
me the ability to be awarded full damages, injunctive relief
and legal fees, I was able to persuade a lawyer and the necessary
expert witnesses to take my case on a contingency basis. After
four years of perseverance, this finally allowed me to bring
the case before a judge and achieve a resolution.
Under the Orphan Works Act, however,
the infringer could have asserted a "good faith" orphan
works defense and said, in effect: "Go ahead and sue me!" In that event, I would have had to risk upfront
out-of-pocket legal fees and court costs in the hopes of establishing
the infringer's bad faith. I would also have had to weigh that
risk against the fear that a successful "good faith"
defense (whether merited or not) by the infringer would have
limited my award to a paltry usage fee far from enough
to cover the nearly $100,000 that the suit would eventually cost
me. And I would also have to risk it while knowing that there
would be NO LIMIT to the amount of money the infringer could
then extract from me in a counterclaim.
Here are the details: In 2000, my copyrighted
image, Blue Girl, was infringed by the world's second largest
tobacco corporation. Although the infringer knew how to contact
me beforehand, they instead chose to use my artwork without my
knowledge or permission in a series of poster-sized cigarette
advertisements that ran in 16 states and reached an estimated
8 million readers. They even branded my art with their logo
right on a focal point of the image, changing my work into a
cigarette endorsement.
My art is registered with the U.S. Copyright
Office and bore my copyright line and contact information. I
released it on a promotional postcard I had designed, which I
later discovered they had used as the source scan for their infringement.
 The date of the company's action is relevant, because
the tobacco companies had already been forbidden from targeting
teens and kids through the use of cartoon characters in their
advertising. The Master Settlement Agreement, negotiated with
the states' Attorneys General, went into full effect in June
of 2000, yet just two months later, the tobacco company started
using my cartoon character in their ads. By utilizing my art,
the company sought to benefit from the strong appeal that my
style and characters have among my core audience of teens and
kids at a time when my client base consisted of youth-focused
companies such as MTV, Playstation, Hasbro and Lego.
The blatant affiliation of my artwork with
their tobacco products went very much against my wishes and intentions.
I had already turned down a potentially lucrative offer from
a competing cigarette company years earlier because I didn't
want to promote tobacco use. Additionally, this unwelcome use
of my art had the potential to harm my professional reputation
among the children's book editors and publishers with whom I
was developing professional relationships.
The intentional "orphaning" of
my work was total. My original promotional postcard piece contained
a copyright notice and website information precisely so that
potential clients would know how to contact me. The art also
contained a prominent hand-signature on the image itself.
This means that all three forms of identifying information had
to be deliberately removed in order for a user not to find me.
In other words, far from being hard to identify or locate (the
standard the Orphan Works Act would use to define an "orphan"),
the point of my Blue Girl image was to encourage users to find
me. Yet it took only one person to find my image and sell it
to the tobacco company, and somewhere in those transactions my
contact information was completely removed.
Under the Orphan Works Act, this unauthorized
third-party infringement would have made my image an orphaned
work. And even if I suspected that the removal of my contact
information had been conducted in bad faith, how would I be able
to prove it?
Thankfully, the current Copyright Act allows
for the "discovery" process through depositions from
the defendants' staff members as witnesses. In my case, this
enabled us to use the defendants' own testimonies, provided under
oath (information which they refused to provide to us otherwise)
to establish that the removals of my copyright line, web address,
and signature were deliberate.
With proof of "willful infringement"
we were able to settle out of court by reaching an agreement
consistent with the range of statutory damages figures for willful
(rather than "innocent") infringements allowed under
the law.
The current Copyright Act allows for these
statutory damages to be determined by a jury. The figure can
be as high as $150,000 per infringement, plus reimbursement of
legal costs. This is not the amount of my settlement figure
a confidentiality agreement prohibits any disclosure of that
amount but the settlement was presumably sufficient to
punish a willful infringer who had acted in bad faith, and we
can hope that it will in some way be adeterrent against future
infringements by the same company.
However, this kind of resolution would
have been problematic if not impossible under the Orphan Works
Act. Without the instrument of
discovery, I could not have risked the cost of proving to a judge
that this had been a bad faith infringement, even despite strong
outside factors pointing to that conclusion. Without the full
range of remedies available under current copyright law, I would
not have been able to take the essential steps necessary to establish
the specific details behind the company's actions.
In my case, expert witness costs, depositions
and court costs approached the $50,000 range alone, and substantial
attorneys' fees had to be paid as well. Of course, it is easy
to say that this was not a true orphan works case because the
infringement was proven to have been conducted in bad faith
but the company's bad faith was not self-evident to a
court without discovery testimony, and it cost me nearly $100,000
in legal fees to prove that.
All this goes to show that the problem
with permitting "good faith" infringements of "orphan
work": no unscrupulous infringer who gets caught will
admit to having willfully removed an artist's name and risk exposing
themselves to penalties exceeding $150,000. Instead, they'll
claim the work they infringed had no name on it and assert an
orphan works defense.
Nor is a small claims court, as proposed by the Copyright Office,
a rational solution for this kind of abuse. If I had had to
pursue my case in small claims court instead of Federal court,
there would have been no discovery process, and therefore no
way to ascertain the facts. A judge would have had to weigh
conflicting stories and would have likely "split the difference."
My awards for damages would likely have been limited to smaller
dollar amounts in my county, the current small claims maximum
limit is $4000 and since that sum would be less than the
prevailing market rate for a standard commissioned ad with a
typical transfer of rights, what would the tobacco company have
learned? That the deliberate "orphaning" of an artist's
work is a rational business decision! What would stop them from
making it a standard practice?
All this would have the effect of devaluing
my work, because its market value is determined by the licensing
potential locked in by exclusive rights. For example, the infringed
version of my artwork with my name and contact information removed
is still floating around out there for others to find and use.
Under current law, these new infringements would also be actionable,
which means the current law acts as a barrier to further abuse.
But under the Orphan Works Act, no subsequent infringers would
be exposed to liability, the barrier to abuse would disappear,
and I could no longer avail myself of the full licensing potential
ebbing from my work. That first act of intentional infringement
would have made my image, in many quarters, a true "orphan"
unless, of course, a user's "reasonable search" had
led them to the tobacco company, and the company had charged
them a licensing fee for the use of "their" Blue Girl
image. This is just one of the possible bad scenarios I can
imagine arising from the passage of this bill.
Aside from the confusion and crisis over
the source of authorship of newer non-abandoned works, this would
harm the lifetime value of these works as well. Illustrators,
graphic designers, authors, painters, character designers, product
designers, concept licensors, and other creators (not to mention
their agents and business clients and others along the licensing
chain) all make their living from the authorized repeat usages
of this work. The Orphan Works Act will potentially harm all
of these small businesses by wiping out the protections for the
ownership of the core properties upon which these businesses
are based.
In my own business of illustration and
character design, the value of an image increases as the image
gains in popularity. This can make third and fourth uses of an
image more valuable than the primary usage fee, and this allows
me to keep control of its licensing potential. This acts as both
an incentive and a reward for artists to successfully develop
an image or icon based on their own knowledge and instincts regarding
trends, marketing, and other cultural factors.
In other instances, the opposite principle
applies: a client will purchase exclusive first-rights to a particular
image for a substantially higher fee. In exchange, the client
receives increased control of how they can display that image
to the public. This higher fee guarantees them exclusivity
an exclusivity that I will no longer be able to guarantee my
clients under orphan works legislation. In one swoop, this bill
could potentially devalue all the artwork I have so far created
and hope to create in the future.
The authors of the Orphan Works Act have
drafted their "limitation on remedies" because they
say infringers need "certainty" that their actions
won't expose them to great financial loss. But except for the
current penalties for infringement, what other mechanism does
the law provide to prevent abuse? "Certainty" is
not something any of us have in the commercial marketplace, so
why should infringers uniquely be entitled to it?
This bill would make it cost-prohibitive
for creators to pursue infringers, even when we expect (as I
did in my case) that their actions were deliberate. No creator
could afford to challenge a major infringing corporation on an
issue of copyright without hope that the ordeal of litigation
would be rewarded with justice. If an infringer has to pay
only after they get caught and if there are no additional penalties
imposed for doing so, and if creators are forced to lose money
in order to protect their intellectual property, then this creates
a massive problem and an injustice against those who strive to
innovate new and original work in our marketplace.
Because this is my livelihood, and I am
the exclusive controller of the usage of my work (including what
sorts of products, services, events and clientele my imagery
endorses to the audiences and fan bases of people who follow
the progress my work) I do feel it is my responsibility and right
to have reasonable control of the integrity of any affiliations
with my work, especially since the current Copyright Act has
already established this as appropriate.
It takes an infinite number of transactions
to make the clockwork of the marketplace work, and I believe
that any government should be very careful before passing laws
that would interfere with such essential free market relationships. I'm grateful for the fact that the existing copyright
law has protected my work, but I'm alarmed that Congress might
now consider stripping away the existing protections.
Thank you for taking the time to read this
letter. As a woman who has worked for 15 years as a freelance
creator, my professional experience has shown me that our current
copyright protections are essential, and should not be sacrificed.
Please vote against the upcoming Orphan
Works bill so that we can keep these vital protections in place
and continue to provide incentives to innovation in our marketplace,
without exposing small business owners to such overwhelming legal
and financial risks. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Michiko
Stehrenberger
Seattle, Washington
© 2006, Michiko Stehrenberger.
All rights reserved.
JULY 17, 2006
Orphan Works Bill Up For Early Vote
We've been advised that the sponsors of
the Orphan Works bill "are likely to plow ahead full-steam."
They're expected to "try to get the bill up to a House vote
as soon as possible, maybe even this week or next," before
our opposition can affect the outcome. In short, we were told
"it is paramount that the opposition scale up quickly."
To write your Congressional representative,
enter your zip code into http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Remember to note in your first paragraph that you are a.) a constituent;
b.) a small business owner; c.) opposed to the Orphan Works Act.
To write members of the House Judiciary
Committee, go to the Illustrators'
Partnership Orphan Works Resource Page and follow the instructions
there.
For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go
to the Illustrators
Partnership Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
JULY 15, 2006
Stealing Cartoons and Pension Plans?
No Problem.
 One of the perks of being a syndicated editorial
cartoonist is that I get to sign my name, in big clear lettering,
in the corner of every cartoon. Sometimes I draw cartoons that
make so many people angry that I might have been better off leaving
my name out, but usually it is fun to have my name there. Often
my clients will alter my artwork without my permission and remove
my signature, as Newsweek magazine did last week.
I had a long career as a cartoon illustrator
before turning to newspaper cartooning. When I drew cartoons
for advertising, the clients almost always insisted on taking
my signature out of the artwork; they knew what they wanted to
advertise, and it wasn't me. I wasn't happy about it, but the
demand was so common that I had to agree. I had to make a living.
Even with the typical, harsh contracts,
my clients would usually only be concerned about their one job.
They would give my art back to me when the job was done, leaving
me as the owner of the copyright to my own art which is
important to illustrators. Having "second rights" to
sell through internet databases and "stock houses"
is a second income for underpaid artists and, like an annuity,
the value of an artist's artwork increases over time as an artist
collects a larger and larger number of works that he can resell
through his career. Artists, cartoonists and illustrators may
not have health insurance but we have the "pension plan"
of our own lifetime of reproductions rights to resell - that
is, until now.
Congress is now poised to wreck the "pension
plans" of America's artists in a scheme bigger than Enron.
The "Orphan Works Act of 2006" (H.R. 5439) is now before
the House Judiciary Committee; the bill would strip artists of
the practical ability to defend the copyrights to their lifetime
of works. The bill was proposed to deal with the problem of "orphan
works" which are copyrighted works whose authors are difficult
to identify or locate. Companies have complained that it is too
hard for them to find the creators of art that they want to reproduce,
so they want to change the law to allow them to reproduce the
artwork without permission. The bill would legalize the commercial
or non-commercial infringement of any work of art, past, present,
and future, regardless of age, country of origin, published or
unpublished, whenever the rights holder cannot be identified
or located.
The bill changes the law to allow any company
to reprint whatever art they want - all that is necessary is
that the company itself determines that it has done a "reasonably
diligent search" for the artist. Beyond that, the bill removes
any significant penalties for copyright infringement. Of-course,
if a company wants to steal artwork, it is in their interest
that their "reasonably diligent search" should fail
to find the artist. The bill is a broad-based license to infringe
artists' copyrights - or rather, to steal their "pensions."
Current law already allows non-profit organizations,
like libraries and museums, great latitude in the usage of "orphaned
works." If a for-profit company is just dying to use an
"orphaned work" I'd like to see them hire an artist
to make something new - of-course, that would be more expensive
than just taking the "orphaned" artwork and paying
nothing.
Most of my life's work, and most of the
life's work of most illustrators, will become "orphaned"
and worthless under this bill. The Illustrator's Partnership,
a trade group representing artists, has listed changes the bill
needs to protect artists, these are:
1.) Precisely define an orphan work as
a copyright no longer managed by a rightsholder;
2.) Precisely define the steps a user must take before infringing
the work;
3.) Eliminate the unrestricted use of a copyrighted work in a
"transformative" work;
4.) Restrict the use of orphan works to not-for-profit uses;
5.) Restore full remedies for infringement as the only means
rightsholders have for protecting their intellectual property.
For more information on the "Orphan
Works Act of 2006" (H.R. 5439), visit www.illustratorspartnership.org.
The cartoon above is by Dario Castillejos - don't steal it. If
I hadn't told you who drew it, you wouldn't have known, would
you? I guess this would be yet another "orphaned work."
JULY 14, 2006
Our MSNBC Cartoon Week in
Review slideshow is up now!
JULY 8, 2006
MY LOCAL NEWSPAPER "BLOODBATH"
My own hometown newspaper, the Santa Barbara
News-Press, has been in the news lately. I like the News-Press
because they print my cartoons and they print a great international
cartoon round-up each week - but my point of view is rather narrowly
focused. All of the top editors at the News-Press quit this week,
along with a long-time local columnist, to protest eccentric
editorial dictums from the paper's reclusive billionaire owner,
Wendy McCaw. Here are articles about my hometown tempest from
the San Francisco Chronicle, Businessweek, Editor & Publisher, and the Los Angeles Times, which describes a "bloodbath".
Here's a colorful local account that describes
the News-Press as a "living hell."
Santa Barbara readers wouldn't know what had happened from reading
the News-Press. Steve
Greenberg works at the next paper down the coast in Ventura,
and I think he summed the situation up well with his cartoon
below.
Our new MSNBC Cartoon WEEK IN REVIEW slideshow is up!
JULY 7, 2006
YOUR COMMENTS ON THOSE LESTER CARTOONS
We asked for your e-mails and we
got them! Here are a selection of comments about the "controversial"
Lester cartoons below.
Good
Afternoon,
Let them squeal in protest!!!!! Thank you for having the guts
to express the truth - Bloody hands are perfect to bring to light
the horrendous damage the loose lipped NYT and LAT brought to
us all, especially to innocents and our own soldiers who will
be killed because of terrorist money which could've been stopped
by this once effective, secret program.
Next time, show the blood of the victims
raining down on the people who thought this was a great idea
to expose this legal strategy to stop the bad ones - Lives be
dammed - Political agenda comes first!!!!!!!!! Get Bush!! Sell
papers!!! Shame on them - Blood of innocents and soldiers are
on their hands!
Sincerely yours,
Julie Carr
I compliment Mike! It's very well put
and is truthful. I personally wished there were more political
cartoonist that were from a conservative point of view. Maybe
there are more; however, what are the odds of newspapers publishing
them?
I would love to be a political cartoonist. It's been one
of my dreams, but I don't know where to start.
Ray Shipman
Mike Lester is "right on target!"
MaryAnn Pepe
You need to find more patriots like
Lester
Charles Bryan
I must have no skin. Neither of these
makes any sense at all. The NYT did the right thing and Cindy
S. has always done the right thing. The republicans are always
wrong and have no sense of humor. THERE ! That's all sorted out
now, so you can stop worrying.
You're welcome.
C. Spivey
They may definitely have blood on their
hands by divulging the financial tracking information; time will
tell.
Just stupid people doing dumb things!
Lance Silver
Dear Daryl and everyone else:
Although I hardly ever agree with the point
of view and politics of most of the cartoons you feature, I remain
an enthusiastic and avid fan of them and treasure their wit and
intelligence. You and the other cartoonists probably serve the
purpose of editorial exegesis better than most other forms. So,
even though I wish you would show more conservative cartoonists
and cartoons, I think you do a great and valuable job.
Keep it up,
Vince Amato
I loved the cartoon! There are times
when National Security issues should be kept confidential. If
someone's life may be put in danger by publishing a story, the
line has been crossed and it is morally wrong to publish it.
Keep up the good work, Mike!
I can't see what's
controversial about Lester's sheehan cartoon...unless you happen
to be a left wing nut.
Joe Silverman
Good stuff. Can we have more???
Harry Elliott
Irvine, CA
I think Lester is exactly right; and,
your former boss is being very hypocritical. Visions of the NY
Times "scooping" the world with plans of the D-Day
invasions on June 5, 1944 come to mind.
Larry Thompson
Mike was right on about the NY Times
and the cartoon is perfect for what they have accomplished. They
have displayed how they feel about our military and even more
the protection of all Americans. The Boston Globe and the New
York Time sink to the gutter when it comes to their cartoons.
The liberals prove again they can dish it out but they sure as
hell can't take it.
I'm a daughter of a Veteran of WWII who died in a Veteran's Hospital
at the age of 39 due to his service in Okinawa. All three brothers
in his family served during WWII. Freedom is never free and God
Bless our Military.
Thank you Mike Lester for making my day!
Arlene DiRocco
Burlington, MA -- The Socialist State of the East
ANOTHER CARTOON
CONTROVERSY
 Today's
cartoon controversy comes from our own Mike Lester of the Rome (GA) News-Tribune.
This controversy grew out of an editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper
which ran Mike's cartoon at he right; the editorial led to a
story by Romanesko on the Poynter.org site, a must
read for journalists, and that, in turn, led to a story on Editor & Publisher, the journal
of record for the journalism business.
Frankly, I don't see that this cartoon should be controversial.
There are so few conservative cartoonists that when when strong
conservative cartoons come up, newspapers get unusual responses
from liberal readers. In his editorial, the Democrat's Mark Hohmeister
quotes a number of angry reader e-mails, including an email that
he received from the former publisher of the newspaper, who he
describes as his former boss:
... And, in the one that really gave
me second thoughts, Carrol Dadisman, former publisher of the
Democrat (and therefore my former boss), wrote: "In more
than 50 years of various responsibilities for newspapers and
editorial pages, I've defended a lot of editorial cartoons. But
this one is indefensible."
Of course Dadisman knows that we don't pick cartoons because
we agree with each and every one. But he may have been responding
to something we try hard not to do with the cartoons we choose:
We don't deliberately try to offend, insult or be hurtful ...
I think the New York Times cartoon did what a cartoon should
do. But I've been wrong before.
 Mike
Lester noted the attention this cartoon has drawn and sent me
a comment:
In light of the recent hue and cry over
my cartoon, It's heartening to see the number of Americans
willing to stand up and fight for the right of the New York Times
to print Americas' plans to combat terror. This should send a
clear and undeniable message to those who scheme for our demise
that we are a people ready to defend to the death our right to
be...defenseless.
And stupid.
I can't predict which cartoons will be
controversial - if I could choose, I'd pick Mike's latest cartoon
about Cindy Sheehan's hunger strike (above right). Most cartoonists
complain that conservatives have thin skins, Mike proves that
liberals have thin skins too.
|
