MUST DEPEND ON THE COMPENSATION THEY RECEIVE FOR EACH WORK
THEY HAVE POURED THEMSELVES AND THEIR OWN RESOURCES INTO.
THEREFORE, COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND RESALE RIGHTS OFTEN MEAN
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING ABLE TO STAY OUT THERE PURSUING
THE SEARCH FOR SELF EXPRESSION AND HAVING TO ABANDON THE

INDIVIDUAL STRUGGLE FOR LITERARY AND ARTISTIC EXPRESSION.
I AM HOPEFUL THAT THESE HEARINGS WILL MARK THE BEGINNING

OF A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
BELIEVE THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE TO SIGN WOPK-FOR-HIRE CONTRACTS
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE DIFFICULT GOAL OF PUBLICATION.

IF

THIS IS TRULY A PROBLEM, WE SHOULD DETERMINE HOW WE CAN BEST
REMEDY THE SITUATION.

WE MUST BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL IN WEIGHING THE RIGHTS
OF WRITERS, CREATORS, AND PUBLISHERS IN THIS APEA, I AM
CERTAIN THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL TACKLE THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER FURTHER LIMITING THE WORK-FOR-HIRE DEFINITION MIGHT
RESULT IN THE PUBLISHERS USING IN-HOUSE STAFF MORE FREQUENTLY
TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL AND INDEPENDENT CPEATORS,
I THANK SENATORS COCHRAN AND MATHIAS FOR HAVING THE FORE-
SIGHT TO RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED AND THE PERSISTENCE
TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THESE HEARINGS, WE ARE BLESSED TO
LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE CREATIVE EXPRESSION IS A GUARANTEED
RIGHT, FOR A RIGHT TO BE TRULY VESTED, IT MUST BE ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED. THIS IS THE QUESTION WE ARE PURSUING TODAY IN
THESE HEARINGS AND IN OUR FUTURE EXAMINATION OF THIS ISSUE

DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE 97TH CONGRESS IN RELATION TO THE
INDEPENDENT CREATOR,

CARTOONISTS GUILD, INC. ⚫ 156 WEST 72ND STREET, NEW YORK 10023 •

(212) 873-4023

Glenn Bernhardt
PRESIDENT

Selby Kelly

1st VICE PRESIDENT

Len Herman

2nd VICE PRESIDENT

Walter Gallup
TREASURER

John R. Cassady
SECRETARY

Herb Brammeier, Jr.
CHAIRPERSON,
MEMBERSHIP

Amoido Francisioni
CHAIRPERSON,
MEDIA RELATIONS

Julie Frankel

CHAIRPERSON,

MARKET PROMOTION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Sergio Aragones
Howard Cruse

Don Martin

Lou Myers

Mort Walker

Michael C. Witte

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ron Wolin

D. K. Holland

Executive Vice President
Graphic Artists Guild
30 East 20th Street

New York, NY 10003

Dear Debbie:

August 12, 1982

As you know, the Cartoonists Guild has been strongly opposed to the work-for-hire provision of the copyright law from 1978 on and helped to initiate the Ad Hoc Committee To Preserve Creators Rights, the first coalition of arts organizations formed to lobby against workfor-hire and educate freelance creators about the insidious dangers of their agreeing to such contracts.

In this context, we see it as a major victory that hearings have been granted on work-for-hire in front of the U.S. Senate in late August. It is indeed a wonderful opportunity to dramatize both the basic inequity of W4H and the pressing need for the clause to be deleted entirely from the copyright law.

The Cartoonists Guild, of course, endorses and supports the position of the Graphic Artists Guild on W4H and at the Senate hearings. Specifically, this means that our 250 freelance cartoonist members living and working in more than 30 states across the country are absolutely opposed to W4H and will do everything in our power to convince members of Congress to eliminate the work-for-hire loophole from the copyright law.

Unfortunately, however, there is not sufficient time for the CG to gather written testimony from cartoonists who have lost income, selfesteem and/or artwork because of signing a W4H contract even though we can confirm to you that this has been the case in our field.

11

Since August is traditionally a vacation period for our members, we
will also not be able to send a representative to the Senate hearings.
Notwithstanding this, we would most appreciate your passing along a
copy of this letter to Senator Mathias, who will be chairing the
hearings, with any explanatory comments you care to make to under-
line the depth of our feeling on this issue. There is no question
in our minds that until the work-for-hire loophole is firmly and
fully closed all creative artists will face a major contradiction
of the spirit and intent of the 1978 copyright law to protect --
not impinge -- our rights.

Please keep us informed of what happens at the hearings and how we can continue to work with you and all the other arts groups that share our

common concern.

Best regards,

RW/jz

Ron Wolin

Executive Director

I know that Senate hearings are to be held soon,
around Oct. 1, on proposed amendments to the Copy-
right law that would restrict applications of "work-
for-hire" agreements, which have been widely misused
by publishers.

As a freelance writer and photographer, my research
and creativity are my chief assets. When these "work-
for-hire" agreements are imposed by publishers--which
thwarts the intent of the 1976 Copyright law--those
assets are denied me, at least in their full use and
benefit. I have had to turn down repeat sales of my
writing and photography, and thus income, because of
"work-for-hire" agreements imposed as a condition of
sale by publishers.

A typical "work-for-hire" agreement is arranged to
give the publisher all of the benefits and none of the
responsibilities of having a writer or photographer
fully in his employ, as was an agreement proferred to
me by FLOOR COVERING WEEKLY earlier this year. And
the writer or photographer or other creative person is
effectively prevented from re-selling his or her work,
although the Copyright law was designed to give the
author or originator full protection of such creations
from the moment they became fixed in any tangible form.
Under terms of the FLOOR COVERING WEEKLY agreement, I
would have been unable ever to sell reprints of any
photos I first sold to that publication; I would have
been unable ever to sell second rights (even if clearly
stated and offered as such) to other publications,
whether or not they competed with the original purchaser.

I had to resign as regional correspondent of the publi-
cation, since I could not agree to those terms in good
faith, and thus forego an annual income of well over
$1,000, often far higher. I understand that similar
agreements were imposed on all who wished to continue
writing for other business publications of the Hearst
organization.

By contrast, I write for several other specialized business publications, often sharing and adapting ideas and re-selling photos and text (with or without modification to fit interests of the audience), and can do so because of the protection of the Copyright law and the absence of "work-for-hire" agreements. Thus, I can share ideas and information more widely with those who need this information, and yet do so for compensation which is affordable to publications and fair to me as the originator.

I hope that you and your fellow Senators will stop
the "work-for-hire" abuses through enactment of re-
strictions on this practice. These agreements should
only apply to bonafide employer-employee relationships
wherein the publisher or other purchaser fully bears
the costs and responsibilities of that arrangement.
To do otherwise is to discourage and penalize writers
and other creative persons, and diminish the incentive
to produce quality writing and other creative work in
this country.

My personal loss directly traceable to the misuse of the "work-for-hire" provisions has been minimal thus far, and the work I resigned was a small part of my overall writing activity. But the threat is real, not just to me but to thousands of writers, photographers and other creative persons. We can't afford to create on a "one sale only" policy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jim Norland

839

As President of the San Francisco Society of Illustrators, Iam writing to express our opposition to the abusive use of work-for-hire contracts between art buyers and freelance artists. It is our opinion that the work-for-hire clause is an unfair loophole in the 1978 Copyright Law. This clause was originally intended for specific instances wherein the artist is a contributor to a copyrighted work ie: artists working for or with Walt Disney Studios. With increasing frequency this clause is being applied to general free-lance commissions; thereby contradicting the intent of the (1978) Copyright Law often referred to as the "Creators Law".

In working under a work-for-hire contract the artist relinquishes any and all rights to the commissioned work. Legally, the artbuyer assumes the role of "creator", the artist then ceasing to exist. A work-for-hire contract leaves the door open for obvious usage abuses. A major factor in determining a fair price for a piece of artwork is the extent of it's use ie: local or national distribution, editorial or advertising market, re-run or reprinting of the book / ad, and intended size (importance).

Under such a contract an artist can, and has, found that a piece originally commissioned (and priced) as a minor work has been extensively used as a major visual ie: book cover, billboard. It's use may also been extended to an accompanying marketing and advertising campaign. Though the value of the artwork to the project has dramatically increased, the artbuyer is under no obligation to pay any additional money to the artist. Increasingly we are seeing that the artist is being penalized for doing work beyond the expectations of the artbuyer.