A new copyright proposal would protect designers online – but at what cost?

For years, independent artists working online have had to fight the theft of drawings, often by much larger companies. Given the cost and complexity of a copyright lawsuit by the federal government, these artists do not have any effective alternatives, even if counterfeit products are not available. stack on sales platforms such as Amazon.

Now Congress is trying to solve the problem. A new bill currently being pbaded in the Senate would give the Copyright Office the means to attack these counterfeit products, leaving the original artists to retreat without taking any legal action. the Federal Court. But the proposal has alarmed copyright critics, who fear that the bill will result in a flood of small copyright claims that would ultimately hurt the same artists as they do in the past. She's trying to protect.

The Law on Alternatives to Copyright in the Small Claims Act, or the CASE Act, was pbaded by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate last week and, if approved, would essentially create a court of law. small claims in the Copyright Office. Groups such as the Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) and the Copyright Alliance have been striving to gain support for this bill in Congress for almost six years, but as the anti-technology sentiment grows strengthens, the proposal seems finally on the verge of materializing.

"Currently, graphic artists have their work repeatedly violated by those who use it without permission or compensation, resulting in a loss of license income that can be devastating to individual creators and small businesses. they represent, "wrote the Graphic Artists Guild earlier this year. . "The legal costs of such an action often minimize the potential for recovery, which prevents small copyright holders from finding legal counsel."

Should CASE become law, the new small claims system would be staffed full-time with three "copyright claims officers" who would work to resolve the claims for violation. Damages would be capped at $ 15,000 for each violated work and $ 30,000 in total. Any involvement in the system would be voluntary, because even if this new system would help creators to obtain redress in the event of a violation, it would not be a jury trial.

This is where consumer rights and advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge begin to spot flaws. "While we recognize the problems faced by independent artists and do not oppose the theory of a small claims court, we have serious concerns about how the CASE Act concretizes this idea. It lacks explicit consent that is valid for all parties, structural safeguards against abuse, and legal liability through a right of recourse, "said Meredith Rose, Public Knowledge Policy Advisor, in a statement.

"A court with this kind of punitive power must be responsible," Rose said. "The system envisioned by the CASE law is not."

Leaving the Copyright Office in a position to dispose of complaints also raises the question of whether staff members will feel empowered to interpret the First Amendment or Fair Use, which has always been legally and legally held before the courts.

Katharine Trendacosta, Policy and Activism Officer at EFF, suggested that the CASE Act would be similar to the DMCA's opt-out provision, creating a flurry of specious copyright claims that are difficult to resist or to make. call. "It's very easy to abuse the DMCA from all sides," Trendacosta said. "When people get these downstairs, they do not know what to do and a lot of people really should not need to be legal experts who have to learn the law very quickly to defend themselves."

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill quickly and without a hearing, and the momentum was not as strong in the House. But after all these years, it's clear that creators need a new system for dealing with copyright complaints. The CASE law may not be their solution.

"For more than ten years," wrote the Copyright Alliance in a May statement, "individual creators and small businesses have argued for a change in the law on the author's right to remedy an inequality that systematically gave them rights, but no recourse ".