Print

Print


I agree with what Gail said: *"It was clear to me from the start that there
was no legislation actually pending, but I don't see the Copyright Office
asking for input like this unless proposals were being seriously
considered."*

---
*Emily S. Damstra*
natural science illustration
Guelph, Ontario
(519) 616-3654
*[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*
www.emilydamstra.com
emilydamstra.wordpress.com
Twitter: @EmilyDamstra

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Gail Guth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Hi, Catherine,
> Thanks for sharing this, it's interesting and informative. However, I
> don't think any of us need to be embarrassed, and in fact I still don't
> think there's anything to be embarrassed about. It was clear to me from the
> start that there was no legislation actually pending, but I don't see the
> Copyright Office asking for input like this unless proposals were being
> seriously considered.
>
> This article is interesting in that it clarifies the process more, but I
> also see quite a bit of language that still makes it easy and comfy for
> "infringers" to claim they did due diligence. There's a lot of fuzziness
> there, and the fuzziness does not benefit us in the least. I see no harm in
> slamming the Copyright Office with our very strong opinions on the
> subject, especially as we had so short a time to comment on it.
>
>
> Gail
>
>
> 269-963-1311
> [log in to unmask]
> www.guthillustration.com
>
>
>   ________________________________________________
>
> Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the
> instructions at
> http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv
>

Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at
http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv