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]
www.emilydamstra.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


________________________________________________

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