|
OPEN LETTER TO
THE IPA FROM THE GUILD
Illustrator's Partnership of America
845 Moraine Street
Marshfield MA 02050
10 September 2004
MESSAGE FROM THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT
The Illustrators Partnership of American (IPA) has in the past posted certain erroneous statements about the Graphic Artists Guild. The Guild has made the deliberate decision to decline responding to these statements - both to avoid lending credence to conjecture and to avoid unnecessary friction between entities that should be acting closely as allies on behalf of artists in our industry.
However, the most recent posting by the IPA is so misinformed and inflammatory in nature that the National Executive Committee of the Graphic Artists Guild has decided in this instance that it is necessary to respond. Viewed at its worst, this posting is defamatory of the Guild's leadership, implying that they are guilty of mismanagement or perhaps even fraud. Viewed at its best, this posting is simply so disingenuous and alarmist that it borders on a chicken little like declaration that that the sky is falling in on the Guild and taking royalties belonging to specific artists in the industry with it.
On the one hand, the posting suggests that the United Auto Workers, through its past affiliation with the Guild, has been or is in the process of dismantling and bankrupting the Guild. On the other hand, the posting suggests that either the UAW or the Guild itself have been or soon will be looting royalties belong to individual artists that it has received from foreign reprographic rights organizations (RROs).
The true facts are that the Guild's affiliation with the UAW has been terminated, that the UAW has no claim to any current assets of the Guild, let alone any RRO royalties, and that the RRO royalties which the Guild receives and administers are being distributed entirely in the manner in which their receipt is expressly conditioned. In retrospect, the Guild's affiliation with the UAW may now seem ill advised. However, this affiliation is now over, and neither the UAW nor any other entity has been or will be permitted by the Guild to divert any RRO royalties away from their directed uses.
The RRO royalties that the Guild receives and administers are non-title-specific foreign reprographic royalties. That is to say that, due to the manner in which such royalties are collected by the RROs there is no direct way of identifying and distributing those royalties directly any to any specific author. For example, both Norway and Sweden collect such royalties based on general market surveys to which they apply statistical methods that do not identify the author or title of a work (i.e., surveyors may count the number of unauthorized graphics displayed in a business, magazine or other form of publications and demand royalties for them as a whole).
Although the manner in which such non-title-specific royalties are collected makes distribution of such royalties to individual artists impracticable if not out right impossible, these same types of statistical calculations permit rough allocations of non-title-specific royalties to be made by the RROs based on country of authorship. As a consequence, the RROs allocate these royalties to organizations such as the Guild for the advancement of general advocacy of creator's rights.
MORE Online>>
The Guild currently receives non-title-specific foreign reprographic royalties to use on behalf of creators' rights from the Author's Coalition of America (from Norway and Finland) as part of a general distribution to artist's groups and directly from BUS, a Swedish organization (although we are now in the process of channeling those funds through the Author's Coalition to share with other organizations). Norway, Finland, and Sweden collect funds using a statistical method (of the type described above) that does not identify the author or title of a work.
To meet the contractual requirements set by the funding RROs as to the use of non-title-specific royalties, the Guild's members, through their elected representatives to the National Board, decide on the use of these funds at the Guild's annual National Board Conference Meeting. In the past these monies have been used for a number of Guild initiatives to advance copyright through such efforts as filing amicus briefs in important copyright cases and lobbying to gain an antitrust exemption so that artists may discuss fair pricing and negotiate collectively to retain their rights.
A good discussion of the disbursement and use of non-title-specific royalties as distributed by international RROs through organizations such as the Guild is available at http://www.gag.org/news/news_2004/iffro.php
Although many Guild members believe that a better understanding of the distribution of non-artist-specific royalties and the restrictions placed on them should alone suffice to dispel the conspiracy minded accusations in the posting by IPA, the National Executive Committee of the Guild remains concerned that the misinformation has spread too far and might foster lingering, false suspicions about the Guild.
Specifically, the Guild is concerned that the leadership of the IPA, for its own purposes, may be deliberately setting out only half the truth on this subject. For the last few years, the IPA has seemed anxious to assume the Guild's longstanding role in applying non-title-specific royalties received from foreign RROs toward the protection of copyrights for artistic in the industry as a whole. Specifically, the Guild believes that the leadership of the IPA may full well know the qualifications and restrictions the Guild must meet to receive and apply such royalties, but may be deliberately misstating those qualifications and requirements so that it can then step up and appear better qualified in its own applications to the RROs for such funds.
Suffice it to say that the Guild has applied for, qualified for and distributed such funds under contracts with and in accordance with the guidelines set by the RROs for nearly ten years. The IPA has apparently undertaken occasional and somewhat less formal attempts over the last two years to qualify to receive such funds, but having been unable to do so, now seems less interested in redoubling its own efforts than in questioning the Guild's qualifications and motivations.
In hopes of closing this issue once and for all, and in hopes of persuading the IPA to return its attentions to qualifying itself for the receipt and distribution of non-title specific royalties from foreign RROs, we have excerpted portions of the IPA's posting, together with the Guild's response to the statements contained therein, below.
Excerpt 1: It's come to our attention that on or around August 1, 2004, the entire staff of GAG was either let go or fired and that shortly after that, GAG's latest Executive Director, Ms. Staciellen Heasley, resigned.
While we thank the IPA for their concern, the Guild is at a loss at why the IPA is so interested in our internal matters and its relation to anything else. To be sure, the National Executive Committee of the Graphic Artists Guild has considered restructuring the National Office for over a year, long before any discussions of disaffiliation from the United Auto Workers. After a new financial and job duties plan was determined, it was necessary to let 4 employees go on 8 June 2004. We did not dismiss our entire staff and all essential Guild staffers remained on after the restructuring. Additionally, office restructuring had nothing to do with the resignation of our Executive Director, Staciellen Heasley. Staciellen completed the specific tasks the Executive Committee requested by the end of her contract and decided to leave the Guild this summer to move on in her career for positive, personal reasons. She has done an outstanding job, stepping into a difficult position after the long illness and passing of our previous National Executive Director, Steve Schubert, and has adeptly steered the Guild through the challenging disaffiliation from the UAW. Ms. Heasley leaves the Guild on very good terms. The Executive Committee is currently negotiating the terms of hire with an Executive Director candidate. Neither of these events have anything to do with the disaffiliation from the UAW, nor does the UAW have any power over whom the Guild employs.
Excerpt 2: While The Guild's reorganization is an internal matter, Guild's claim on the foreign reprographic royalties of all artists, both members and non-members of GAG, is an on-going concern.
Jonathan Combs, past National President of the Guild, has explained IFRRO and foreign reprographic royalties in the past on the iSpot message board and it has been posted on the Guild website. To refresh your knowledge concerning foreign reprographic royalties, please refer to his article at www.gag.org/news
IFRRO is an independent organization, and creates its own set of specific guidelines that must be met by any organization for membership. The Guild has met their qualifications for nearly 10 years. The Guild is the only American organization (independent union, in fact) of artists that actively engages in legislative and legal advocacy actions to the benefit of all artists, both members and non-members.
The Guild is also a member of the Authors Coalition of America (ACA), which, as of this year will be the Guild's only conduit for receiving RRO funds (and which are shared with the one other illustrators' group member, the Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators (SCBWI)). The IPA applied for membership in the ACA and was denied in the past because they lacked the ACA's qualification requirements. The IPA is now an associate member of IFRRO, the same status of membership the Guild has. If the IPA wants foreign reprographic money, it should seek to meet requirements of the distributing RROs.
The IPA's inability to secure foreign reprographic funds has nothing to do with the Guild.
Excerpt 3: On February 24 and May 7, 2004, the IPA wrote to Ms. Heasley asking that GAG work with us to establish transparency and accountability of artists reprographic royalties. Ms. Heasley never replied, although she posted a public notice on The iSpot stating that she did not anticipate such a discussion in the near future.
The IPA letters sent to Ms. Heasley were posted publicly. For this reason, Ms. Heasley posted a public response as instructed by the National Executive Committee. The Guild is not legally obligated to open our books to any organization simply by their accusations and demand. Nor is the IPA for that matter, even though there have been questions surrounding the IPA's financial issues.
We also feel that publicly posting association to association letters which have false, misleading information or information that has been spun to try to build controversy and misinformed discussion is not beneficial to any group, members of either organization or non-members. We see it as off-color political tactics, which only sever the possibility of having organizations truly working together for the common good. Once again, for a good discussion of the transparency required by the RRO's who disburse the non-artist-specific royalties in question see www.gag.org/news
Excerpt 4: For the record, the IPA is aware of an internal GAG memo dated January 8, 2003 in which GAG's previous President Lloyd Dangle acknowledged GAG's financial indebtedness to the Auto Workers' Union and admitted that although so far no illegal actions have been uncovered... gross mismanagement has led [GAG] to the brink of bankruptcy. This report notes that certain measures have been taken to rectify the situation. The first is to attempt to increase our [sic] income from foreign reprographic rights.
It should be noted for the record, that the internal memo IPA refers to was NOT written by Past-President Lloyd Dangle as the carefully edited text is meant to imply. Nor was it internal since the IPA found it easily on the web, nor was it a memo at all.
They were minutes taken at a Northern California Chapter Steering Committee meeting well over a year ago, in which the chapter secretary paraphrased Dangle's comments to the Chapter regarding the state of Guild finances. The brief excerpts the IPA has posted have been taken out of context of a larger discussion and pieced together in the manner above to create a misimpression about the Guild's use of RRO money.
Whatever past dues that may have been owed to the UAW in January 2003 were paid in full long before the Guild's vote to disaffiliate in April 2004. Ms. Heasley's astute management, along with the prudent decision by the membership to disaffiliate from the UAW and the increasing burden of their dues structure, has resulted in the rectification of the Guild's financial health in August 2004.
As directed by succinct IFRRO guidelines, the Guild uses RRO money to fund our education and advocacy efforts, including legal fees supporting creative professionals in precedent setting cases. Legal fees, conference calls, and travel expenses increased as the Guild became more active in its advocacy efforts. The Guild has sought to increase RRO money to help fund our worthwhile advocacy efforts.
Excerpt 5: But to be clear, these foreign reprographic rights are not, in fact, GAG's income. They are royalties from artists' work. We're aware that GAG has been collecting these funds for nearly a decade. But it's our understanding that GAG was allowed to do so because there was no licensing agency in place in the U.S. to distribute the royalties to the proper artists. And it's also our understanding that in taking this money, GAG agreed to use it for the good of the entire industry, not for the benefit of GAG.
This is, again, an example of taking something obvious and spinning it into a misleading statement. Yes, it is correct that RRO money is not income per se. When discussing a budget, items are classified as either income or expenses. Any money coming in is called income. Any money being paid out is called an expense. In the context of discussing a budget, RRO money would naturally be referred to as income, just as the general advocacy efforts they fund are naturally called an expense. Implying anything beyond that is simply misleading and incorrect.
Your understanding that the Guild was allowed to collect those funds because there wasn't a licensing agency to distribute those funds is simply untrue. Those funds have been used in the manner that the funding organizations stipulate. They are not intended for, not can they fairly be distributed to individual artists.
Excerpt 6: Yet, the spirit of that agreement seems at odds with GAG's current official position - that rights holders have no say in, nor any right to know, how GAG leaders are spending these fees. And the use of artist royalties to rectify financial irregularities is arguably not a benefit to the community. Rather, it would seem to benefit only those who have mismanaged previous funds.
As we have already stated, as directed by the funding RROs, the Guild spends IFRRO money on our advocacy efforts. If IFRRO did not approve of the Guild's advocacy efforts, it would not give the Guild these funds. It's that simple.
The fact is that no one, not even IFRRO, knows who all of the artists are whose work is being reproduced without the artists knowledge or consent, which is exactly why no royalties can be distributed fairly to specific artists. Any speculation or accusation by the IPA that the Guild is using RRO money to rectify financial irregularities is completely specious and without one iota of proof. The Guild has not responded to the IPA's accusations of this sort of impropriety in the past because they are utter nonsense and without merit. Nobody has been lining his or her pockets with RRO money and to suggest so would be a serious and potentially actionable offense.
To clarify, the Guild's leaders are democratically elected by the National Board and general membership. Any Guild member can join committees and join in advocacy efforts for the illustration industry. This has always been the basis for the organization. If there is an issue or advocacy effort that any member wishes to build and make happen, they are welcome to join the National Advocacy Committee and lead the effort to help improve the illustration community. All advocacy efforts are reviewed and approved by the National Board and National Executive Committee, all of whom are elected by the membership to those unpaid term positions.
Excerpt 7: Our further concern is that these royalties - which are derived from the work of all artists - should not be claimed by the Auto Workers' Union (or others) as GAG's assets in either bankruptcy proceedings or in a union takeover. We're aware that in April 2004, GAG members voted to disaffiliate from the UAW. But we're also aware that the notice of that vote was first placed on the GAG website, then removed.
The 5-year term of the affiliation agreement between the Guild and the UAW expired at midnight, December 31, 2003. After following the due process as described in that agreement, including votes by the National Executive Committee and National Board, the membership of the Graphic Artists Guild voted overwhelmingly to disaffiliate from the UAW. That decision is final and legally binding, and the Guild is no longer affiliated with the UAW. Period. All dues and other financial obligations from the Guild were paid up in full at the time of the disaffiliation vote. The UAW has no legal power over the Guild. The UAW has absolutely no interest in taking over the Guild, and cannot seize the Guild's assets.
The UAW has never had any legal access to RRO money, and this was not even mentioned in the affiliation agreement. Rest assured that the Guild is not filing for bankruptcy, and none of the recent changes in staff have anything to do with any UAW actions.
Excerpt 8: And we're mindful of a warning issued by GAG's former President, Karen Guancione (1993-95), who on the eve of GAG's UAW affiliation wrote this in the Guild News:
Vote no to this mis-match of a merger...Vote no to the false hope that this merger can be ended at any time. Article I of the [Auto Workers]
Constitution...makes it clear that...we have no guarantee we will not be stopped from voting ourselves out of the UAW...
With respect to Ms. Guancione's comments made 5 years ago, the UAW's Constitution and its words had no effect on the operations of the Guild. We were bound during the 5-year affiliation by the Guild's own Constitution and the affiliation agreement signed by both the UAW and the Guild. The affiliation was a time-limited 5-year contract that the Guild voted not to renew.
Excerpt 9: Ms. Guancione also noted that Article 12 of the UAW Constitution gives the Auto Workers the power to reorganize or disband GAG and suspend any officer or take over supervision of the subordinate body. This leads us to ask what becomes of artists reprographic rights if the UAW chooses not to let GAG disaffiliate. If the UAW were to reorganize or disband GAG, would notice be given to the illustration community? Or would the takeover be presented as a normal reorganization or transition of leadership? Would artists reprographic royalties be absorbed into the UAW as GAG's assets? In light of various developments, these seem to be prudent questions.
The UAW Constitution has had no effect or bearing on the Guild's reprographic rights royalties during the 5-year affiliation. Specific individuals in the UAW have their own personal reasons for objecting to the disaffiliation; however, there has never been any mention of RRO money because the UAW has no legal access to it. The Guild's affiliation agreement with the UAW has expired; according to basic contract law the UAW cannot choose not to let GAG disaffiliate. The UAW no longer has any legal authority over the Guild, and cannot reorganize or disband the Graphic Artists Guild. As is typical in union disaffiliation negotiation, the Guild has hired a labor law firm to help us resolve the contractual issues necessary to finalize the disaffiliation. The NY labor law firm has been highly recommended by United Scenic Artists local 829, and has no prior involvement with either the Guild or the UAW. Our attorneys have asked us not to engage in further public discussion of the disaffiliation so as to facilitate an expeditious and peaceful resolution.
Excerpt 10: Once again, we re-extend to GAG an invitation to work with us to see that artists reprographic funds are properly protected as the income of artists. Our phone message left at the National Office on August 10 has not been returned. So we're writing to invite you to join us on the IPA's Town Hall to discuss these concerns. The IPA's Town Hall is an open forum available to IPA members and non-members alike. We endeavor to keep discussion on this forum civil and we can assure you that IPA members will treat you courteously.
Rest assured that the Guild is now in a financially stable environment and that advocacy efforts to help the illustration industry will continue. We invite the IPA to begin thinking about the future of its own membership and the illustration community as a whole rather than on the Guild's internal matters.
As for the IPA's demand for a meeting in New York with the Guild, this is unnecessary. All of the members of ExComm have businesses to run, and cannot take time off from our work to satisfy the demands of the IPA just to respond to what IPA itself knows are not real issues. The Guild's membership would not consider it fiscally responsible to our organization to fly our National Officers to NY to meet with the IPA every time the IPA demanded to it.
Closing Comment
The issues underlying the posting of IPA are truly important ones for this industry. However, the IPA's manner of (and apparent purpose for) raising them only creates divisiveness within the industry. As a Board, we feel that if the IPA wishes to work with the Guild on advocacy issues, the IPA Board should refrain from inconsiderate or unlawful demands, public misinformation and spin and instead propose constructive, realistic ideas to benefit both organizations and the larger community alike. If the IPA desires assistance in its own efforts to advance the interest of the industry, as opposed to attempting to undermine the Guild's longstanding efforts in this regard, the Guild would happily certainly consider that. However, the Guild believes that it would be misguided and counterproductive for the Guild to cease its general advocacy efforts on behalf of the industry as a whole, simply because the IPA has recently decided to foster confusion and concern as to sincerity of those efforts. If any member of the IPA, or of the industry for that matter, desires to work with the Guild in advancing these efforts or simply desire further information concerning those efforts, we would urge them to contact the Guild directly.
Sincerely,
John P. Schmelzer, National President
On behalf of the National Executive Committee
Graphic Artists Guild
|
