Pardon Our Appearance – “Guest Post” by Helena Handbasket

David knows of course that it is the start of a new year—a time when one is expected to write some kind of review of the year gone by and/or a few thoughts anticipating the year to come.  But as 2019 careened toward the obligatory crescendo of December’s final days, I would find him staring blankly at his computer monitor muttering, “We have abandoned all reason” over and over.  I poked him with a cocktail fork a couple of times and wafted small-batch bourbon under his nose but was unable pierce the veil of his melancholic gaze.

I cannot say that I was very surprised to find him in this gloomy state.  Given that the editorial nature of The Illusion of More is a skeptic’s view of tech-utopianism—namely the proposal that the information age is actually improving democratic societies—the events of 2019 can leave one in a fumbling search for enough consensus on the truth just to begin a discussion grounded in reason.   At the start of the New Year in 2017, in the wake of the “techlash” following the last election, David wondered whether people might take a more sober approach to the belief that social media was elevating political discourse.  And to some extent, this sobering did occur.

I know, for instance, that he expressed enthusiasm for the number of stand-up comics—Chappelle, Gervais, Sleshinger, Jeffries to name a few—who were eagerly riffing on the theme that social media beckons the ill-informed and self-righteous.  I even caught him almost break a smile at the opening of Ronny Chieng’s performance, in which (after mocking anti-vaxxers), the Singaporean comedian says,  “Yo, the internet is making people so fucking stupid.  Like who knew that all human knowledge could make people dumber?”  Indeed, who would have thought that?, David muttered.

If I had to pinpoint a moment when I began to notice David yielding to his taciturn despondency, I think it was while he was watching congressional hearings in September.  Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Jamie Raskin referred to executive privilege (in context) as imaginary “like the tooth fairy,” to which Lewandowski responded sarcastically, “Thank you Congressman.  My children are watching.”  

David muted the television and, tilting his head like a contemplative Weimaraner, asked, “Is Lewandowski saying that children young enough to believe in the tooth fairy are watching committee hearings on Capitol Hill?”

“I don’t know,” I replied, “As I certainly do not know the Lewandowski children.”

“Fair enough,” he said, content to let it go for a moment, but then continued, “Okay, but if these political prodigies have in fact chosen C-Span over Clifford, can’t we assume that they have figured out the whole tooth fairy thing?”

“I suppose that would make sense,” I said, “but why does it matter?”

“Because barring those considerations,” David pressed on, “Lewandowski is suggesting that Members of the United States Congress, while conducting the business of the nation, should not speak metaphorically in any way that might disabuse juvenile viewers of their mythical, childhood fantasies.  Or by “his children” did he mean the flock, whose blind adulation of the president demands clinging to illusions no less fictional than the tooth fairy?”  And then, without saying another word, he left and drove to the liquor store.

The Lewandowski/Raskin exchange was a tiny moment of political theater in the scheme of things.  But I suppose David found it both characteristic and symptomatic of the twenty-year acid trip we have been on since the dawn of the digital revolution—an acute example of raw insanity that has become normal conduct for people in positions of influence.  Upon his return with a bottle of Polish vodka, David played The Clash at an impolite volume and presumed to do what he called “writing” for about an hour—an intermittent ack-ack of plastic keys between fits of scatological outbursts and the replenishing of ice cubes in the glass.  He managed to produce the following …

Those in positions of authority and leadership have utterly failed to meet the challenge of galloping bullshit in the digital age.  Instead, they brought bigger shovels.  For instance, what began as bi-partisan congressional hearings to investigate the nature of the Russian hack and disinformation campaigns in the 2016 election soon mutated into a Trumpian (I cannot call those politics Republican) narrative in which Facebook et al should be sanctioned for kicking “conservatives” like Alex Jones off its platform.  

That inversion of the whole purpose of oversight (i.e. to mitigate raving lunacy in public discourse) was a prelude to two major events in 2019:  the Republican party unanimously shedding any hint of integrity in response to a clear abuse of power by the president; and Mark Zuckerberg declaring that the utopian promise of social media can still be fulfilled if we just give the experiment more time—and more of our data.  It was hard to miss the visual of Zuckerberg fiddling at Georgetown while the Capitol in the background was beginning to smolder.

Of course Zuckerberg seized the moment to double down on the tech-utopian narrative in his October speech.  As long as we remain neatly organized into our various competing realities, we can never effectively hold a platform like Facebook accountable for profiting from disinformation.  There is no disinformation because there is no information.  This is exactly why some 40% of Americans will nod, or at least shrug, when Donald Trump says that he knows better than generals, scientists, economists, State Department officials, the FBI, the CIA, etc. about any topic we can name.  Of course this brand of mad hubris works in the digital age:  it is a politics of memes.  The pinnacle of tech-utopianism.

That was probably about when The Clash was exchanged for The Smiths; at least half the vodka was gone; and David slipped back into a dejected silence—a state in which he is frankly a prick, so I left him to it.  But about thirty minutes later, he came bursting into the other room, having read an article by Joseph Bernstein about the failure of the digital age to deliver a new enlightenment.  Reading from his tablet, he quoted, “When they opened their eyes, they did indeed see that the Digital Nation had been born. Only it hadn’t set them free. They were being ruled by it. It hadn’t tamed politics. It sent them berserk.”  

This was ringing in 2020 for The Illusion of More.  Please pardon our appearance.  Restoration is in progress. 

The CASE Act: The Big Value of Small Returns

by Lisa Shaftel & John Schmelzer
Shaftel & Schmelzer, Advocates & Consultants for Visual Artists

Representative Hakeem Jeffries introduced the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2017 (the “CASE Act”) H.R. 3945 in October 2017. The CASE Act was created in response to the Copyright Office Study Report on Remedies for Copyright Small Claims released September 2013. The CASE Act establishes a “small-value copyright court” within the Copyright Office so that copyright owners can pursue infringement cases where damages are too low for cost-effective litigation in federal court. Visual creators’ organizations have been asking for this recourse for creators’ lost income for well over ten years.

There are many businesses large and small that have been built on the model of not paying for the images they use. Licensing images—certainly for commercial reproduction and display—is a standard and customary business practice for creators and users of images. It is the cost of doing business, as well as a legal obligation for the user.

Using images without permission and without paying a licensing fee to copyright owners is simply stealing. It’s no different than stealing paper or lumber or a truck. These businesses have been able to get away with not paying for the images they use because they know that copyright owners cannot afford to file an infringement lawsuit in federal court for lower-value licensing fees and actual damages.

Authors and creators trying to earn a living from their work suffer death by a thousand cuts with no practical legal recourse to stop the bleeding. Image theft has devalued our creative product to the extreme. The thought process has become; Why pay for something that can be stolen without recourse? The internet is populated with stolen images that drive traffic to commercial sites, but image creators reap no financial benefit from those who drive the traffic or those who sell the goods or services. More traditional businesses observe this trend and take advantage of the infringing activities believing they too can steal without recourse. Some websites and businesses, such as the online “corkboard,” have based their entire business model on unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

The CASE Act creates a simplified and less costly alternate dispute resolution process for creators and copyright owners to recover the licensing fees owed them by businesses that have already made unauthorized use of their photos, illustrations and graphics. The ADR process will provide the means for authors and creators to get injunctive relief from an offensive unauthorized use of their work as well. It also serves notice to the business community that there will be a low cost legal opportunity for authors and creators to enforce their ownership and copyrights, and underscores the value of creative works. Unless the value of assigned original images is reestablished, an entire industry that has already been crippled by image theft will disappear completely in the United States.

In 2012, England and Wales established a Small Claims Track for low-value copyright infringement cases. It’s working. It motivates settlements between the parties, and most claims don’t proceed to the hearing. The CASE Act would do the same in the U.S.

Businesses and their trade associations that object to the establishment of a small-value copyright tribunal fear that their business model of ripping off visual creators won’t be viable anymore. These organizations oppose the bill because they want to protect the member businesses and people who steal copyrighted works. The CASE Act doesn’t change copyright law, nor does it change our court system. The CASE Act would level the playing field by enabling authors and creators to enforce their copyrights without being required to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit in federal court that would cost more than the damages they’ve suffered. The only reason to oppose the CASE Act would be because the users do not want to pay the author/creator for the unauthorized use of their creative work.

If you’re worried about what Facebook did with your data, you should see what they do with your pictures.


Lisa Shaftel is a scenic artist, graphic artist and illustrator who has been working on creating a small-value copyright claims court system with the US Copyright Office for over 12 years. John P. Schmelzer is an illustrator and cartoonist.

Shaftel & Schmelzer is a consulting firm established in 2016 with a mission to promote and protect the economic and professional interests of visual artists through advocacy and education.

Hi resolution and low resolution versions of John P. Schmelzer’s cartoon are available for both print and online use.