"Orphan Works"

This is a law that is being considered in congress right now. It was

mentioned on another thread and suggested that those interested

should google the term. I did and found the whole thing rather

disturbing. Not just because of the wording in the proposed law, but

the fact that only two hits show up in photo net. i think something

of this nature should be plastered all over photonet. Photographers

rights are being "lawed" into extinction. this has to stop. I offer

for reading and discussion the following links. Feel free to post

your own links. The more info about this that gets seen the better

off we will be able to defend our rights.<br><br>

 

<a href="http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/"><u>Orphan Works

blog</u></a><br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?

vnu_content_id=1002074844"><u>PDN Online</u></a><br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.stockasylum.com/ow.htm"><u>Stock Asylum Orphan

Works Resources</u></a><br><br>

The following is a prepared testimony by David P. Trust, CEO of Progessional Photographers of America, to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property <br><br><a href="http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a6sp032006-ppatestimony.htm"><u>PPA testimony</u></a>

whoops.....Progessional = Professional

Mr. Sullivan, Thank you very, very much!

There are academics and Libertarians who are adversarial to patent and copyright law. And they have their buzz-words and buzz-logics just like various photography genres have theirs. These academics and Libertarians can often be found close to the development of technology and therefor are a large and cohesive society. They will say that if they tried to find the author of a work or the developer of a system and where unable to then they can use the work or development...because... ?

 

Of course this is a system of stealing from those outside of a known or preferred network.

 

This Orphan Works proposal seems to move in the Libertarian direction here concerning copyright but not patents. Of course the proposed law allows for reasonable compensation...which also disallows large awards of damages.

 

So it would basically be illegal to sue the thief. Well, many small authors or developers are taken advantage of because it is doubtful that they will spend the time or money for litigation. So with this Orphan Works proposal there would be less reward for the risk of litigation...

 

(Somewhat related, some states have put such low award caps on medical malpractice that it is essentially impossible to sue the medical doctor. Civil action is not suppose to be impossible and somewhere along the line this will reach the Supreme Court. Juries need guidance but civil actions should not be prevented from reaching the courts.)

 

Back to photography, anything posted on the web should have an author's caption or copyright notice. Then any unauthorized use is...what's that word used in copyright law...

The proposed legislation indeed is bad news. The major photographers'

organizations are on this, but the outlook at present is not great. I

think the most recent <a

href="http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_update.php"> update</a>,

current as of March 16, is on the ASMP web site. <a

href="http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php"> Contact

information</a> for members of Congress, as well as a link to the U.S.

Copyright Office's <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/"> Orphan

Works</a> page, also is available on the ASMP site. PPA's comments are

available on their <a href="http://www.ppa.com/">site</a> under

'Photographers' and then 'News'. The <a

href="http://www.stockartistsalliance.org"> Stock Artists Alliance</a> also

have comments, including the <a href="http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/">

Orphan Works blog</a> mentioned in the original post. The March 21 entry

in that blog illustrates the problem quite well; if you read the Report on

Orphan Works, you will see that what the Copyright Office consider a

“reasonably diligent” attempt to locate a copyright owner

doesn't amount to much.

<p>

On March 8, 2006, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and

Intellectual Property held public hearings;

<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=221">testimony</a>

is available on the Subcommittee's web site. In addition to the testimony

by

<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=571">

David Trust</a> of PPA, I'd suggest also reading that by

<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/sigall030806.pdf"a>Jule Sigall</a> of

the Copyright Office, who seems callously dismissive of photographers'

concerns.

Actually, I would highly recommend reading Jule Sigall's link above...the part that is pertinent to this discussion is on page 16 - 18 of the PDF document. I read this over an hour ago and still ain't calmed down from it.

 

I hate to say it folks, but I think I will start plastering my images with copyrites markings from now on. I always believed that just the act of it being on my website and/or in a public forum was enough to secure ownership......but, if this crap is the present thinking in the copyright office and the museums, etc......I see no recourse but to protect my images beforehand. I for one can not afford to be hiring lawyers to pursue after the fact scenarios on a continueing basis as I fear this law proposal would promote.

 

If these people want a picture that they can not find the author for.........go out and take the damn picture yourself. But, of course, we know they are too talentless to do that. So, they promote laws that allow them to steal, and then put the burden of proof and lawyer fees on the visual artist. THAT is the true intent of this law.....IMHO.

If they can't find the owner, they don't use the image. It can't be any easier to understand than that.

 

Add to it that if an image is used by a company or group and I as the creator don't want my image used by them... now I am stuck. They use it and I have to deal with scum I wouldn't deal with at all if I had a choice. But, they have used my image for something I would never, ever sell them a license to use in any circumstances.

 

Thieves are always thieves and now the damn government is trying to force me do have to deal with them.

Yeah look, copyright notice is name and date. So there's nothing in that such that the author has less rights if the author can't be found. Blink the eyes twice, drop a commandment from the sky and everything is different ?

 

But sure the author name might turn up in a web search engine...however if the author is a minor player then they are more likely to be found with a Google search than with a MS search. So selective or preferred networks can be developed...

 

Also, captions are legislated (for full rights) ? But digital files do not prevent the removal of captions...

 

But (or so) I am coming to the conclusion that this proposed legislation is for photojournalism. In other words so that journalists can use news videos or news photographs that have been widely disseminated on the internet. But they already use things in that way...so they now seek indemnification ?

 

But the indemnification given is not worth the risk of encouraging broad or intentional copyright abuse...

 

Probably, this proposed copyright reform is just something to package together with proposed patent reform to try and develop broad multi-discipline political support for (patent) reforms.

B Hall....you're not reading the whole thing, apparently. This law places the financial burden of proof on the author. The user can use it, say he searched, and now with only minimal retribution to the author (ie he can't claim enough money to cover lawyer fees) the author ends up spending their own money proving the abuse. That's the falacy of this law. It makes it extremely easy for theives to do their thing, and then only get a slap on the wrist financially........while the author gets "fair" compenstation IF they can prove wrong doing and does not get any compensation for all the lawyer fees.

 

It's total bullshit. It's going to make photography a free thing to the user, the photographers will go out of business, and the pictures left to steal will get used more and more.

 

There is no big penalty to the users for wrong doing.....all the "penalties" are placed on the author.

 

Unlike it is now.............if someone uses your picture now, and doesn't ask your permission, he gets major penalties and you get compensation for your image and the legal fees you had to spend to take this abuser to court.

 

If you can't understand that, then you're either not reading everything and retatining it...............or, you are one of the abuser's and want this law passed.

This is just too much. More corporate greed. All the "users" that support this orphan legislation are all big business that spend thousands on the visual arts every year. And even if the image is registered with the copyright office, they can still use it claiming they 'searched' for the owner.

 

So, as we know, we should start naming our images differently to keep them out of the google image search. Watermark everything. Drag.

Well Thomas, apparently you are unable to understand my style of composition...

 

For instance I've said that indemnification of use by publishers of things widely disseminated on the internet, is not work the risk of broad or intentional copyright infringement.

Tom, your reading of the proposed legislation is correct.

Also, Daniel...If they can't find you, (or even just say they

couldn't find you), they can use the image anyway, and about

the most you'll get out of it is maybe a couple hundred bucks.

Ever notice on some old sitcom how a picture on a background

wall is out of focus. That's cause they had the thing in the

shot but someone else owned the copyright. They got called on

it and that cost them money. How much do you think some of these

sitcoms earn in re-run? Plenty. But they've already paid for it,

so it's clear profit. Ironic how important hi-jacked DVDs ripped

off overseas are just murdering the poor poor film industry.

well B Hall, if that is what you meant, yes, I'm having trouble with your wording. And also, from <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fk8v"><u>this thread</u></a> I was getting the same impression that you felt otherwise.....you said "Well Eric, if something is put up on the internet WITHOUT CLAIM the author still does have claim...for instance the author has an IP address that can be proven..."...which I read as; if the law is passed, and someone steals your stuff, then you still have proof that it's yours. This much is true. But, this law says that financial compensation is minimal.........so going after the abuser will cost you money, as $35,000 lawyer fees (using someone else's figure here) is hardly minimal compensation for image use........image use PLUS legal fees to prove your ownership.......yes.<br><br>anyhow, glad to see we are on the same page now.......but I needed to make this financial burden clear, because the copyright office is grossly playing it down in their pitch to congress.

"Well Thomas, apparently you are unable to understand my style of composition..."

 

If that's the case, Thomas is far from alone. I'm not understanding any of your comments.

Can you attemt to clarify this: "I am coming to the conclusion that this proposed

legislation is for photojournalism"?

Well Boris, publishers want to use amateur news videos or news photos that are so widely disseminated on the internet that they are not sure of the source. Now videos or photos of news is photojournalism...

 

The thing is that they do this already but now want indemnification...in case someone steps forward and says that their material was disseminated across the internet without permission.

 

Now that's just my guess as to why the proposal is supported...and that's why I said "I'm coming to the conclusion that this proposal is for photojournalism".

 

Then I concluded the issue by saying that indemnification of publishers for the use of material widely disseminated on the internet, is not worth the risk of broad or intentional copyright infringement. In other words don't open doors that encourage abuse...

 

In more other words forget the proposal and let the publishers carry the risk of their business...

me thinkth B Hall's developer hath gone cloudy.

Well Stuart, if you object but don't have a particular point that is troubling you then you are vague...

oh yes Mr. B, I suppose.

Hey guys I'm absolutely HORRIBLE with the law; I don't understand a damn bit of it. Shoot I get confused when I read a speeding ticket, let alone contracts, copyright laws, and as well...this proposed bill. From what I understand, anybody can download a pic of mine and I can't sue them? Also does this mean that they can take my pics, manipulate them to bring discredit upon my name? If so the could just download an image, photoshop it crappily and make it look like a snapshot and repost it so people think that I suck? Man this is stupid, what's with the law these days? Well if that's what this means then sounds like we should take the legislators images and copy/paste their faces on pornos and it would all be legal. hmmpff. (that was a retorical statement by the way).

Justin...It basically breaks down like this. If they get the charges that are being discussed, whether the work is copyrighted or not; if your image is used by another party, if you challenge it's use, they can say, we couldn't find the owner and all they are libel for is what is being described as "reasonable compensation" which might be what? $200 bucks. You can take them to court all you want, but what you'll get out of it isn't worth the expense you went to. It won't matter if the picture is on somebody's million selling album. Check out the links further up on this thread, also do a Photo.net search of "Orphan Works", you'll get a better picture.

Justin, just below the "Photography News" forum where you posted your question, go down to: photo.net Site Feedback, and see "Photo.net official line on Orphan Works Legislation"; there isn't an official line

but the issue is explained there better than I can.