 |
That sucks over for you over the big pond.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Good Lord -- how do they come up with this kind of crap? Everyone should read this and be in contact with your "elected representatives" in Congress.
I use quotation marks because most of them really do not represent your interests at all ... they seem to have their own agendas, two of them...(1) make as much money as they possibly can from all kinds of special interest groups and lobbyists and (2) get re-elected.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
that is really scary
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Liz AM edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
@maleercan - Read again:
From the article (1st page):
"However, an Orphan Works bill is also in the works in Europe. I was speaking recently with Roger Dean, the famed artist of the Yes album covers, and he is greatly concerned with what will happen if Orphan Works bills become law."
I'm sure the argument is "Why force our own people to a higher ideal when the US is not going to."
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well, what did people expect? Your copyright is merely a government-sanctioned monopoly granted to you. And as far as governments go, monopolies are usually granted to those who will bribe the most government officials. That includes your monopoly on your work.
It is inevitable.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
My general paranoia about things like that is one reason I don't put pictures of people on the internet - at least not for sharing in public. If the time comes that I can't control how its used then all kinds of other issues open up - face recognition technology databases, etc. It is always better to err on the side of caution when it comes to this internet thing.
And its really disappointing to see legislators thinking along these lines. Its like they are saying "if you are a big company like Disney then your work has value, but if you are a starving artist who can't afford to pay registration fees....then tough luck".
Jayel: I believe that large companies and hugely popular musicians should lose their copyright after a certain amount of exposure. I believe that characters like Disney characters, or songs as well known as those of the Beatles, should belong in the public domain. Why? because our culture has become so saturated by those images and songs that we are limited in re-interpreting our childhood memories and cultural experiences if we can't use those images and songs that make up a part of our history.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Therrr edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
So far I've found HR 5439 (written by Rep Smith, R-TX 21st Dist.) from the 2006 Leg session but it never reached a vote on the floor.
On a March 18th, 2008 post the Illustrator's Partnership website mentioned that no HR number had been assigned to the newer version of this legislation.
I've found this organization that seems interesting: eldred.cc/
Their site is named save orphan works and has links to direct action outlets. And there is also the electronic frontier foundation that follows these issues.
I've found no HR number though and our politicians are so disconnected from these things that they need a numerical reference to direct their staff to look for. So, keep that in mind when writing your legislators.
Go to forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml to find out who exactly represents ya in the House. "cause it seems that this issue won't ever go away, it seems best to be apprised of the situation.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Old Sarge edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
From the article:
Two proponents of this new legislation are Corbis and Getty Images. They are large stock photo and stock art companies. They sell art and photos inexpensively and are trying to build giant royalty-free databases. Do you see how they could benefit from considering most works of art in the world orphans?
Do you know who owns Corbis? Bill Gates. He doesn't do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money. Helping you lose the copyright to your art is big business for Gates.
And people wonder why so many are up in arms about the idea of Microsoft buying Yahoo?
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
the article linked to here is very long on hyperbole, and very short on fact.
in principle, the idea is good for both artists and for publishers.
if the work is orphaned, it can now be re-published, re-used.
if it turns out the work isn't actually an orphan, the artist gets paid. this is a payment that probably wouldn't have happened without the ophaned works law, because the work would never have been used in the first place [out of fear].
meanwhile, most artists aren't effected in the slightest, because their works aren't orphaned.
the trick is defining what is and isn't an orphaned work. if you define it as "any work found without a copyright notice" - then there's going to be trouble. if you define it as "any work found without a copyright notice, whose owner can't be found after a search conducted with due diligence" then it isn't going to be a problem, particularly if there is an abuse provision.
the article linked to at the top gets into none of this nuance, and merely exclaims "BAD THEFT BAD!", with a heavy use of fully capitalized words.
if you want to compare infringing copyright ownership to theft, and treat intellectual property as if it were actual property, this is basically a "salvage law". it is promoting salvage, not theft.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
fd 
says:
Panic! Sky falling!
Cross-posting from Utata because it's important:
This sounds like the author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. Copyright law was originally intended as a way for an artist to make money from something he created for a reasonable time frame. A temporary, government-sanctioned monopoly. Over the years, corporations have pushed to extend copyright for ridiculously long terms, far longer than the original artist could ever expect to receive any benefit from it. In other words, current copyright law favors corporations, not people.
As I understand it, an "orphaned work" is a work where the artist is incredibly difficult to find. Like if he's dead. Because the artist can't be located, others cannot build upon the work even if they were willing to pay for it. The work can no longer be used by anyone for any reason. It's creativity wasted.
Here's some less panicky information about orphaned works:
eldred.cc
www.copyright.gov/orphan
lessig.org/blog/2007/02/copyright_policy_orphan_works.html
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
fd edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
and of course Corbis and Getty are going to make money off of this.
so long as the money is derived from truly orphaned works that would be otherwise lost to the sands of time, that's fine.
and the way the bill works, if Corbis and Getty make an honest mistake, the artist gets a cut of any profits.
if Corbis and Getty abuse the system [like re-use without due diligence] then the artist can always sue for a larger cut, and probably punitive damages too, just like with any other case of straight up copryright infringement.
to me, this seems like a pretty even handed and fair way to prevent orphaned works from getting lost to the sands of time.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
My photos are in danger? But I am not an artist nor am I making any money. I would read the article but I got an error message.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Werewolf Pup edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
I got an error message too!
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
the trick is defining what is and isn't an orphaned work. if you define it as "any work found without a copyright notice" - then there's going to be trouble. if you define it as "any work found with a copyright notice, whose owner can't be found after a search conducted with due diligence" then it isn't going to be a problem, particularly if there is an abuse provision.
The problem is the definition. The US Copyright Office defined it as:
The Copyright Office has completed its study of problems related to “orphan works”—copyrighted works whose owners may be impossible to identify and locate.
And as the ASMP says that would cover 90% of all visual images. Their proposal would be to allow an Orphaned Work defence soley in case where the infringer was not exploiting the work commercially. IOW that Orphaned Works effectively become a sort of CC-NC.
www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/vsp_testimony_13Mar2008.pdf
Keeps the stuff out of the hands of Disney and Getty, but allows for personal website, educational, and factual uses.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
I couldn't get the link to work either. I was able to find the text online, but it was in legalese, so i couldn't understand what it said. could someone explain to us what this bill says in english?
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
could someone explain to us what this bill says in english?
The bill says you can use any copyright work providing you can show that you made some attempt to locate the copyright owner.
As with most images it is almost impossible to determine the copyright owner, the likes of Getty, Disney, and Corbis get to resell everyone's images.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
fd
says:
As with most images it is almost impossible to determine the copyright owner
I call B.S. If that were true, services like iStockPhoto and Getty could not function. Flickr, for example, happens to be a great example of a collection of hundres of millions of images in which it is quite easy to determine the copyright owner.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Walwyn - thank you for explaining this to me. this sounds a bit like the patent "reform" bill that just failed. I wonder what lobby group was behind this.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think the situation is that organisations wishing to use a picture may get away with the most cursory attempt to find the author & if that fails many authors hardly have the resources to take action & if they demand fees may well be fobbed off with what the organisation using pics decides is fair compensation which is unlikely to be generous. All this means that large organisations will be a position to use what they want pretty freely in order to make money out of other people's work.
I think if the law should require that if an organisation fails to find an existing copyright holder who emerges later then the copyright holder should be compensated for 1000 times the commercial rate for the use of that image plus other compensatory considerations. This will give the motivation to these large organisations who use images to be very careful.
Another issue is how can the copyright holder check that their images are only being used with their permission? The only organisations with the ability to do this are very large image sellers. This means that large image sellers may be free to get away with anything that does not involve infringements on other large organisations as they will know the chances of being found out are less than 1 in 1000.
It is a system designed to favour large business & remove the real rights of individuals - which is in many ways a description of the USA law particularly.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@fd
The works assigned to Getty and IStockPhoto aren't Orphaned.
How do you contact the copyright holder of a photo on flickr? Is this user still here, or is their email still valid?
www.flickr.com/photos/hexion/
What about some image you've found on some post images you like website? How about those images on photobucket or imageshack?
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
The article that the OP links to has many errors of facts. Read here for a thorough debunking.
maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I got about 1/3rd into the article and still couldn't find any actual content. It's just a bunch of ill informed, self opinionated, paranoid, hearsay.
I have to say I'm pretty shocked at the admin/moderators reactions in this thread.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
DrNickBurton edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
It's full of hyperbole. It's a shame that this article is being read by more than 10 people, let alone being cited far & wide as a good article. My favorite bit is this (I stopped reading at that point):
Do you know who owns Corbis? Bill Gates. He doesn't do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money. Helping you lose the copyright to your art is big business for Gates.
I guess she never heard of www.gatesfoundation.org/ . That's a big money maker for sure!
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
fd
says:
The works assigned to Getty and IStockPhoto aren't Orphaned.
Neither are mine or yours or anyone else in this thread or anyone alive who gives a damn about their work. That's the point.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
fd edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Neither are mine or yours or anyone else in this thread or anyone alive who gives a damn about their work. That's the point.
No its not the point at all. The point is that it can be almost impossible to locate the copyright owner of a photograph. Who's image is this?
img73.imageshack.us/img73/636/17dg5.jpg
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@walwyn
It's not clear, since the EXIF data does not include the author's name. I think the point fd makes is that this kind of thing would not be a problem for someone who cares about the copyright in their work.
E.g.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
DrNickBurton edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Keeps the stuff out of the hands of Disney and Getty, but allows for personal website, educational, and factual uses.
That is a bit silly. That is one of the reasons I finally moved away from CC-NC licenses. Why stifle creativity merely because the person creating the derivative will make a profit? Profit is a very good incentive to create and to innovate.
I am still on the fence about this whole issue. From the looks of it, it sounds like an attempt at copyright reform and free images that are basically orphaned. It allows people to create derivatives without being sued for infringement.
However, this Orphaned Works Bill does not address Fair Use or recognize the supremacy of free speech rights. It burdens the Fair User with the task with "reasonable diligent search" even before they attempt to create a derivative. The bill will in effect create regulation on fair usage and speech. It is an unfair, it is dangerous, it is the Copyfascist Trojan Horse.
Unless they create language that will explicitly recognize fair usage and add language that explicitly protect free speech, this bill is nothing but another straw on back of the already broken Copyright Act.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
fd
says:
I submit that people who upload their images to any place with "shack" or "bucket" in the name don't care about their work. :-)
I agree that finding the original author of a work when no identifying information is available is a tricky problem. You should read the report at copyright.gov/orphan. It's excellent and they discuss this problem in detail.
In particular, they suggest that extra diligence should be made to find owners in these kinds of cases, especially when a work is found in a context in which it may not have been authorized (like, any image you find on imageshack). There are also suggestions that there should be a term limit on the use of orphaned works, attribution (a url link to the source maybe in this case), and monetary remedies if the owner comes forward including reasonable royalties and possibly attorney and legal fees.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I didn't think I had any rights anyway. I'm just a space monkey. A slave of the corporations. Taxed without representation. TAXED WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! That use to start civil wars. Not anymore. Maybe if a few more put down the xbox, we could change things. But we don't have the numbers . Nor do we have a leader. Power is the ability to form a group....i'm ranting...
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Another treatment of the opposition:
news.deviantart.com/article/46375/
and a less polite one...
yaoi.y-gallery.net/journal/snover/130570/
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ jakerome: Thanks for that link
@ fd: Too many comments to comment on :) Thnx for the input
@ everyone else: Thnx as well. Good to get level heads in on the convo. I like to think I am able to absorb all this and form a less 'panicky' opinion.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Lol...
kynn.livejournal.com/799971.html
Ok...I'm done now...sorry for the seizure.
Nothing to see.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
still, the sky really IS falling - if not from this, then from something else...
surely, there has to be a discussion topic about it somewhere...
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I guess she never heard of www.gatesfoundation.org/ . That's a big money maker for sure!
Yes, I've heard of it, along with the Rockefeller foundation, the Macy's foundation, and a bunch of other big name "foundations" - how many of those do you suppose are *really* philanthropic at their core and not another way for the big-wig international fin-pols and their cartels to avoid taxes and influence government/big university/association policies and laws?
edit: Not to mention something to fall back on and point to, saying "Hey, he's not such a bad guy... look at all the good his foundation does."
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
@DrNickBurton
Who can tell whether the person cares about copyright. In fact in that particular case I believe they do. That image was copied from the copyright holder's website and uploaded to imageshack. In the process the EXIF could have been stripped altogether. The problem is that 90% of all images you see on the internet are in a similarly position.
Lets say that the EXIF contained some contact data (very few images on the web have that) like an email address. What happens if you lose your email address, say you move to another ISP, or your email supplier shuts down, then what?
@Jayel
Profit is a very good incentive to create and to innovate.
That is the justification for strong copyright laws.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
Hm, I dunno about that bill but that article is so poorly written I can't even read it...
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I went from
:O
>:(
:-|
:-/
after reading the whole thread.
*leaves discussion for people who know what they're talking about and observes*
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Walyn
thats alot of ifs.
And the reason most exif data doesn't contain identification or contact details is that the author never put them there in the first place (and not because they have somehow been removed, as you seem to suggest). This is easily remedied...
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
And the reason most exif data doesn't contain identification or contact details is that the author never put them there in the first place
Maybe not.
However, just because someone didn't put contact info into EXIF ought not to give everyone the right to reuse it. That really does sound like the old "If you don't want it stolen don't repost it" bullshit.
And besides the photo here "© Rex Features":
www.vogue.co.uk/vogue_daily/story/story.asp?stid=51942
doesn't have EXIF data in it, do you suppose that is because the photography doesn't give a rats arse about copyright? I did a quick check and none of the stuff on the BBC website, nor on Yahoo Sports pages has contact info in the EXIF either.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
there is a great post about this on blog.melchersystem.com/2008/03/13/orphan-work-bill-is-a-g... . The guy who wrote it is a pro of the stock photo industry and he is all for it.
This new legislation will force photographers and agencies to be more careful about their indexing of images.
This is like passing a law saying that stray dogs will be arrested. Results: everyone puts a collar. what is a big deal ?
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
This is like passing a law saying that stray dogs will be arrested.
No its not. Besides what do you do with the billions of images that don't have EXIF data? What do you do with all that film stuff? What about all those magazines where copyright was never recorded?
And this is why the article is wank - many people don't have cameras that have the facility to auto add copyright info to EXIF, many people use editing software that actively strips EXIF data. Some people may not want to add personal details to the files they upload. None of which is reason to strip them of their copyright.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
FlyButtafly: I'm sorry, but just about anyone* who gives billions of dollars away to worthy causes gets to be a good guy in my book. Even if it's a tax shelter -- because there are plenty of other ways to avoid taxes that aren't for the greater good.
Besides, I've heard the man speak about his philanthropy, and it's clear he's very passionate about it. So for all of his faults, I believe his sincerity on this issue at least.
*I reserve judgment, because small sample size and all that. But still.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
selva (a group admin) edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
'Besides what do you do with the billions of images that don't have EXIF data?'
contact the host of the website where the photo is posted, and inquire as to the origins of the photo.
EXIF is really a misleading thread. there are many ways to begin tracking down the owner without EXIF information.
saying 90% of photos don't have EXIF, so 90% of photos would be considered orphans is misunderstanding the issue.
part of your due diligence would likely involve contacting web hosts, tracking down the origins and ownership of an image. it may, at some point, also involve image comparison search to find the file of origin.
"this photo doesn't have EXIF! it is MINE now! MUWAHAHAHA" is not due diligence and is not the situation this proposal is trying to create.
and if a mistake is made, the photographer is automatically paid.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Well the EXIF nonsense was dragged in by the proponents of this bill, saying that if it wasn't there it was abandoned.
The problem remains that in many places that you'll find an image there is no indication of the copyright owner. The first instannce I gave was that of an image by LaraJade which has been copied off to imageshack. If that is where you encountered it, or from some other site that's recopied it, where is the link back to LaraJade?
If have all my stuff CC-NC a number of sites have copies which link back to here, but if I were to delete my flickr account doesn't mean that I'm Orphaning those works. I specifically have them NC because I do not want them used commercially. So compensating me after they have been used commercially is no remedy at all.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Who cares about compensation?
I am more worried about the threat this bill poses to fair usage.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Please read the following it clears this up a little bit
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&messag...
Plus don't get worked up over a bill unless it becomes law.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
my understanding of this bill is that whoever rips of somebody elses image determines whether they tried hard enough to find the copyright owner. watermarks, embedded info and signatures can be easily removed in photoshop. then, if the thief goes to any number of private copyright agencies and registers your work for $5 a pop before you (most freelance artists don't have the money to pay $5 per each photo they took), you will be infringing on their copyright if you try to display your own image. the only way to fight this is to sue the thief in court, where the new legislation makes the artist pay for all legal costs, even when they win, and the compensation awarded will be only to the value of the original licensing fees that should've been paid to them in the first place. In Canada, they have a body that carries out these searches and officially declares a work orphaned so it works ok, but this new bill in the US doesn't intend to formalize the searches so anybody who wants to steal the image and use it for whatever (including commercial) purpose can decide whether they tried hard enough to find the copyright owner. and then it's up to you to sue them and pay through the roof for that.
i think it's a huge issue that can affect anybody who publishes and promotes their work on the web, unless they have a big corporation or bank account behind them in case they need to sue to get things sorted out.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
So: Bill Gates' Corbis can "steal" your images if this bill passes; but if you pirate a copy of a M$ operating system, you go to jail?? Ha! What a hypocrite!
Also, is this the most pressing issue our congress has to occupy its' time? I think not.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Plus don't get worked up over a bill unless it becomes law.
Um, hello - the point of getting worked up over a bill is to *prevent* it becoming law. Once that happens (that it passes), you're screwed.
Also, is this the most pressing issue our congress has to occupy its' time? I think not.
Sadly, they concentrate on where the money is/comes from. It couldn't matter less to most (if not all) of them what/who they're *supposed* to be there for, doing, representing... :/ (Of course, here I am stating the obvious.)
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
I am more worried about the threat this bill poses to fair usage.
Good grief it has nothing to do with fair use. If there is a fair-use claim it matters not what the status of the work is.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Call your Congressperson.
The phone number for the DC Capitol Switchboard is (no joke) 1-888-SOB-U-SOB
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
FlyButtafly wrote Um, hello - the point of getting worked up over a bill is to *prevent* it becoming law. http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
What bill. There is no bill. The original article is wrong. Totally and completely utterly wrong.
There is no bill.
There is nothing to worry about. Are we all on the same page.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ Honoo Flammen
There is no bill.
Someone ought to tell someone about that then:
judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
that will save them the trouble of drafting it.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Walwyn wrote Someone ought to tell someone about that then:
judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
that will save them the trouble of drafting it. Did you even see what you linked to? That's not a bill. It was a hearing in which Marybeth Peters, the Registrar of Copyrights, discussed orphan works. They just talked about it. No legislation was proposed. Did you even read the link that I posted above? I'll save you the trouble and post the relevant bits here:
. "There's legislation before Congress right now that will enact major changes in US copyright law regarding orphaned works! We have to act immediately!"
Actually, no, there isn't. Even the Illustrators Partnership admits this, so I don't know where Mark Simon gets this idea. There may very well be a bill introduced this legislative session, but no such bill has surfaced yet. That gives you, artists and authors, time to get familiar with the actual legislative landscape, research what might be proposed in a bill, and decide for yourself what position to take.
Back on March 13, Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, made a statement before the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. It discusses orphaned works in detail, and mentions previously proposed legislation that expired when the 2006 House session closed. It was never voted on.
I advise everyone to read Ms. Peters' statement. It's long, but it's in plain English. (Okay, she does like to use big words. But it's not legalese.) If you read it, you'll see that the Copyright Office is in fact concerned about how to handle orphaned works in a way that's fair to original copyright holders. I especially recommend you read the section titled "The Proposed Solution". Read it carefully. It's pretty clear that Mark Simon didn't.
(my emphasis, not hers)
Please do just a little bit of research and use just a tad bit of rational common sense. Read the link I posted above. No... I'll even repost it here:
maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
Read. Understand. Think. The original article is simply wrong on what orphan works means. Basing your opinions on incorrect information is folly.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Legislation was was introduced in 2006 but ran out of time. This is the early stages of a revised bill. I don't know about over where you are but here when the bastards start proposing something you stick your boot in early on.
You don't wait until the scumbags have drafted the legislation and are pushing it though the legislature on the back of something completely different, because by that time they have been bought and sold.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Walwyn wrote This is the early stages of a revised bill. What is? What does this "early stage" state? What have you read about it and who wrote it?
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Honoo Flammen
www.photoattorney.com/2008/03/orphan-bill-rears-its-ugly-...
www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/vsp_testimony_13Mar2008.pdf
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Walwyn wrote @Honoo Flammen
www.photoattorney.com/2008/03/orphan-bill-rears-its-ugly-...
www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/vsp_testimony_13Mar2008.pdf
Those are good sources of information and are very much worth reading. The ASMP's suggestions to the proposed solution are reasonable and seems (from my PoV) to help expand the appropriate use of an orphaned work while preventing commercial exploitation.
It's good that everyone's paying attention to this issue but we will have to wait and see if any such bill even appears in an upcoming session. Then we can start the screaming and panicking.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Yep the ASMP's position seems very reasonable. Allows for personal, academic, and archival use. Which is what's required, but stops the skimmers and scrappers.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@walyn
Are you calling me a proponent of the bill?
Just to be clear, | live in the UK and give not a monkeys :-)
PS: THERE IS NO BILL (time to move onto to the next non-issue already)
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
DrNickBurton edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
There IS a proposal making the rounds
Here ya go:
www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html
Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests of Copyright Owners
and Users (Video webcast )
from Thursday 03/13/2008
judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
And here is a great blog with current information:
orphanworks.blogspot.com/
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS’ PARTNERSHIP
April 23,2008
Today the House and Senate sent us draft copies of the new Orphan Works Act of 2008. They haven’t officially released it yet, but we’ve been told the Senate will do so this week. A quick analysis confirms our worst fears and our early warnings. If these proposals are enacted into law, all the work you have ever done or will do could be orphaned and exposed to commercial infringement from the moment you create it.
You’ve probably already heard Mark Simon’s webcast interview with Brad Holland. If not, please listen to it at:
www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html.
Then forget the spin you’ve heard from backers of this bill. This radical proposal, now pending before Congress, could cost you your past and future copyrights.
The Illustrators’ Partnership is currently working with our attorney - in concert with the other 12 groups in the American Society of Illustrators Partnership to have our voices – and yours - heard in Congress. We’ll keep you posted regarding how you can do your part.
Please forward this information to every creative person and group you know. Mr. Holland and Mr. Simon have given their permission for this audio file to be copied and transferred and replayed.
For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?sea...
If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com
Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Man, if this somehow ABOLISHES copyright as we know it, I will be all for it. But from the early drafts I have seen of this proposed bill, it is anything but that.
In fact, it is quite the opposite. It burdens fair users with the requirement to seek the copyright holder, thereby defanging the powerful limitations imposed by Section 107, Title 17 of the Copyright Act.
All the bill is make work for lawyers. Just another regulatory hurdle that hurts innovation and creativity and free speech.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
For those who want to do some light reading...
Here is the bill introduced last week to BOTH house and senate.
H.R. 5889 (20 pages)
www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/HR5889draft.pdf
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Considering the number of films, books and other materials caught up in copyright limbo because no one can find the owners of the copyright this bill would be a good thing. And it has on effect whatsoever on recent works hosted on a website whose ownership is quite easily determined.
Some people just need to be paranoid.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@Ther-esa No one cares enough about your photos to steal them so lighten up.
I don't get why people here on Flickr give such a crap about their work being stolen. Its so egotistical it makes me want to puke. Are your pieces so good that someone else will steal them and make money off it? No. Besides professional photographers, do post their images on their sites in not full resolution but good enough to steal resolution.
Check this guy: cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/news/index.html This stuff he posted there good enough to frame And is easily stolen from his blog. But he obviously doesn't care and this guy is a very accomplished photographer. So what makes you think your pieces are more desirable than his?
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Ottoman42 edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
 |
I've only read a part of this thread, but the problem with the Orphan Works bill that died in the last congressional session did actually put all works in danger of being orphaned. Defining what is orphaned was a problem, but that was only part of it. The other problem was that the definition for what constituted "a reasonable search" for the copyright owner was extremely vague and had virtually no criteria whatsoever, and in some cases, even a reasonable licensing fee would not be available for past uses. Those were big issues.
The current proposed orphan works legislation is supported by the ASMP. I haven't had a chance to read it myself, but here is a synopsis.
www.flickr.com/groups/lawgroup/discuss/72157604604517176/
Jayel - If you really don't like copyright, then why do you use an Attribution-ShareAlike restriction on your images. The fact that you're using CC controls the use of your images, which is a right granted to you by Copyright Law. If you're really as gung ho about abolishing copyright as you claim to be, then you should walk the talk and make your images public domain so that users do not have to give you credit and they would also not be required to put a CC license on their uses and derivatives either. Your images can be free and nobody has to know who you are.
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
purplezebra edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
@purplezebra
Jayel has a sketchy understanding of fair-use, and copyright.
@Jayel
Before you can start selling a work on ebay you need to contact the copyright owner to license the work, you need to do that because your use 'selling it on ebay' isn't a 'fair-use' .
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
this is a rebuttal and explanation to the posted article.
maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/reply/OWR0114-STM-Creat...
"Photo shops refuse to reproduce or repair wedding photographs, school photographs, and other valuable family mementos which may be subject to a copyright held by a long-forgotten professional photographer;"
Museums such as the National Portrait Gallery are unable to locate owners and clear the rights necessary to reproduce on the Internet photographs of works in their collections – thereby preventing the affected institutions from educating the public about the content of their collections, and from allowing distant patrons and scholars access to reproductions of many works in their collections."
Yes, I guess it is precisely the second-rate pro that has a lot to fear from this bill. [edit]but not until after you've died and been forgotten..
Originally posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
pterandon edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
A common-sense view might be to not allow use of any orphaned images until they are (plausibly) 10 years or 20 years old. While the intention isn't to let publishers rip-off photographers, that's obviously the fear.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP
You are cordially invited to attend an important industry-wide event
Don’t Let Congress Orphan Your Work
An open forum to oppose the Orphan Works Act of 2008
Tuesday, May 6 6:00 PM
The Society of Illustrators
128 East 63rd Street
New York, NY 10065
Admission will be free
The Orphan Works Act of 2008 will endanger the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property.
It will expose your art to commercial infringement. It will include work from professional paintings to family snapshots. It will include published and unpublished work. It will include any image that resides or has ever resided on the internet. It will force you to register every picture you do with privately-held commercial registries. It will make all unregistered works potential orphans.
This radical change to U.S. copyright law will shift the burden of diligence from infringers to rights holders. It is wrong to give infringers the right to make money from your property without your knowledge or consent. You should not have to pay businessmen to keep the work you’ve created.
The Orphan Works Act is an assault on national and international copyright laws. It’s an assault on the property and privacy rights embodied in them.
Illustrators, photographers, fine artists: let’s come together and act to keep Congress from orphaning our work.
This event will be webcast live.
Panelists at this forum will include:
- Brad Holland Hall of Fame artist who has testified against the Orphan Works Act of 2006 in both the House and Senate
- Cynthia Turner Award-winning medical artist who has collaborated in written testimony to both the House and Senate
- Constance Evans Photographer, painter and Executive Director of Advertising Photographers of America
- Terry Brown Director Emeritus of the Society of Illustrators, currently Director of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership
- Others to be announced
To learn more about the Orphan Works Bill, listen to the interview with Brad Holland:
mp3 version: www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
YouTube version: youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The Stock Artists Alliance Speaks Up About Orphan Works 2008
Quote
"SAA has just published extensive commentary about 2008 Orphan Works legislation just introduced by both Houses of Congress, as a resource for artists and other members of the visual arts community who will be affected by this legislation."
orphanworks.blogspot.com/2008/05/stock-artists-alliance-s...
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This is another example of Socialism creeping into our society. Remember Socialism is a stepping stone to Communism. Communists don't believe in individual ownership of anything. That includes intellectual property, such as copy rights and patents.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The overreaction to all this is comical.
firefox.org/news/articles/1452/1/Editorial-Orphan-Works-2...
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
1. This bill assumes that copyright holders will register their works with some database or other. However, the USA is a signatory to the Berne Convention on copyright, which says that a copyright holder is not obliged to register their copyright with anyone. This bill would seem to renege on an international agreement.
2. As my stuff is CC-NC any financial compensation is inappropriate as I do NOT want these things used commercially at any price. This bill invalidates my licenses.
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Aubrey Collins - that's cheered me right up, especially as I'd describe myself as a Socialist ;-)
Really, though, seriously? Is McCarthyism still alive?
Posted 3 months ago.
(
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
