| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2007 04:50:33 PM · #1 |
| US is trying to pass a new law coined the Orphan Bill. Basically stating that anyone can take ownership and use any photograph that they can't locate the owner of. In a nutshell if you find a picture and make a lame attempt at trying to locate the photographer and fail you can then use it any way you wish and profit form the photo. So... META DATA put your number name and address in ALL of your photos. Once a year you should submit to Congress (US resident) a copyright notice for all of your work throughout the year. This bill is being pushed through by Getty and Microsoft because they want to steal your work. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 06:06:07 PM · #2 |
| Actually the American Library Association has been pushing for this change in copyright law for a few years now. This will be the third or fourth time this bill has come up. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 06:18:11 PM · #3 |
It is a royal pita when you are working with 20-90 years old photos and don't know who took them. Here in Holland the author has copyright until 70 years after his death.....
Many times we want to use photos from the 1920's to 50's and are unable to locate the photographer. And I really would like to know if we have permission to use the photos before I spent 10+ hours on restauration. In that light I can imagine the desire for laws like that.
For a modern photographer who is serious about copyright: Just stamp the damn prints. It makes life a hell of a lot easier for the honest people who want to find you if they would like to use your work.
I have even seen companies that make it possible to print your own line of text on the back of the photos.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 06:19:22 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 06:32:15 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I have even seen companies that make it possible to print your own line of text on the back of the photos. |
Costco has customizable backprinting for images uploaded via the internet. Doesn't work so well for pictures posted on the internet, though. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 07:45:53 PM · #6 |
It's not exactl6y what some people want you to think it is... there are safeguards. People are not just going to be able to steal your work. And if they do, you do have recourse, just like you do now.
Just like every other law that has been passed since laws were invented (I wonder if Gore invented those too?) there are bad laws, and good laws that are used badly.
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 08:08:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Just like every other law that has been passed since laws were invented (I wonder if Gore invented those too?) ... |
Sheesh ... talk about gratuitous bashing ... as this article about the folks who really did "invent" the internet mentions, Mr. Gore did in fact represent a substantial influence in getting it done ... since he himself has never claimed to have "invented the internet" isn't it time to stop spreading the false implication that he did?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 08:35:13 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Just like every other law that has been passed since laws were invented (I wonder if Gore invented those too?) ... |
Sheesh ... talk about gratuitous bashing ... as this article about the folks who really did "invent" the internet mentions, Mr. Gore did in fact represent a substantial influence in getting it done ... since he himself has never claimed to have "invented the internet" isn't it time to stop spreading the false implication that he did?
|
True but he pretty much invited such attacks when he stated, "I took the initiative in creating the internet." He didn't create or initiate it.
Message edited by author 2007-12-09 20:36:07.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 08:44:47 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
It's not exactl6y what some people want you to think it is... there are safeguards. People are not just going to be able to steal your work. And if they do, you do have recourse, just like you do now.
|
The penalties for infringement are significantly reduced and, much harder to prove.
The only requirement in determining a work to be an orphan is that the person wishing to use it must make a "reasonable effort" to find the creator. No mention of what "reasonable effort" entails.
So, if Bob wants to steal a photograph, he could just call a few buddies and ask them "Hey, you know who took this?" They all say "No" and that's reasonable so Bob goes ahead. Then, lets say the creator finds out about it, Bob just says, "Hey, I tried to find you. Here's a check for what we normally pay." No penalty.
Totally unfair to the creator. Removes control of his work without consent.
Message edited by author 2007-12-09 20:45:43.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 08:50:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
It's not exactl6y what some people want you to think it is... there are safeguards. People are not just going to be able to steal your work. And if they do, you do have recourse, just like you do now.
|
The penalties for infringement are significantly reduced and, much harder to prove.
The only requirement in determining a work to be an orphan is that the person wishing to use it must make a "reasonable effort" to find the creator. No mention of what "reasonable effort" entails.
So, if Bob wants to steal a photograph, he could just call a few buddies and ask them "Hey, you know who took this?" They all say "No" and that's reasonable so Bob goes ahead. Then, lets say the creator finds out about it, Bob just says, "Hey, I tried to find you. Here's a check for what we normally pay." No penalty.
Totally unfair to the creator. Removes control of his work without consent. |
Even if Bob makes a "reasonable effort" it is still a bad law. If someone finds a photo via stumbleupon, imageshack or any of the other content sharing sites it could be very difficult to find the original owner. Just because that is a problem to the person who wishes to use the photo doesn't mean you shouldn't penalize the owner of it. If you can't find the owner then don't use the photograph. Pretty simple. The world isn't going to end if you can't use a particular photo.
Message edited by author 2007-12-09 20:53:30.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 08:57:17 PM · #11 |
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Al Gore
It's just a politician's way of spinning words to their advantage. Slight variations in the meaning of words can make a statement true or false, depending on how you wish to interpret it. . They all do it. The problem is, many will hear this and take it as truth....for ever. I'd bet he knew it.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Just like every other law that has been passed since laws were invented (I wonder if Gore invented those too?) ... |
Sheesh ... talk about gratuitous bashing ... as this article about the folks who really did "invent" the internet mentions, Mr. Gore did in fact represent a substantial influence in getting it done ... since he himself has never claimed to have "invented the internet" isn't it time to stop spreading the false implication that he did?
|
Message edited by author 2007-12-09 20:58:32.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 09:41:24 PM · #12 |
We can at least credit Gore with inventing global warming. Just to stay on topic, I stole this photo to prove it:
Did any of you take this photo? ...no? ...Cool, it's mine. :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 09:47:51 PM · #13 |
Danggit Art, that photo clearly says "copyright" on the linked page. SURELY you don't think that the act of linking somehow absolves you of piracy? Unless, of course, you are the creator of it, which you might well be given your expertise with flame-throwing mythical monsters, among which I classify dear old Al.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 09:48:49 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
It's not exactl6y what some people want you to think it is... there are safeguards. People are not just going to be able to steal your work. And if they do, you do have recourse, just like you do now.
|
The penalties for infringement are significantly reduced and, much harder to prove.
The only requirement in determining a work to be an orphan is that the person wishing to use it must make a "reasonable effort" to find the creator. No mention of what "reasonable effort" entails.
So, if Bob wants to steal a photograph, he could just call a few buddies and ask them "Hey, you know who took this?" They all say "No" and that's reasonable so Bob goes ahead. Then, lets say the creator finds out about it, Bob just says, "Hey, I tried to find you. Here's a check for what we normally pay." No penalty.
Totally unfair to the creator. Removes control of his work without consent. |
Even if Bob makes a "reasonable effort" it is still a bad law. If someone finds a photo via stumbleupon, imageshack or any of the other content sharing sites it could be very difficult to find the original owner. Just because that is a problem to the person who wishes to use the photo doesn't mean you shouldn't penalize the owner of it. If you can't find the owner then don't use the photograph. Pretty simple. The world isn't going to end if you can't use a particular photo. |
And while we are at it let's stop blaming Bob....lol |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 09:54:04 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
And while we are at it let's stop blaming Bob....lol |
Why? Bob's yer uncle?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 09:57:19 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
And while we are at it let's stop blaming Bob....lol |
Why? Bob's yer uncle?
R. |
Actually I am the uncle and if this is passed I am stealing all of the photos everywhere, anyone know who owns them? Ok, then I am free to use them..lol |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 11:13:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
It's not exactl6y what some people want you to think it is... there are safeguards. People are not just going to be able to steal your work. And if they do, you do have recourse, just like you do now.
|
The penalties for infringement are significantly reduced and, much harder to prove.
The only requirement in determining a work to be an orphan is that the person wishing to use it must make a "reasonable effort" to find the creator. No mention of what "reasonable effort" entails.
So, if Bob wants to steal a photograph, he could just call a few buddies and ask them "Hey, you know who took this?" They all say "No" and that's reasonable so Bob goes ahead. Then, lets say the creator finds out about it, Bob just says, "Hey, I tried to find you. Here's a check for what we normally pay." No penalty.
Totally unfair to the creator. Removes control of his work without consent. |
Even if Bob makes a "reasonable effort" it is still a bad law. If someone finds a photo via stumbleupon, imageshack or any of the other content sharing sites it could be very difficult to find the original owner. Just because that is a problem to the person who wishes to use the photo doesn't mean you shouldn't penalize the owner of it. If you can't find the owner then don't use the photograph. Pretty simple. The world isn't going to end if you can't use a particular photo. |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 11:26:07 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jtf6agent:
US is trying to pass a new law coined the Orphan Bill. Basically stating that anyone can take ownership and use any photograph that they can't locate the owner of. In a nutshell if you find a picture and make a lame attempt at trying to locate the photographer and fail you can then use it any way you wish and profit form the photo. So... META DATA put your number name and address in ALL of your photos. Once a year you should submit to Congress (US resident) a copyright notice for all of your work throughout the year. This bill is being pushed through by Getty and Microsoft because they want to steal your work. |
Last I heard, the latest Orphan Works bill died in committee in September 2006. Is this something new? Do you have a link?
In its last iteration, it was a terrible deal for photographers (and really, anyone creating copyrightable works), so if there's a new developemnt, a bit more info would help.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 11:52:15 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Last I heard, the latest Orphan Works bill died in committee in September 2006. Is this something new? Do you have a link?
In its last iteration, it was a terrible deal for photographers (and really, anyone creating copyrightable works), so if there's a new developemnt, a bit more info would help. |
I was just getting ready to ask the same question. I can't find any new material on this bill... I thought it had died already too.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:51:29 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Just like every other law that has been passed since laws were invented (I wonder if Gore invented those too?) ... |
Sheesh ... talk about gratuitous bashing ... as this article about the folks who really did "invent" the internet mentions, Mr. Gore did in fact represent a substantial influence in getting it done ... since he himself has never claimed to have "invented the internet" isn't it time to stop spreading the false implication that he did?
|
No, it's not time to stop making fun of his comment or of the man himself. If people take it serious and think that he really did invent the internet, then they deserve to buy the bridge that someone has for sell on e-bay. In the 80's and 90's I had the fun of working with a lot of the people that had a lot to do with creating the infastructure of what is now called the World Wide Web. We were passing traffic around the world and connecting people for intertainment, information and profit about 10 years before the web took off. We just did it a lot slower than the internet that Gore says he invented.
Speaking of false implacations, what about the one that this copyright law is going to steal everyone's images and they can't do anything about it? That isn't what this law is about or is going to do... expect by those people that steal images today. This won't change anything for them.
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:56:30 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Speaking of false implacations, what about the one that this copyright law is going to steal everyone's images and they can't do anything about it? That isn't what this law is about or is going to do... expect by those people that steal images today. This won't change anything for them.
Mike |
It won't make it easier to steal images, just makes the legal remedy 100 times more difficult for the infringed party.
The last version was a crappy deal. (unless you want to steal images of course)
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 00:59:43.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 08:14:51 AM EDT.
