DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Important Copyright changes happening - ACT NOW!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 49 of 49, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/26/2006 08:26:34 PM · #26
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

How do I register my name?


You can join one of the agencies that are speaking to Congress regarding this bill (PPA is the Professional Photographers of America). The PPA has been asked to speak about the effects of passing legislation as it is written right now. I know 2 things about this based on the e-mails PPA has been sending:

1. The proposed wording for the legislation has already been changed a great degree but the PPA representatives in Washington (and across the US) feel that more changes are necessary before PPA will give any "approval" of the language.

2. The PPA is not advocating contacting your representatives (Congressmen & Senators) yet. So far they have been amenable to suggestions from national professional photographer asssociations. If they continue to listen to the concerns that are voiced by these representatives then there is a good chance that you'll never need to send an e-mail or letter to your Congress-person.

Joining a professional agency (if you are trying to perform business) not only gives you many local resources to share with but also allows us to collectively "bend the ear" of those whose decisions affect our intellectual property as well as our freedom to photograph without harrassment. Often the people who make these laws aren't intending to be overbearing or heavy-handed but they may be ignorant of why a photographer may want to shoot something or shoot from some location or they may not understand the impact of the laws. PPA (along with ASMP or WPPI) gives many of us a collective voice that I believe our representatives appreciate since they can listen to those who represent thousands of us and respond to those few groups and not need to deal with individuals.

If membership is too expensive or you don't feel that you'd enjoy most of the benefits then I'm sure you can contact your representatives' local offices and voice your viewpoints that you don't support the Orphaned Works legislation as its written and that you hope your representatives will yield to the suggestions of agencies like PPA, ASMP and WPPI in changing the wording.

02/26/2006 08:32:38 PM · #27
I was about to post the same thing Kevin...

The PPA is all over this thing ... Hopefully they will protect the rights of the Photographers (as they always try to do)
02/26/2006 08:54:27 PM · #28
I think MikeJ is asking plenty of reasonable questions. I hate to be told what to think just because "it will benefit me".

I'd like to know why the legislation was proposed in the first place. I doubt it was "so I can steal stuff". Only when I have both sides of the story can I make a decision.

I have my doubts as to how "critical" this situation really is...
02/26/2006 08:57:04 PM · #29
I don't know - I took a fair amount of time on it and it seems important to me. I faxed a letter to my congressman.
02/26/2006 09:18:16 PM · #30
Originally posted by Bebe:

I don't know - I took a fair amount of time on it and it seems important to me. I faxed a letter to my congressman.


Did you take a fair amount of time reading the link which obviously wants you to be against it, or did you look for unbiased info or read the actual bill?
02/26/2006 09:51:29 PM · #31
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bebe:

I don't know - I took a fair amount of time on it and it seems important to me. I faxed a letter to my congressman.


Did you take a fair amount of time reading the link which obviously wants you to be against it, or did you look for unbiased info or read the actual bill?


If it's biased, then it's biased in the favor of photographers. Either way, it's a win for photographers.

Not seeing your point here.

It's essentially whittling down the copyright protection for photographers. Minor changes add up over time to be big ones.


02/26/2006 10:21:41 PM · #32
My point Brent is that whether it is in my best interest or not, I hate to be told what to think. I am skeptical about nearly everything that comes out of a political mouth and would rather understand things for myself rather than be spoon fed spin and given a form letter to send to my senator.

So with that, I ask what the original purpose of the bill was. What need was it filling? It could be there is a real legitimate purpose we are ignoring while focusing on unintended consequences. Maybe the letter should say, "I agree with the bill, but worry about protection for independent photographers." instead of "this bill sux".
02/26/2006 10:34:02 PM · #33
The link to the copyright web site doesn't work for me (the one posted in the article). Anybody else have that problem?
02/26/2006 10:39:12 PM · #34
Originally posted by PPA_Letter_of_Nov_29_2006:


November 29, 2005

Just a few days before Thanksgiving, PPA’s copyright specialists traveled to Washington, DC at the request of the U.S. Copyright Office. PPA met with a team of attorneys from the Copyright Office who have been given the difficult task of reporting to Congress about “orphan works,” which are those works still protected by copyright, but whose rightful owner cannot be located.

Even though PPA had already submitted detailed comments on the subject and was a participant in roundtable discussions on the issue, the Copyright Office called the informal meeting to gain a more complete understanding of how photographers might be affected by changes to the existing copyright law.

The Copyright Office has not finalized its findings or recommendations, so we cannot comment or speculate about their position on any particular issue. However, we can tell you that things went well and that the Copyright Office appears determined to come up with an orphan works definition and procedure that works for both giant corporations and individuals. PPA will make sure that that your concerns will be considered


I don't know who initiated the discussion at the Copyright Office nor what PAC, industry or lobbyist, if any, put efforts into getting this changed. I do know that PPA has been involved as apparently the language that came from the November meeting turned out to be less in favor of individual photographers and more in favor of businesses that wanted to use photographs (my interpretation from the e-mails I've recevied and I'd be glad to read more direct news on this; PPA's website has some info but its on their member pages).

On Feb 16th they wrote:
Originally posted by PPA_Email_Feb_16:


Earlier this week, PPA staff visited Capitol Hill in Washington, DC in order to voice member concerns. PPA met with both the majority and minority counsel of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and select senators. We had two important goals while we were there: to review and offer input on the Orphan Works report and suggested legislation produced by the Copyright Office and to visit with select senators regarding progress of the Small Business Health Plan bills, formerly known as Association Health Plans (AHPs).

PPA expressed our deep concern with, and great objections to, parts of the suggested Orphan Works statute that would have an adverse effect on photographer rights and even the value of photographs. Orphan Works deals with materials, such as photographs, whose copyright owner cannot be located. PPA is generally supportive of the legislation being addressed (members indicated their support in surveys last year); however, it may be said that the devil is truly in the details. We made it very clear during our meeting and in our written response that we will vigorously defend the rights of photographers.

Fortunately for us, the Committee staff was receptive to our concerns. As this legislation advances and hearings are held, PPA will be there to establish a case for photographer rights and we'll also keep you informed of the results of these proceedings.


That still doesn't get you back to the original reason why there is any impetus to make changes but hopefully you get the idea that this isn't just a "knee jerk" reaction and that agencies of professional photographers have been active answering questions and informing legislators for several months regarding photographers' viewpoints on intellectual property.
02/26/2006 11:02:13 PM · #35
From //www.copyright.gov/orphan/ (link seems to not be responding at the moment)

Originally posted by Introduction to Report On Orphan Works:


Dear Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy,

Thank you for your request of the Copyright Office to study of the issue of "Orphan Works" - copyrighted works for which the owner cannot be located.

That is the initial paragraph in the introduction by Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights

That'll tell you who initiated the study.

In the original request from Sens. Hatch & Leahy the text is as follows:
Originally posted by Original request for study:


In Eldred v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court considered the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, and then reaffirmed Congress's broad power under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution to determine the appropriate term of copyright protection and to extend the term of existing works. That case, both before and after its decision, created considerable
controversy. A principal concern is that the current Copyright Act might be creating a class of "orphan works" — works for which no copyright owner can be found, and thus for which permission to use or adapt these works cannot be obtained.

We have heard that this situation places an unnecessary burden on those who wish to use orphan works: They cannot reduce the risk that their use of the work might result in copyright infringement, and therefore would likely choose not to use the work. This would be unfortunate and inconsistent with the purpose of the Copyright Act, because in such cases it would seem that although no one objects to the use, the public nevertheless is deprived of access to that work.

We would like the Copyright Office to undertake a review of this orphan works issue, and, based on that review, develop policy options and legislative recommendations for the Committee on the Judiciary. We would ask that the Office report to the Committee its findings during the first year of the 109th Congress. and would suggest that soliciting written comments from interested parties would be an appropriate starting point for this review.


Representatives Lamar Smith (Texas) and Howard Berman (California) also sent letters to Register Peters supporting such a study.

All requests made mention of loss of orphaned works from companies who wanted to use such works and also loss of works before they could enter into the public domain (which seems trivial to me as if the works are of social merit then they can at any time after the statute of limitations on the copyright be entered into the public domain).

It is worth noting that none of the consulted individuals or agencies felt that the current wording is sufficient to handle orphaned works.
Originally posted by Statement of Proposed Solutions:


Solutions that already exist under current law and practice. These
were usually noted only in passing; commenters (even
commenters opposed to any orphan works provision) did not take
the position that the existing law is sufficient to solve the orphan
works problem.


It seems the difference of opinion is mainly in how the changes should be worded.

Originally posted by First paragraph of Recommendations to Congressmen Hatch & Leahy:


In considering the orphan works issue and potential solutions, the Office has kept in mind three overarching and related goals. First, any system to deal with orphan works should seek primarily to make it more likely that a user can find the relevant owner in the first instance, and negotiate a voluntary agreement over permission and payment, if appropriate, for the intended use of the work. Second, where the user cannot identify and locate the copyright owner after a reasonably diligent search, then the system should permit that specific user to make use of the work, subject to provisions that would resolve issues that might arise if the owner surfaces after the use has commenced. In the roundtable discussions, there seemed to be a clear consensus that these two goals were appropriate objectives in addressing the orphan works issues. Finally, efficiency is another overarching consideration we have attempted to reflect, in that we believe our proposed orphan works solution is the least burdensome on all the relevant stakeholders, such as copyright owners, users and the federal government.


I'm sure that wording further along in the 207 page document may be where the professional photographers' associations are concerned but hopefully this will give anyone who is interested and cannot access the document some background into it.

Kev

Message edited by author 2006-02-26 23:03:37.
02/26/2006 11:17:36 PM · #36
DrAchoo, yes, I'm the same way and don't like others to do my thinking for me. It must be the Scottish in me. :D I've never been a "Me Too" or one to go along with the crowd just because that is how the crowd is going. I kind of like to see where it is they are going before I follow. :D It's too bad that some people just assume that if you aren't with'em, you are against'em and don't really hear what is being said or asked. Oh well, I stand by what I've said based on the information I have now. If some don't like that of me, there is nothing I can say.

I'll leave the thread to the rest of you and I'll go read elsewhere.

Mike

02/27/2006 02:11:47 AM · #37
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My point Brent is that whether it is in my best interest or not, I hate to be told what to think. I am skeptical about nearly everything that comes out of a political mouth and would rather understand things for myself rather than be spoon fed spin and given a form letter to send to my senator.

So with that, I ask what the original purpose of the bill was. What need was it filling? It could be there is a real legitimate purpose we are ignoring while focusing on unintended consequences. Maybe the letter should say, "I agree with the bill, but worry about protection for independent photographers." instead of "this bill sux".


If you tell me that I'm allergic to aspirin and that it will kill me, should I argue the fact, or take your word that you know more about the subject than I do? I suppose I could waste a ton of time going to medical school and/ or researching what you have learned to come up with the same conclusion just so I'm not told what to do or think, but would that be the smartest thing to do?

Belonging to professional organizations with lobbying power to look out for our best LONGTERM interests frees us up to earning a living with photography.

That's not to say that everything they comes down has to be blindly followed, but with a little research into the subject at hand will tell you that the only ones to benefit from a change on orphan works are the people who want to use ones photos for free.

I posted a link the pro corner of FM on the same subject. It's fascinating to see the 180 degree discussion between these 2 sites.

Message edited by author 2006-02-27 02:18:00.
02/27/2006 02:17:14 AM · #38
Well, I'm not saying it's not true Brent, it's just the skeptic in me. I'd bring a healthy dose of questions to the doc too...

The problem may lie in the fact I'm not too much of a fan of lobbyists; even those that seem to be lobbying for my own interest. Nobody in Washington speaks the full truth. Why should my lobbyists be any different?

Message edited by author 2006-02-27 02:18:43.
02/27/2006 02:22:26 AM · #39
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I'm not saying it's not true Brent, it's just the skeptic in me. I'd bring a healthy dose of questions to the doc too...


Questions are good.

This bill is very bad.

We aren't telling you to follow us blindly, but if people can't understand why it's bad, then they should just error on the side of caution instead of giving away photographer's rights.

Many people other than me have said repeatedly why it's bad.
03/07/2006 03:52:04 PM · #40
Just got the following in an e-mail from PPA

Originally posted by PPA e-mail:


David Trust, CEO of Professional Photographers of America (PPA), will testify before the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee on Wednesday, March 8 at 2 p.m. EST. Trust will speak in opposition to the recent "orphan works" proposal that, in its current state, could devalue thousands of professional images.

Trust is one of only four witnesses allowed at the hearing. Representatives from the Guggenheim Museum, Association of American Publishers and the Copyright Office will also be present.

To watch the testimony online, visit the subcommittee's website: //judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx


Originally posted by PPA website:


For PPA's full analysis of the bill: //www.ppa.com/files/public/PPACommentsCO-OWFinalReport.pdf


Just thought I'd leave some more info out there for those who are interested and want to make up their own minds. With this link you can at least watch the testimony for yourself.

Kev
03/07/2006 04:17:21 PM · #41
That little snippet of information doesn't seem to be enough information for me to base a decision upon.

For instance, are there any requirements to maintain reasonable records for the diligent search regarding the copyright owner of the material in question? If so, that really doesn't seem to be so bad to me.

Personally, I am all for it (if the above is a requirement), as it could bring things into the public space that have, for all intents and purposes, be lost forever. Imagine you find an amazing collection of old photographs, negatives, positives and slides lost in some basement waiting to be picked up, looked at, printed and then shared.

What if the original photographer passed away and their family, if you could even locate a name, simply cannot be found. Do you simply sit on that work or destroy it or, if you have the means, share them as found art, perhaps even making and selling prints?

03/07/2006 05:12:42 PM · #42
"Under the proposed legislation, a person or other entity who wants to use a copyrighted work is required to make only a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to locate the copyright owner. If, after making such a search, the user is unable to locate the copyright owner, he/she/it gets an almost free license to use the work. If the copyright owner never comes forward, the user gets to use the work for free. Even if the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, the MOST the copyright owner can get is "reasonable compensation," i.e. a reasonable license fee for the use actually made. There is NO possibility of statutory damages or attorneys' fees, even if the work was registered before the use was made without your permission."

Unregistered copyrights do not allow for statutory damages. So it seems they're saying that registered copyrights that have become orphaned will be treated in like manner to unregistered copyrights.

I wonder how many here even have any of their photos registered with the copyright office. If not, then well....it's no different than it's ever been.
03/07/2006 06:45:47 PM · #43
One concern I have is what constitutes a "good faith, reasonably diligent search". What is a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to one, may not be the same to another.

What is to stop someone from simply claiming to make the search and using the images for free anyway? Then, even if they get caught, what if they refuse to pay? The copyright holder would have to sue, potentially paying out in attorney fees many times the amount of the usage fee. That definitely screws the copyright holder out of his due money. Basically, this law simply removes any disincentive to infringe. The infringing party would only have to claim they made a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" and they basically get to steal the image without consequence.

And, yes, I do have images registered. I compile them into CD's or DVD's and ship them off to the copyright office every quarter.

As for the collection of lost images sitting in some basement, it's not about using the images as art, printing them and displaying them as the work of some unknown photographer. The copyright restricts commercial usage, so, as an example, you can't find these great images in a basement (or where ever) and then sell them for use in a car ad.

03/07/2006 06:51:59 PM · #44
Just remember that in all reality, a single letter through the post office is worth at least a 100 e-mails. E-mails is an easy way out and congress / senate know that it easy to mass send them. If you are really interested in being counted, spend the .39 cents or whatever it is and mail it, much more meaningful than an e-mail.
03/07/2006 07:14:29 PM · #45
Originally posted by theSaj:



I wonder how many here even have any of their photos registered with the copyright office. If not, then well....it's no different than it's ever been.


All of my portrait and model work goes onto DVD and gets regisatered as part of a complation work.

I do this every 6 months or so

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 19:15:35.
03/08/2006 11:53:46 AM · #46
FWIW, this is the response I received from Sen. John Cornyn, copied and pasted from my email...I didn't realize this was all old news and the entire thread is about something that was signed into law a year ago.

"Dear Ms. Black:

Thank you for contacting me about and the Artists' Rights and Theft
Prevention (ART) Act
(S. 1932). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this
matter.

As you know, current law provides a copyright holder with exclusive rights
to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform publicly, and display protected
material for a limited term. However, the number of unauthorized film
versions available online prior to commercial release has grown
significantly in recent years, forcing artists to compete with pirates to
recover production costs. This illegal activity, attributed mainly to
those within the film industry who have pre-release access to commercial
works, results in growing losses for the entertainment industry and the
economy.

With the reach of today's e-mail systems, peer-to-peer networks, and other
electronic vehicles, it is easy and becoming easier for copyrighted
material to be illegally distributed. To combat this trend, Senator Dianne
Feinstein and I introduced S. 1932. This legislation would reduce
bootlegging and unauthorized, pre-release distribution of commercial works
by establishing criminal and civil penalties for such violations. The bill
would also prohibit the unauthorized recording and filming of motion
pictures in movie theaters and would establish another category of criminal
infringement. The Senate approved S. 1932 by unanimous consent on June 25,
2004, but the House of Representatives did not reach consensus before the
adjournment of the 108th Congress.

However, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the omnibus Family Entertainment
and Copyright Act (S. 167) on January 25, 2005. The ART Act was included
as one component of this legislation. The Senate unanimously approved S.
167 on February 1, 2005, and the House of Representatives approved the bill
on April 19, 2005. President George W. Bush signed S. 167 into law (P.L.
109-9) on April 27, 2005.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in
the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator"
03/08/2006 01:42:52 PM · #47
it is really really hard to get a bill to pass through congress,
03/08/2006 02:06:46 PM · #48
WASN'T A THREAD CREATED ON THIS SAME TOPIC YESTERDAY?
03/08/2006 02:24:36 PM · #49
Originally posted by theSaj:

WASN'T A THREAD CREATED ON THIS SAME TOPIC YESTERDAY?


why dont you search and find out, then you can post a link
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:05:47 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:05:47 PM EDT.