What Copyright Law !!!

[Jim W]

Check this out, Congress giving away our rights

http://www.onlinephotographers.com/y...?topic=48949.0

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by Jim W

Check this out, Congress giving away our rights

http://www.onlinephotographers.com/y...?topic=48949.0

WTH, they've squandered your rights to privacy years ago!
(Glad that ain't my government!)

[Blinky]

This is probably a bad development, but not because of what it's intended to accomplish. The idea is to prevent the public loss of creative works when the creator cannot be identified or located.

Unfortunately it will also end up making copyright infringement on photography a simple matter for anyone who can remove all information identifying the originator from an image... a simple matter nowadays. It apparently won't even protect registered images because USCO searches are likely be ruled as too onerous for the user of the so-called 'orphan work'.

Hopefully groups like the ASMP will make sure the language is specific enough about photographs and 'reasonably diligent search' that it will respect registered images. Unregistered images, even though they are covered by copyright law, are pretty much already fair game.

Chip

[mikej]

I've read the proposed changes and I don't see any real changes to what is going on now with copyright law. Those that will steal others works will continue to, those that pay for the right to use them will.

To me, it seems there is a small group of people that are trying to rouse the world and convince them with how bad this is. They want people to flood their represenitives with a boilerplate letter saying how bad it is... but they haven't done the research to find out what this is all about, who initiated it and why.

If you read the documentation, you will find that only 800+ people responded when they had the chance to. Of those, 40% didn't see a problem. Of the 60% left, some sorta saw a problem and wanted safe guards written in to the wording.

If you read the documentation, you will see that the burden of proof is going to be on the person that uses the works that they did try to find the author. If that author has their work registered, it will be easy to sue them for infringement if the other part did not try to find them. If that author does not have the images registered, just like today, most people will not be able to afford to sue the infringer.

From what I read, this is not a law designed to make it easier for people to steal your work. It's not a law that will do away with copyright and your ability to defend it. This is what those that want you to do a knee jerk reaction to it want you to think. And from the reactions I've seen, that is exactly what people are doing, knee jerk reacting without digging into it to find out what it is about.

I don't mean to say if you feel you need to send in a letter to your representitive that you shouldn't. But I hope people that do write their represenitives do so in their own words rather than use the boilerplate that one group wants you to use. A group of people writing in their own words is going to have a lot stronger impact than a much larger group that just signs a boiler plate message. When you do it in your own words, it shows you gave it some thought before you responded.

Mike

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by Mike Jordan

If you read the documentation, you will see that the burden of proof is going to be on the person that uses the works that they did try to find the author. If that author has their work registered, it will be easy to sue them for infringement if the other part did not try to find them. If that author does not have the images registered, just like today, most people will not be able to afford to sue the infringer.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that this is being spread by alarmists and and anyone interested should realize that it's just based on a report compiled by the USCO which presents a lot more problems than solutions. It's certainly not intended to make it easy to steal creative works, but...

The burden of proof of a 'reasonably diligent search' is indeed on the user. However, the use of copyright searches via the USCO or third party search bureaus to locate a registered photograph is, according to the report anyway, potentially so difficult and expensive that it could conceivably be excluded (in the actual legislation) from 'a reasonably diligent search'. That leaves photography open to having all identifying information removed from an image and an infringement lawyer able to claim the creator wasn't identifiable. It makes that case that's rock solid because an image was registered into a case where there is some doubt.

You and I agree on copyright registration and on the idea that honest people will remain honest and dishonest people will remain dishonest. This issue didn't trouble me at all until I got to the section outlining the obstacles to searching copyright records. It only outlined the problems and suggested no remedies... that's trouble when politicians are involved... they just start making things up.

Take care,
Chip

[mikej]

One aspect of removing all identifying marks on an image and then saying you couldn't find the author is that this puts the infringer in even more hot water if the author can show that his image was published with those identification markings. If the person says they got it that way and they can't say where they got it or from whom, then they are held for infringement. If they don't know who they got it from, then they didn't do a diligent search for the author. If they can say who they got it from, then the author can go after that person.

I'm sure it will be abused. Someone finds a way to abuse just about anything it seems. No matter what the law says. I'd still like to see more intellegent information about this issue though. It will either not be made into law over night, which will give more input into it or it will get rammed through so fast that nobody will be able to do anything at all. That seems to be how it goes... either takes forever or it's a done deal before anyone knows it. It just depends on who's pushing it and why.

Time will tell.

Mike