This could affect YOU.

[rakey]

Anyone who is or may become a commercial photographer in the future or even those who just want to control WHO uses their images and how they are used needs to heed this call:

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

[ukwanderer]

Originally Posted by rakey

Anyone who is or may become a commercial photographer in the future or even those who just want to control WHO uses their images and how they are used needs to heed this call:

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

This needs a bump to the top of the forum and maybe worth having a vote. Could we in some way add this to forums on other Photo sites ?

I remember a photo comp done by the BBC in the UK that had a clause that they could use the image for whatever purpose they wanted.


How many of us include our details inside the Exif file of an image ?

What happens when we ask fellow members to change an image as they see fit ?

What happens when this site is stored on Google and our work comes back to light after 10 or 20 years. Do we have any rights to it ?



PS a Karma for Rakey. Well spotted.

Spotted by JK elsewhere on this site ( thanks ) http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,5643.0.html.

ukwanderer

[JKSeidel]

This was already brought up in this thread: http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,5643.0.html. The proposal is far from the best piece of legislation ever devised, but is nowhere near as bad as over-reactionary sites and blogs (like Mike Johnston's ill-informed rubbish blog) make it out to be. The law is designed to protect works from being lost forever and has quite harsh penalties for malicious attempts to circumvent the intention of the law. While I don't think the proposal should be passed into law, it isn't as horrible a prospect as many are trying to make it out to be.

[ukwanderer]

Originally Posted by JKSeidel

This was already brought up in this thread: http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,5643.0.html.

Thanks for that JK.

ukwanderer

[JKSeidel]

I was perhaps a bit over-reactionary myself about the commonly cited Mike Johnston blog about this issue. I just have never really agreed with him about much of anything and thought he went way over the top about this particular topic (as it appears many posters to his blog have taken him to task for). He is most certainly entitled to his opinion, I don't feel he really looked into the actual wording of the bill as closely as he should have before trying to incite the masses to rise up with pitchforks and burning tar screaming for blood.

[ukwanderer]

Originally Posted by JKSeidel

I was perhaps a bit over-reactionary myself about the commonly cited Mike Johnston blog about this issue.* I just have never really agreed with him about much of anything and thought he went way over the top about this particular topic (as it appears many posters to his blog have taken him to task for). He is most certainly entitled to his opinion, I don't feel he really looked into the actual wording of the bill as closely as he should have before trying to incite the masses to rise up with pitchforks and burning tar screaming for blood.

Maybe sometimes it need that "over reaction" to get the masses to take any action at all.

ukwanderer

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by ukwanderer

Maybe sometimes it need that "over reaction" to get the masses to take any action at all.

ukwanderer

Perhaps. However, misrepresenting a non-issue and lacking a grasp on the facts can tend to make one look foolish instead being merely a well meaning alarmist.

[ukwanderer]

Comment noted JK.

ukwanderer

[mikej]

There are people that try to create a knee jerk reaction from others because they know many do not do any research on a given subject. Those that are trying to rouse up hoards of photographers to write their Representatives using a boilerplate message are doing just that... trying to get a knee jerk reaction out of those that won't do their own research. I took the time to read a lot of the documents presented on this... and I really didn't see anything that was going to change the way things are done very much at all. As I said before on this... those that are going to steal and use other's works will still do that. Those that don't, won't. The burden of proof is still going to be on the person that uses the work to prove that they did try to find the owner. If the owner takes them to court and the infringer can't prove that, they could get hammered just like today. If the person can prove that they did do a diligent search, then they won't. They could still have to pay for the use or have to stop using it, but that's the details that will be worked out with more study and probably a number of court case that establish precedence like they do now.

The part that I found interesting, as big of a threat to all of us that some people are trying to make this, only 800+ people even bothered to respond to it during the initial period that comments were being taken. 40% of those didn't see a problem and the rest were mixed on their comments. It just strikes me that over the months that comments were being taken, only 800 some people responded and none of the big photography associations seem to have been involved in it as far as I can tell. Now that the comment period is over does it seem a few are really trying to rouse the general photographic public up.

I think more information is needed on this and hopefully we will see more intelligent information coming out of the groups that do have the people qualified to interpret what it all means. But I sure don't see it as another doom and gloom prediction like some are trying to make it.

Mike