Orphaned Works Legislation

[AmericanJesus]

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&article_no=3605&page=1

There will be violence if this happens. I can feel it.

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

This is a crazy article. I'm really interested to see what other people think of this...I know it makes me a little upset. :x

 

[sfaust]

This thread is 3 months old, and only 1 reply! The article referenced is a bit over the top as far as 'chickens falling from the sky' goes. But he is dead right about apathy!

3 months, 1 reply... for something that will severely impact your images copyright?

Will it bother you if you see your image in a national advertising campaign that would have brought you $30K in usage fees, and you don't get dime? Nothing? Nada?

If you don't complain now, no one will be listening to you later on.

I've written to Senators Leahy and Hatch who introduced the senate version, and Senator Kennedy and Representative Tsongas. Took me all of 20 minutes, and I got responses back.

I can't understand why so many photographers do nothing about this. They have no idea whats going on, and are going to s%!7 bricks when it passes and they finally get it. Then all the screaming in the world isn't going to fix it.

Take 20 minutes and read up on this. Then next week, take another 20 minutes and write a couple letters, or at least send some of the form letters available.

I guarantee it will help save you the hours of time you will spend complaining and moaning about how your rights are eroding, they shouldn't have done it, how bad it is for the industry, etc..

 

[RyanLilly]

Well, I actually read the whole article, and I think I have read it before. The writer does not even link to the actual bill, which would be much more useful reading material than his poorly written article, which although I'm sure is heartfelt, but is full of fallacies.

Don't get me wrong, I would not support such a bill, but I would also need to do my own research. I really cannot take someone seriously, when they refer several times to "breaking international Law." Such a thing does not exist and the argument was used solely to sensationalize his argument.

I know that if I complain about it, I should do something about it. Well maybe I'll look up the bill and write my own article, but I probably won't.

Here is a link to some real information. This page contains the bill in the House and the two versions in the senate. I just browsed them a little, but its kind of dry reading this late at night.

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

And in the end it will probably die in committee, anyway.

 

[sfaust]

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

And in the end it will probably die in committee, anyway.

I wish I felt the same way, that it will probably die. But from what the organizations that follow this are saying, they believe there is a good chance of it passing. If we hope it doesn't pass and thus do nothing based on that hope, who are we going to yell at when it does pass. That's why I think we all need to do something.

That's probably the best link out there on the bills. I should have included that myself. The first article sensationalized, and as you mention, full of mis-information. Ie, its contrary to multiple international laws, but not breaking them. They sky isn't falling, just clouding up

 

[*Mike*]

This is one of the reasons anyone earning a living at photography should be a member of the PPA. Forget about all the other benefits, they are one of the few groups seriously lobbying on behalf of the industry.

 

[Overread]

might not be breaking international law - but if it passes it going to complicate the internations rights area considerably for years to come. Not only that, but it sets a dangerous viewpoint that could be followed or copies by other nations governments (money and free stuff is very attractive to governments).

Its a worrying bill - and I can see it damaging the online community terribly - suddenly amatures (from the US) are not going to want to post photos at all - because unless they pay to register, any shot up there can be taken, used and profited on and they cannot do anything to legally stop the person who is using their photo.
Problem is is that there appears to be a lot of controvasy and misinformation about this bill on the net. From sites saying its the end of the world to others saying its all a hoax or an elaborated story

 

[sfaust]

Even with the PPA, APA, ASMP, etc, all lobbying for our cause, those voting on these bills realy need to hear an uproar from everyone to know beyond a doubt that it is a bad thing for the industry.

But for the same reasons photographers don't understand copyrights as they are today, they aren't going to understand what these bills are going to do until they wake up one morning, find out copyright isn't as they currently know it and they've lost so much, and then we'll hear the uproar. But far too late! Deed is done. It always seems to work that way.

People will be able to use Orphaned Works as a shield , an excuse, against infringement, and be able to use images commercially, editorially, for profit, etc, with little downside. The photogapher on the other hand will need to jump through new hoops, shoulder the financial burden, and take on a tremendous workload if they wish to protect their rights of current digital, as well as past film based images.

I understand why the bill is introduced, and would suport it if written without putting such a burden on the photographers while giving industry a very easy and powerful to use shield in an infringement lawsuit. Its just so one-sided, and we are on the wrong end.

Try to pass a similar law with autos, and there is no way in hell it would pass. Ie, if you find a car on the side of the road, no license plate, no registration in the glovebox, no owner that you can identify, well, its free to be used as you wish.

 

[Overread]

Well so far I have not heard one person anywhere compliment the bill - so its clear there is not support for it in the photographic community (and I dare not think what the artists are saying about this - they might take months to years over a painting only to see it stolen!)

So its up to you US photographers - write stern letters to your local political representatives - go on strike - rally - destroy - smash - burn!!

ok maybe the last three options are not the best of ideas - but you know what I mean.

 

[Mike30D]

There was nothing wrong with this bill until they added the language to include current works. When it was first introduced, it was mainly aimed at museums and the like. It was supposed to help out museums when they were looking to use something and it's creator had been dead for like 100 years.

So far I've only seen 1 person for it, it's in this month's After Capture. I don't like it, not one bit.

One of those association's websites had a letter you could print off and send to your congressman. I did and so should you.

Don't just sit back and bi*ch about it, call or write your congressman. Those who sit and complain about it have no right to say a word when it does finally happen.

 

[Overread]

But surely after 100 years or so the copywrite has expired unless it is renewed by a group - like a trust or family memeber. Least in the UK copywrite lasts life+70 years after death. Is the US system perminant then?

 

[sfaust]

And if you do fire off a letter, make sure you understand the bill first. It doesn't help if they receive a letter ranting and raving about something that isn't an issue. If you can't take the time to read the bill, or a summary by a informed organization, then use one of the form letters available from PPA, APA, ASMP, or similar organizations. It will come across a lot better than a rant.

I send my own personal letter to Leahy, Hatch, Tsongas, and Kennedy. Tsongas was the only one that responded. I can forgive Kennedy in light of his situation, and wish him the best. Hopefully, Leahy and Hatch at least counted a mental vote on the against side

 

[sfaust]

Here is the letter I wrote, feel free to modify and use it if it gets you to take action.

Leahy and Hatch are the primary contacts for the House version. I would also copy your Representative as well. Then fire one off to your Senator too for the Senate version.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008


Dear Senator,

I am a small business owner and professional commercial photographer, and one of your supporters. However, after following the Orphan Works bill through its changes, I'm very saddened to see changes that benefit corporations with million dollar profits yearly, at the expense of the small business owners and struggling photographers.

Professional photography rates have been stagnate across the industry for decades. With rising costs, pressure from the digital imaging revolution, and a shift from a usage model toward a set pricing model with all rights included, the face of professional photography is changing in a negative way.

Watching the changes in the Orphan Works bills, it is becoming more clear to me that protecting the rights of the small business photographers seems to be of secondary concern to those involved. With every positive change, there seems to be twice as many negative ones. I can’t afford to fund a lobby organization. I can’t show up in your office to have the conversation needed, or discuss it with you at the water cooler. So I’m writing to you asking you for help.

While I understand many of the reasons for the bills and the problems they are trying to solve, I feel the there are solutions that can be implemented which don't erode the rights of the little guy in the process. It's important to my livelihood, and that of many other photographers trying to make a living in a complex industry, that these bills be adjusted to serve both goals without the severe impact it will have as written.

As written, it would passively encourage infringement since there is little down side to doing so. If shoplifters only punishment was to pay retail price for the items they tried to steal, shoplifting would see a sharp upswing, even by normal law abiding citizens. While this analogy isn't entirely accurate for this scenario, its pretty darn close. Without the ability to recover attorneys fees and statutory damages, what chance does a struggling photographer have against a million dollar corporation that knows its easier to take and ask forgiveness. It would become similar to downloading music, where businesses will become complacent with a photographers copyright because the risk of any litigation is low. There is no real downside to them to do anything different.

Unfortunately as it is today, this is becoming an increasing issue and a standard way of doing business. The Orphan Works bills, either version, will only add more fuel to the fire. Magazines, corporations, and business are regularly exceeding their licenses, ignoring copyrights, and then asking for forgiveness when caught and offering ridiculously low payment in return. Being able to leverage the current copyright laws assists us in recovering at least a fair fee without litigation. Take away that leverage, and we have little hope in stopping this from increasing to the point that it breaks the camels back. If there is no big hammer to point to, there is no incentive for business to honor the copyrights of artists, and thus infringement will become a standard way of doing business.

There are many other issues from a small business photographers viewpoint that seem to be overlooked. The costs of registration, both future, current, and even more troubling, the thousands and thousands of images in film form or in our archives that would need to be registered to avoid becoming an orphaned work. That could could be staggering, and put the photographer in a position to choose spending the money to protect his work, or put food on the table, or grow his business. With over 50,000 images of my own in film, negative, slide, and digital form, the cost are insurmountable. And there are so many other photographers with their life work that make my archive look like a small town library.

I urge you to further research the effects this would have on a photographers ability to make their living in this industry. Because of the downward pressure in pricing, stagnant rates for decades, present economy, increase in cheap stock photography, there isn't much left other than we can still control our product through copyright. Erosion of those rights and commercial photography starts to become a less viable business. I’ve only touched on a few of the issues, and there are others equally important.

If you could somehow plug into the community and see and hear the effect this bill is having, I would truly hope you would take the necessary actions to make sure you don't seriously hurt an industry that is already having it's own troubles. Especially, when the only clear winners are big business that is already pocketing millions of dollars in profits each year, at the expense of the small business owners.

Actions speak louder than words, and rather than take the time to respond to this letter, please put that time and effort into taking a deeper look at the effects this bill will have on me, my peers, and all commercial photographers nationwide. There are ways to solve the problem, and still be fair to all sides of the issue. We are all watching, and hoping your heart is in the right place.


Respectfully yours,

 

[RyanLilly]

Very nice letter sfaust, you are quite well spoken. I need to finish reading the bills and write my own as well. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on the letter writing.