fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

       2       end
  

Archive 2008 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue

  
 
mauriceramirez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Fellow photographers,

Please take a moment and give this a read, and decide if protecting the value of your creativity is worth the time of sending a fax out.

http://www.apanational.com/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=3864

Thank you,

-m

Edited on May 20, 2008 at 03:09 PM



May 20, 2008 at 03:08 PM
jerryrock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Could you summarize what the problem is?


May 20, 2008 at 06:21 PM
colinm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


The problem is that the Senate Orphan Works bill as currently written essentially gives people a free pass to infringe upon copyright, essentially abrogating copyright altogether.

Whether or not you think the House bill is acceptable is another matter, but it actually has provisions to protect copyright holders and discourage infringing uses (as did the Senate version before some wining and dining and the ensuing edits).

Edited on May 20, 2008 at 06:49 PM



May 20, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Doug Otto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


I got this email from NANPA today:

--
Last Thursday, May 15, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved its version of proposed orphan works legislation (S.2913). The Senate version of the bill (discussed further below) would be significantly more damaging to the rights of creative artists than the version advanced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 5889).

A broad coalition of libraries, museums, independent filmmakers, commercial arts organizations such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and open access groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been actively supporting orphan works legislation. It is only the creative artists and groups closely allied with them that oppose the legislation. Nevertheless, a group of artists' organizations that includes NANPA but led largely by PPA (Professional Photographers of America), ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) and PACA (Picture Archive Council of America) have lobbied successfully to bring about important changes in the bills that were originally introduced in 2006.

The current House bill contains numerous safeguards to protect copyright owners from infringers who claim that works were "orphaned".

Before using an allegedly orphaned work, the user must go through a fairly arduous procedure including filing a notice of use at the Copyright Office. The notice must include a description of the work, a summary of the search conducted, all identifying information found during the search, a certification that a good faith diligent search was performed, the name of the user and a description of the intended uses. A user who fails to file the notice cannot raise an orphan works defense if the copyright owner claims infringement. The Copyright Office must maintain an archive of notices of use.
The Copyright Office is required to certify private databases that facilitate the search for pictorial, graphic and sculptural works. The databases must contain name and contact information for author, name of the copyright owner if different, title of work, a copy of the work (for visual images) or a description "sufficient to identify the work," mechanisms that allow search and identification by both text and image, and security measures to protect against unauthorized access or copying. Use of these will almost certainly become part of the good faith diligent search that is required before a user can use an "orphaned" work defense.
As in the 2006 bill, all that a copyright owner can get by claiming infringement is "reasonable compensation" (as compared with statutory damages and attorney's fees in the case of non-orphan infringement). However, under H.R. 5889 if the user fails to negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith, or fails to make reasonably timely payment of the agreed-upon compensation, the ability to claim orphan works protection is lost.
Useful articles (such as coffee mugs, key chains, t-shirts, etc.) are not uses that can qualify for orphan works protection.
For visual works, including photographs, the effective date of the law is delayed until the Copyright Office has certified at least 2 databases that are available to the public, or Jan. 1, 2013 (whichever comes first).

There are still some important defects in the House bill, including the lack of attorney's fees and some form of statutory damages that are effective mechanisms to enable an artist to be fairly compensated for an infringement. However, given the powerful lobbying in favor of the bill combined with the superficially appealing free-use-of-information argument used by the bill's proponents, the Washington insiders whom I talk to believe that some form of orphan works legislation will be enacted and that artists are best off to try to moderate the legislation rather than try to stand in front of the speeding bus.

The recently reported Senate bill is another matter. Unlike the House bill, it does not require that a notice of use be filed before the use is made in order for a user to claim orphan work status with respect to a work; it does not provide that an archive of the notices be maintained by the Copyright Office or an approved third party.

I have already written to my two Senators and asked that they oppose the current Senate bill unless it is amended to conform to the House bill. There is further information below about communicating with members of the Senate.

Rich Halperin
NANPA President

If you want to voice your views to your U.S. Senators, you can find their addresses, fax numbers and e-mail addresses at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/



May 20, 2008 at 07:27 PM
nathanlake
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Just so you know, an "orphaned' work is one whose copyright holder is difficult or impossible to discover. The largest issue (IMHO) is how hard they make someone look for the copyright holder before they call the work "orphaned". Once it has been declared orphaned, you can use it with little worries of being sued for copyright infringement. And if you are sued, the fact that you met the legal search requirements and declared it an orphan is an acceptable defense which means you probably end up paying only for use and not paying any punitive damages.

Edited on May 21, 2008 at 07:41 AM



May 21, 2008 at 07:39 AM
claudermilk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


That's one of the main problems I have. It's exceedingly vague as to what is enough of a search and dodges the issue of how easy it is for a knowledgeable person to remove data that can identify the copyright owner. After that it's pretty much the inmates running the asylum.

I've sent my emails opposing the bills.



May 21, 2008 at 11:34 AM
jerryrock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


From what I am reading here, registering all of your work with the Copyright Office would protect your rights.


May 21, 2008 at 06:50 PM
HerbChong
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


yes, but the law was formerly written so that you didn't have to do anything to be automatically protected. all those people who did nothing because they assumed that any new laws would not be retroactive are now hung out to dry because this law is retroactive. also, for countries with no registration requirement, works produced in those countries are now effectly unprotected from US users because of the "reasonable search" requirement.

Herb...

jerryrock wrote:
From what I am reading here, registering all of your work with the Copyright Office would protect your rights.




May 21, 2008 at 07:24 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


jerryrock wrote:
From what I am reading here, registering all of your work with the Copyright Office would protect your rights.


protect what rights? ... the right only to receive scale payment if you discovered your work was used? Unless you can prove beyond doubt that the infringer actually knew you were the copyright holder all the while or didn't meet the vague standard of due diligence.... quite a standard to achieve.

I really think the Senate version of this bill is going to create a monster of a problem down the road.



May 21, 2008 at 08:16 PM
claudermilk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Yep, that's the main problem. The automatic protection looks to be going away, and even is you've registered with the Copyright Office, it sounds like that will not be sufficient either. The vague language in the bill hints that worst case is you'll have to pay to have multiple listings in independent commercial search databases. Then my pessimistic interpretation is that is probably still not enough to ensure you won't get ripped off. This is part of why the bill is so bad. The front end--how content creators are to make their ownership known and how users are to find that information is extremely vague and ignores current international policy, while the back end--when the thieves get caught--is very specific & basically lets them off. To me it seems kind of like if a shoplifter is caught he can say "oops, I didn't see the pricetag, well here's the money" and off he goes with no repercussions--do not go to jail, go ahead & pass GO and collect your $200.


May 22, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Brent Ward
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


I have a great example.

I'm pretty easy to find. Just google my name, but I just had a magazine that I submitted images to 13 years ago use an image and say they didn't have my current address. All they had to do was google my name, see the same image on my site to know it was me.

The image could be considered orphaned even though it was pretty easy to find me.



May 22, 2008 at 03:25 PM
Micky Bill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


From what I have heard, about 3% of professional photographers regularly register their work with the copyright office...I know a lot of photogs and when the topic comes up most change the subject after sheepishly admitting their failure to register...I am about 4 years late in registering my stuff


May 22, 2008 at 04:02 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Micky Bill wrote:
From what I have heard, about 3% of professional photographers regularly register their work with the copyright office...I know a lot of photogs and when the topic comes up most change the subject after sheepishly admitting their failure to register...I am about 4 years late in registering my stuff


Quite true, but at least under the current copyright laws, most users won't take the chance you don't have your works registered. The proposed legislation would lower the bar enough that they could figure they would only have to pay fair use and not have to face a costly law suit.

If this new law passes, do you know how difficult it will be to find an attorney to take on a case?

Better have deep pockets up front ....



May 22, 2008 at 08:16 PM
JDeV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Everyone check out the forums at www.photoshopuser.com There's a women there by the name of "Lisa" who is spearheading the activity there. Lisa is simply fantastic, and all of us owe her a lot. She has been on the phone with Sen. Leahy's aides, explaining our concerns as artists. She voiced her concern as a mother that since she has sent pictures of her children on the internet, she is terrified that someone could use a photo of her child to advertise something that she is morally opposed to. She is getting feedback, and in return, she reports back to all of us there. So far the bill is still in committee, but they have already made some favorable changes(for us) in the wording.

People there are contacting their Senators, and posting the replies. Usually the replies are nice, explaining why the orphan bill is important to educators, blah, blah, blah...but they will consider our concerns when it comes time to vote.

One Sen. wrote back to his constituent, and said that he has many friends that are photographers, graphic artists, and artists, and that he will try and make sure that their rights are not stolen from us(my words). This letter was signed Barack Obama. I was going to vote for him anyway, but now I'm going to vote for him twice

Jon

Edited on May 22, 2008 at 08:55 PM



May 22, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Brent Ward
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


My Point has always been that if it's really for educators, then make it all for non-commercial use.

Everyone understands the education issue and losing valuable historic media for fear of copyright violation.



May 22, 2008 at 11:36 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Brent Ward wrote:
My Point has always been that if it's really for educators, then make it all for non-commercial use.

Everyone understands the education issue and losing valuable historic media for fear of copyright violation.


That's exactly what I wrote to my senators. But they were the same fellows that saved me money by de-regulating cable some years ago .....



May 23, 2008 at 12:06 AM
JDeV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


Lisa who I referred to over at NAPP is, along with others in the process of putting a web-site up where you can read what's going on. I recommended the forums there, but I found out that you have to join to read the forums.

The poster that I have here, has gone through some changes, but you should be able to download it as a psd on the new web-site.

The House version of the bill is a little "friendlier" to us, but Lisa and friends are concentrating on that also.

What they are working on with the various congressional staffs is trying to get an age limit on "orphaned" works. If a document or picture is really, really old, and it's almost impossible to track down who owns the copyright, o.k. ....it's "orphaned", but Brent's work, for instance, should not be considered "orphaned" since it's fairly recent.

I have a number of images in my NAPP portfolio that were shot in the mid-70's, so even though they're 30+ years old, they definately aren't "orphaned"

Jon



May 23, 2008 at 08:55 AM
mdude85
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


JDeV wrote:
Everyone check out the forums at www.photoshopuser.com There's a women there by the name of "Lisa" who is spearheading the activity there. Lisa is simply fantastic, and all of us owe her a lot. She has been on the phone with Sen. Leahy's aides, explaining our concerns as artists. She voiced her concern as a mother that since she has sent pictures of her children on the internet, she is terrified that someone could use a photo of her child to advertise something that she is morally opposed to. She is getting feedback, and in return, she reports back to
...Show more

Is this Lisa person fantastic, or just vocal? She is interpreting the bill incorrectly and applying reactionary logic if she assumes that it recites a corporation's ability to simply use a photo of her child to advertise something that she is morally opposed to. Not only is that against a slew of other laws (such as slander), but it completely neglects the intended scope of what is meant in the court's interpretation of an 'orphaned work'.

I'm not going to sit here and say that this bill is a victory for "artists", but it deserves to be looked at in the context of precedent on the copyrights issue.



May 23, 2008 at 09:54 AM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


mdude85 wrote:
Is this Lisa person fantastic, or just vocal? She is interpreting the bill incorrectly and applying reactionary logic if she assumes that it recites a corporation's ability to simply use a photo of her child to advertise something that she is morally opposed to. Not only is that against a slew of other laws (such as slander), but it completely neglects the intended scope of what is meant in the court's interpretation of an 'orphaned work'.

I'm not going to sit here and say that this bill is a victory for "artists", but it deserves to be looked at in
...Show more

I think what she is opposed to is the lowering of the bar for use of works. There is no specific wording in either law as to what an orphan work actually is. As we all know, under new legislation, the court can change it's interpretation at any given moment it may choose to do so. New precedents are established and upheld all the time because legislation was not worded properly or as specifically as the courts would like.

Yes, there would still be legal recourse for some types of infringement and misuse as there are now. I really believe the current level of willful misuse will only escalate under the proposed law. However, once the image has been used, it's going to be awfully hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. This new law, I think would eliminate or lessen the importance of some potential user's reasons for not risking the use of supposed orphan works now.

I mean it's ridiculous that we will have to endure further time, effort and expense to support commercial registries just to benefit the eminent domain rights of museums and libraries. I've said it before, they are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I still say, limit these new rules to only not-for-profit entities, and likely the opposition goes away. Wrong interpretations notwithstanding.




May 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM
mdude85
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Orphan Works Bill -- Big Issue


butchM wrote:
As we all know, under new legislation, the court can change it's interpretation at any given moment it may choose to do so. New precedents are established and upheld all the time because legislation was not worded properly or as specifically as the courts would like.



Typically no -- the court interprets orphaned work as that which is set by precedent as I said, for instance, recited as discussion in Federal Register put out by the Copyright Office (I wonder if Lisa has ever perused *that* document, but I would guess the answer is no). I believe a discussion on the nature and questions of orphaned works as they relate to the 1909 Copyright Act and a variety of other statutes and rules located in title 17 of U.S.C, among a few choice case law examples is located in Vol. 70 of the Register (Google it). A lot of thought has been put into this -- courts will not interpret "willy nilly" as it were. A huge number of public interest groups, libraries, museums, etc, have lobbied in favor of this bill, so their representation and discussions have reached Congress.

Edited on May 23, 2008 at 01:02 PM



May 23, 2008 at 01:01 PM
       2       end




FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

       2       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account