Madcrow Photographics wrote:
Given that the OP of the original topic didn't want to  have discussion in his link to the text and analysis of the bill, I figured that this would be a good thing...

Anyway, I do feel that this is a good bill. It works hard to allow for public access to and use of orphaned works while bending over backwards to try creators as well. Granted a blanket "no penalties at all for people who go through the process in good faith" would have been nicer than the included "penalties are limited" language, and some protection for users of abandoned works (works that haven't been in print for, say, at least ten to fifteen years) would have been nice as well. Still, you can't have it all.

How the hell can a photographer support this law? It was originally designed so that large institutions and corporations could steal the creations of individual artists and not have to worry about law suits. Thank god asmp screamed their bloody asses off about it and got at least a little protection for the creators!

Jerry Bennett wrote:

How the hell can a photographer support this law? It was originally designed so that large institutions and corporations could steal the creations of individual artists and not have to worry about law suits. Thank god asmp screamed their bloody asses off about it and got at least a little protection for the creators!

The ASMP actually supports the current version, btw...

Any way. I support it because why I like to see work protected, I also like to see work be widely available, even if the copyright holder can't be found. It seems like this bill is the best chance we have to try and meet both ends of the spectrum.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
. . . I also like to see work be widely available, even if the copyright holder can't be found. It seems like this bill is the best chance we have to try and meet both ends of the spectrum.

You want a license to steal, in other words.

J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE wrote:

You want a license to steal, in other words.

If the copyright holder for a work can't be found after a legitimate good faith effort to find the copyright holder, why should that mean that a work becomes unavailable for use? Why is it that certain people would rather that work just plain disappear if its creator does?

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
If the copyright holder for a work can't be found after a legitimate good faith effort to find the copyright holder, why should that mean that a work becomes unavailable for use? Why is it that certain people would rather that work just plain disappear if its creator does?

What defines a good faith effort, and what defines an orphan work?  These are crucial issues.

If a shady company or person pays somebody to take your best photo and strip off all identifying information such as the EXIF and IPCT and Adobe PS data and then puts it on a large website like flickr or some forum anonymously for the crook to find it, then you have lost control of your image because they can claim it is an orphan image.

Monito -- Alan wrote:

What defines a good faith effort, and what defines an orphan work?  These are crucial issues.

If a shady company or person pays somebody to take your best photo and strip off all identifying information such as the EXIF and IPCT and Adobe PS data and then puts it on a large website like flickr or some forum anonymously for the crook to find it, then you have lost control of your image because they can claim it is an orphan image.

That's cheating though. I'm talking about people who actually do what they're supposed to do under the law.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
What defines a good faith effort, and what defines an orphan work?  These are crucial issues.

If a shady company or person pays somebody to take your best photo and strip off all identifying information such as the EXIF and IPCT and Adobe PS data and then puts it on a large website like flickr or some forum anonymously for the crook to find it, then you have lost control of your image because they can claim it is an orphan image.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
That's cheating though. I'm talking about people who actually do what they're supposed to do under the law.

No "cheating" is even necessary.

On close reading of that bill you will see that, even if your data stays with the image, even if there is a BIG FAT copyright notice on the face of it [©2004 Xxxxxxxx], if you can not be geo-located [to an address] then it can STILL be treated as an orphan work. The user will file a notice of intended use, serving as a public notice to you of their intentions, and it is up to YOU to discover that filing.

Studio36

Madcrow Photographics wrote:

If the copyright holder for a work can't be found after a legitimate good faith effort to find the copyright holder, why should that mean that a work becomes unavailable for use? Why is it that certain people would rather that work just plain disappear if its creator does?

Ever heard the term "dilution of value"??? 

It's people like you who are working to diminish the value of photography and are helping to destroy photography as a profession and a means to make a living.  Shame on you!

J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE wrote:
Ever heard the term "dilution of value"??? 

It's people like you who are working to diminish the value of photography and are helping to destroy photography as a profession and a means to make a living.  Shame on you!

I'm all for protecting information. Even I, who freely license my work under a Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works) license want to get paid if, for some reason, someone actually wanted to use it in a commercial context...

BUT, I also feel like there should be SOME kind of ability for people to use work whose authors have truly disappeared from the scene and are unfindable...

Madcrow Photographics wrote:

I'm all for protecting information. Even I, who freely license my work under a Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works) license want to get paid if, for some reason, someone actually wanted to use it in a commercial context...

Then why are you supporting this bill???

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

Then why are you supporting this bill???

See the second part of my post. I think that they need you need to balance the two aspects.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
What defines a good faith effort, and what defines an orphan work?  These are crucial issues.

The problem as I see it is, "Good Faith Effort" is too broad and ill defined. I opens the doors for abuse.

In the current Copyright registration process, registering a single image will cost $45. You may also register an unlimited number of images for the same price when you register them in the same registration package. Additionally, there is a Beta program that will allow you to do this on line, saving time and paperwork.

John

Madcrow Photographics wrote:

See the second part of my post. I think that they need you need to balance the two aspects.

Oh yes - keep "compromising" and "compromising" until we, as photographers, have nothing left.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:

That's cheating though. I'm talking about people who actually do what they're supposed to do under the law.

This is exactly what Congress and the Copyright Office expect with this bill... that no-one would abuse the system and everyone would play fair.  I'm not sure what planet THEY are from, but here on Earth people will do anything they can for free lunch.  Hiring a guy to sift through people's images posted online with the intent of stealing them will be way cheaper than hiring a team of artists or even paying a stock image agency for their work.  Laws are not made assuming all people will act in good faith.  Laws are made assuming that the people who are not going to act in good faith, will do so regardless of the law, and provides a means for prosecuting those individuals.  This bill does the exact opposite of that... it gives a free license for copyright theft and even outlines the things you have to do to legally get away with it... while crippling the rights of the owner of the work by making it nearly impossible to prosecute. 

And my biggest question is... who and want exactly is being hurt by current copyright law?  In the past and currently, if an agency wanted to use a work that was "orphaned" then it simply hired an illustrator to create a similar work, and as long as it was just different ENOUGH, it didn't break copyright law.  Hell, I've seen so many magazine covers that were DIRECT copies of famous, copyrighted works of art that it makes it really hard for me to believe that these same people would shy away from copying unfamous works of unknown copyright.  In an interview posted on the Illustrator's Partnership website there is an important quote.... "Even if you don't know who made this work of art, you absolutely know that YOU didn't make it!"   Using artwork that you didn't make and that you don't have a license to use, is theft, plain and simple.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
BUT, I also feel like there should be SOME kind of ability for people to use work whose authors have truly disappeared from the scene and are unfindable...

For what purpose?
Not every purpose requires license.

Please list those that require license and explain why/in what context you have pressing need to use somebody’s image instead of creating yours (or hiring photographer to create one for you?)

J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE wrote:
You want a license to steal, in other words.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
If the copyright holder for a work can't be found after a legitimate good faith effort to find the copyright holder, why should that mean that a work becomes unavailable for use? Why is it that certain people would rather that work just plain disappear if its creator does?

The issue is proving legitimate good faith effort, portrait clients routinely go to a Kodak copy station as it is...

They'll just have to say they tried and your copyrights are gone!

redwoodtwig wrote:
A page with form letters to send if you don't like the proposed orphaning law.
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/
You can send a canned one and the page will take care of getting it to your senators and representative.  There's also a link for international photogs to write to the appropriate officials.

Didn't they vote on this today at 2?

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
If the copyright holder for a work can't be found after a legitimate good faith effort to find the copyright holder, why should that mean that a work becomes unavailable for use? Why is it that certain people would rather that work just plain disappear if its creator does?

If its MY work, shouldn't I have the right to control it and decide if I want it to disappear? No one else helped me create it, no one else paid for my equipment, no one else paid for my business and living expenses so I could create it. Why should all those people be able to show up after I've done all the work, and steal it to their benefit?

There is also the issue of models... Will they be able to sue photographers if their likeness is used, claiming the photographer didn't work hard enough to protect the image?

There are so many unanswered questions, such a huge can of worms. What happens if someone finds an image of mine online, that someone else scanned and stripped out any identifying marks on, and then the new person "claims" they couldn't find the owner (what if they didn't go to the correct private registry?), so they go ahead and not only use my image, perhaps in conflict with some use I have planned, but they then register the image as theirs? Can you imagine the time and legal costs that one scenario would take to unravel? Does anyone have that kind of time, when they don't have to work?

IMO, there is nothing good about the new bill, the old law is just fine. The old law protects the photographer, with no effort from him. The new law requires the photographer to work overtime to acquire protection that isn't as effective as what he had before. Please read the APA position here (its better than ASMP's), http://www.apanational.com/files/public … _2008.pdf.

I am disappointed that another unrelated intellectual property bill, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, is being stalled from Senate passage by an anonymous Republican hold. It was during the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of that legislation that Senator Brownback requested that we hold this hearing. I have held it. I hope he will now join with Senator Hatch and me and will work to remove the impediment to passage of the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act so that we can make progress on behalf of the American people without further delay.

There's still time to contact your Senators.

[b]a HUMAN ad wrote:  [b]Other thread regarding copyright and images being stolen from MM

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … age=1#last

The other thread?  There are many many threads about copyright theft that have been posted on MM and you revived an 18 month old zombie thread on a distantly related topic.  Not quite right.

Andy Pearlman wrote:
If its MY work, shouldn't I have the right to control it and decide if I want it to disappear? No one else helped me create it, no one else paid for my equipment, no one else paid for my business and living expenses so I could create it. Why should all those people be able to show up after I've done all the work, and steal it to their benefit?

There is also the issue of models... Will they be able to sue photographers if their likeness is used, claiming the photographer didn't work hard enough to protect the image?

There are so many unanswered questions, such a huge can of worms. What happens if someone finds an image of mine online, that someone else scanned and stripped out any identifying marks on, and then the new person "claims" they couldn't find the owner (what if they didn't go to the correct private registry?), so they go ahead and not only use my image, perhaps in conflict with some use I have planned, but they then register the image as theirs? Can you imagine the time and legal costs that one scenario would take to unravel? Does anyone have that kind of time, when they don't have to work?

IMO, there is nothing good about the new bill, the old law is just fine. The old law protects the photographer, with no effort from him. The new law requires the photographer to work overtime to acquire protection that isn't as effective as what he had before. Please read the APA position here (its better than ASMP's), http://www.apanational.com/files/public … _2008.pdf.

People Nothing Good will come of this; not for us.
We don't pay Congress enough, to get " our " way.
This bill isn't for us.

If you want a copyright bill for us,
look at the Bourne Convention.
When the Senate was forced to pass it,
by international treaty, there was a prevision in the bill,
not allowing it, to apply in cases of U.S. Copyright Law.

This opened up the possibility, of increasing the power
of an individuals, copyright power, by forming a
European Cooperative & licensing all Copyright
management that way.  The treaty clearly stipulates that
the Bourne convention would take precedent over U.S. Law.

This law is a way around this loophole.
So the law may turn out to be unconstitutional,
at least as far as the foreign works part goes.

But it will take a lawsuit to prove it.
The failure of our legal system,
I believe is that law is never decided as written.
It takes the courts to interpret it.
This takes lots of money !

Now I know that people have fought & died for our
right to do this.  And I know that not everyone even
has this right.  But it would be nice if something as
important as this would be written so that everyone
would understand what was meant & of course that
there was enough teeth in it, to compel thieves to
obey the law.

But that's not how it is now.
So to sum up, this bill has plenty of unintended consequences,
If you don't believe me, look at 2257.
Talk about unintended, ( ? ), consequences.