Photographer
glamour pics
Posts: 6095
Los Angeles, California, US
Just received this from the Advertising Photographers of America, a major group that does good work on behalf of all photographers. The message regards the "Orphan Works" bill, designed to gut copyright and strip photographers of the ability to protect their own work and deter infringement or be compensated for infringement. The matter is EXTREMELY important to you, and EXTREMELY urgent. Here's what I received, and have already acted on. URGENT: ORPHAN WORKS -- FAXES NEEDED TODAY -- SPREAD THE WORD! 1. Please fax your Senators and Representatives TODAY. Here's the APA resource page with links to find your members of Congress and their fax numbers, and links to sample letters for professionals and those that can be sent from family and friends: http://www.apanational.com/i4a/pages/In … ageID=3864 2. Please edit the letter(s) or not, whatever is appropriate for you, then cut and paste onto your letterhead. And, spread the word! 3. APA NY Members and others in NY -- We have just learned that Senator Schumer's office is saying that he has not heard from New York visual artists in protest of the Orphan Works bill. I know many of you have sent emails, but now it is imperative to send a letter by FAX today. Senator Charles Schumer 313 Hart Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Fax: 202-228-3027 To make it easy, you can use the sample letter on the APA website. Here's the link: http://www.apanational.com/files/public … atives.doc
Photographer
Imagemakersphoto
Posts: 786
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US
Orphans Works Act of 2008 bill Dear ASMP member: Tomorrow, Wednesday, May 21, the House Judiciary Committeeâs Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a closed-door session on H.R. 5889, the orphan works bill. It is crucial that all of the protections for photographers that have been included in the current language of that bill stay in that bill, without change or erosion, and that nothing is added to the language that would be to our detriment. Time is short, and it is essential that you act, and that you act immediately! We are asking those of our members whose Representatives serve on the Judiciary Committee to contact them immediately. Time is critical, so please send a fax or email as soon as possible. There is a sample letter that appears below, and at http://asmp.org/news/spec2008/model_letter_HR5889.php on our website, that you can copy and paste, being free to edit as you like. You can find who your Representative is at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/. When you click on his or her name, you will see a list of his or her committee memberships. If you see either âHouse Committee on the Judiciaryâ or âSubcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Propertyâ listed, please send the message that appears below. If your Representative does not serve on the Committee or Subcommittee, you need not take any action at this point. We will need your help later, but not right now. Link to current version of bill so you can read it (May 15, 2008). http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/COE08543_xml.pdf Article in Photo District News on May 8th 2008 http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/a ⦠1003801084 And APA Responds to PDN's Orphan Works Story on May 12th 2008 http://www.PDNPulse.com/2008/05/apa-res ⦠.html#more http://rasadesign.com/orphan-works-bill.html Also the ASMP has info on it and keeping it updated as the bills work there way through the House and Senate. ASMP http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php http://www.asmp.org/about/hot_issues.php APA http://www.apanational.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 Illustrators Partnership http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/ SAA http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/orphan-works http://www.orphanworks.blogspot.com/ a page for artists (photographers, photojournalists, illustrators, painters,.......) to contact your members of Congress. They have letters all ready written that you can customize and it will send it to your reps. Here is the link. Scroll down to find photographers or what ever art you wish to represent. http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/ Regardless of how you feel on this bill, you should read up on it and its impacts on artists. One possibility is having to register your copyright with 1 (or multiple) private companies that will act as clearing houses. What a headache that would be on top of registering your work with Copyright Office.
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
YES!!!
THIS IS A BIG DEAL!!!
I'm writing a letter of petition about this--everyone here please do same!
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
THIS IS A BETTER LINK Please everyone here--you ARE going to lose money. This is an important issue for all photographers. Time Warner is trying to steal your and everyone's work. This takes 2 minutes. DO THIS PLEASE!!! http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnersh … %2Fhome%2F
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
PLEASE PEOPLE don't let this thread die!!!
THIS IS IMPORTANT!
Photographer
Taryn True
Posts: 1875
Union City, New Jersey, US
i read the orphan bill, but can someone type up a paragraph for other to read a synopsis of what damage this bill will do?
Model
Anne-Marie R
Posts: 765
San Antonio, Texas, US
Does it apply to models as well? Or just photographers and other artists?
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
TarilynQuinn wrote:
i read the orphan bill, but can someone type up a paragraph for other to read a synopsis of what damage this bill will do? I wrote another thread about this. Here is a copy of it:
TIME WARNER is trying to pass a bill called ORPHAN WORKS.
It allows companies to use work they find without paying for it if they go through 'reasonable means' of contacting you. If for some reason you are unable to be contacted i.e. on vacation in europe for a year or changed your number! they can use your work for profit without paying you and with total immunity from paying later. This is very dangerous for artists and illustrators, musicians, or anyone creating anything please just follow this link and oppose the bill to your local representatives. The bill is backed by Time Warner which is trying to own everything.
Click on this URL n
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnersh … %2Fhome%2F
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
Anne-Marie R wrote:
Does it apply to models as well? Or just photographers and other artists? If you hold the copyright to the image it affects you as well.
Photographer
M Blaze Miskulin
Posts: 1169
Lodi, Wisconsin, US
Dear Chicken Little: The sky is not falling. *This law will not take away your rights of ownership. *This law provides mandatory royalties if your work is used without your permission. *This law allows libraries, museums, historical societies, and other to display historical works for which no author or copyright holder can be found. *This law does not require mandatory registration of works. It allows for voluntary registration to private databases. So... your photography association could create a free database and allow all members to submit all their photos for that extra bit of protection. *This law maintains your current rights under existing copyright law and the Bern Convention *This law puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of the person wanting to use the orphaned work, not on the holder of the copyright. Please read: A Realistic Look at Orphan Works and Six Misconceptions About Orphaned Works (We now return you to your regularly-scheduled hysteria)
Photographer
M Blaze Miskulin
Posts: 1169
Lodi, Wisconsin, US
Not Not Good wrote:
It allows companies to use work they find without paying for it if they go through 'reasonable means' of contacting you. If for some reason you are unable to be contacted i.e. on vacation in europe for a year or changed your number! they can use your work for profit without paying you and with total immunity from paying later. I'm sorry, but this is completely false.
a) You don't have to talk to them to say you still exist and hold the copyright. Any photo taken prior to 1938 would, by default, NOT be an orphaned work (copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator). If they know you were alive at some point in the last 70 years, then the work isn't an orphan.
b) If they use your work and you step forward, they are required to pay you licensing fees for the entire usage, and immediately renegotiate future usage. This means they pay you money, and you can tell them to stop any further use immediately.
c) No rights or obligations have changed, they can't steal your stuff, and there are no alien implants in your brain.
Please get your facts straight before screaming about the sky falling.
Photographer
glenn my name today
Posts: 1025
Lancaster, California, US
m Blaze, with all due respect, every single major photographers professional association is against the bill, in some form or another.
they don't all agree on how it should be worded, but they all agree that YOUR work is endangered.
Photographer
thejohnfloyd
Posts: 266
Killeen, Texas, US
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is completely false.
a) You don't have to talk to them to say you still exist and hold the copyright. Any photo taken prior to 1938 would, by default, NOT be an orphaned work (copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator). If they know you were alive at some point in the last 70 years, then the work isn't an orphan.
b) If they use your work and you step forward, they are required to pay you licensing fees for the entire usage, and immediately renegotiate future usage. This means they pay you money, and you can tell them to stop any further use immediately.
c) No rights or obligations have changed, they can't steal your stuff, and there are no alien implants in your brain.
Please get your facts straight before screaming about the sky falling. Bbbbut the guy standing on the box on the corner said!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111one
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9312
Los Angeles, California, US
It sounds kinda great to me!
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is completely false.
a) You don't have to talk to them to say you still exist and hold the copyright. Any photo taken prior to 1938 would, by default, NOT be an orphaned work (copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator). If they know you were alive at some point in the last 70 years, then the work isn't an orphan.
b) If they use your work and you step forward, they are required to pay you licensing fees for the entire usage, and immediately renegotiate future usage. This means they pay you money, and you can tell them to stop any further use immediately.
c) No rights or obligations have changed, they can't steal your stuff, and there are no alien implants in your brain.
Please get your facts straight before screaming about the sky falling. This analysis is based on which of the current versions of the bill, and how does it compare to the other version?
How can we be assured what version will survive conference committee?
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
here's a found quote: "A photographic work can be orphaned almost immediately simply by being illegally downloaded and posted multiple times." taken from here: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/new … han02.html I am looking for complete, useful pro and con links for everyone--the link i sent has info.
Photographer
-Freckles-
Posts: 1014
Columbus, Ohio, US
Not Not Good wrote:
here's a found quote:
"A photographic work can be orphaned almost immediately simply by being illegally downloaded and posted multiple times."
taken from here:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/new … han02.html
I am looking for complete, useful pro and con links for everyone--the link i sent has info. That quote is referring to what already happens on a regular basis. I think it's saying that by being downloaded illegaly, it then puts the image at risk for being used with the orphan act.
Photographer
Jeremy Lips Photography
Posts: 262
New York, New York, US
This is the letter that the APA is recommending everyone send to their reps or senators.
Dear_______________,
As a constituent, a photographer and a rights holder, I am writing to express my strong opposition to The Orphan Works Act of 2008. As both S.2913 and H.R5889 are currently written, this legislation is a disaster in the making for photographers and other independent creators of visual works.
Instead of providing solutions to appropriately deal with copyrighted work whose creators are hard to identify or locate, the Orphan Works Bill, will instead legalize the commercial or non-commercial infringement of any work of art, past, present, and
future, regardless of age, country of origin, published or unpublished, whenever a copyright owner cannot be identified or located, and will disproportionately cause harm to visual artists and those who are rights holders of visual works.
Unlike other creators, it is the exception rather than the rule that our images are published with any kind of credit line, copyright notice or other form of attribution. Credits are unusual in print publications, and are virtually non-existent on the Internet. Without names attached to them, most published images will likely become Orphan Works.
As written, this legislation might work for copyright owners of other types of works, but not for creators of visual works. It will instead end up converting massive numbers of images, and probably the majority of published images, to Orphan Work status. The Copyright Office studied the specific subject of âorphan worksâ â copyrighted works whose owners may be impossible to identify or locate. Yet this bill would drastically affect commercial markets, a subject the Copyright Office never studied.
The consequences of this profound change to Copyright Law have not been subjected to a market impact survey. As such, there is no way to determine the harmful effects it will have on my markets, contracts and licenses, on any of the collateral businesses that serve the industry, or on average citizens who will not want their personal property to subjected to unwanted use.
Because there has been no study of the potential ramifications of this legislation, my business and thousands of other small businesses across this country are likely to be destroyed if this legislation is passed.
In order for the concerns of creators to be heard, I believe any bill that constitutes such a radical change to the ownership of private property should be subjected to an open informed and public debate. As this bill was crafted without the input of those
whose livelihoods are most at stake, introduced on short notice, and put on a fast-track for passage, I urge you to oppose this bill for further revision.
Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
Amanda Logan wrote:
That quote is referring to what already happens on a regular basis. I think it's saying that by being downloaded illegaly, it then puts the image at risk for being used with the orphan act. Yes that is correct.
Currently people are afraid to use such orphaned works for fear of having to pay a fine.
From everything I've read, the orphan works will take this fear away.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Since everybody wants to say scary stuff about what is in the bill, or claim that it isn't really scary, wouldn't it be nice if we actually looked at what is in it? Here is the current House version of the Bill: HR 5889 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5889
To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2008
Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Orphan Works Act of 2008'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REMEDIES IN CASES INVOLVING ORPHAN WORKS.
(a) Limitation on Remedies- Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 514. Limitation on remedies in cases involving orphan works
`(a) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:
`(1) MATERIALS AND STANDARDS- The term `materials and standards' includes--
`(A) the records of the Copyright Office that are relevant to identifying and locating copyright owners;
`(B) sources of copyright ownership information reasonably available to users, including private databases;
`(C) industry practices and guidelines of associations and organizations;
`(D) technology tools and expert assistance, including resources for which a charge or subscription fee is imposed, to the extent that the use of such resources is reasonable for, and relevant to, the scope of the intended use; and
`(E) electronic databases, including databases that are available to the public through the Internet, that allow for searches of copyrighted works and for the copyright owners of works, including through text, sound, and image recognition tools.
`(2) NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT- The term `notice of the claim for infringement' means, with respect to a claim for copyright infringement, a written notice that includes at a minimum the following:
`(A) The name of the owner of the infringed copyright.
`(B) The title of the infringed work, any alternative titles of the infringed work known to the owner of the infringed copyright, or if the work has no title, a description in detail sufficient to identify it.
`(C) An address and telephone number at which the owner of the infringed copyright may be contacted.
`(D) Information from which a reasonable person could conclude that the owner of the infringed copyright's claims of ownership and infringement are valid.
`(3) OWNER OF THE INFRINGED COPYRIGHT- The `owner of the infringed copyright' is the legal owner of the exclusive right under section 106 that is applicable to the infringement in question, or any party with the authority to grant or license that right.
`(4) REASONABLE COMPENSATION- The term `reasonable compensation' means, with respect to a claim for infringement, the amount on which a willing buyer and willing seller in the positions of the infringer and the owner of the infringed copyright would have agreed with respect to the infringing use of the work immediately before the infringement began.
`(b) Conditions for Eligibility-
`(1) CONDITIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding sections 502 through 505, and subject to subparagraph (B), in a civil action brought under this title for infringement of copyright in a work, the remedies for infringement shall be limited in accordance with subsection (c) if the infringer--
`(i) proves by a preponderance of the evidence that before the infringement began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf of the infringer, or any person jointly and severally liable with the infringer for the infringement--
`(I) performed and documented a qualifying search, in good faith, for the owner of the infringed copyright; and
`(II) was unable to locate the owner of the infringed copyright;
`(ii) before using the work, filed with the Register of Copyrights a Notice of Use under paragraph (3);
`(iii) provided attribution, in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances, to the owner of the infringed copyright, if such owner was known with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on information obtained in performing the qualifying search;
`(iv) included with the use of the infringing work a symbol or other notice of the use of the infringing work, in a manner prescribed by the Register of Copyrights;
`(v) asserts in the initial pleading to the civil action the right to claim such limitations;
`(vi) consents to the jurisdiction of United States district court, or such court holds that the infringer is within the jurisdiction of the court; and
`(vii) at the time of making the initial discovery disclosures required under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states with particularity the basis for the right to claim the limitations, including a detailed description and documentation of the search undertaken in accordance with paragraph (2)(A).
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) does not apply if, after receiving notice of the claim for infringement and having an opportunity to conduct an expeditious good faith investigation of the claim, the infringer--
`(i) fails to negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith with the owner of the infringed copyright; or
`(ii) fails to render payment of reasonable compensation in a reasonably timely manner.
`(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR SEARCHES-
`(A) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING SEARCHES-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I), a search is qualifying if the infringer undertakes a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright.
`(ii) DETERMINATION OF DILIGENT EFFORT- In determining whether a search is diligent under this subparagraph, a court shall consider whether--
`(I) the actions taken in performing that search are reasonable and appropriate under the facts relevant to that search, including whether the infringer took actions based on facts uncovered by the search itself;
`(II) the infringer employed the applicable best practices maintained by the Register of Copyrights under subparagraph (B); and
`(III) the infringer performed the search before using the work and at a time that was reasonably proximate to the commencement of the infringement.
`(iii) LACK OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION- The fact that a particular copy or phonorecord lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner of the infringed copyright is not sufficient to meet the conditions under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I).
`(B) INFORMATION TO GUIDE SEARCHES; BEST PRACTICES-
`(i) STATEMENTS OF BEST PRACTICES- The Register of Copyrights shall maintain and make available to the public, including through the Internet, current statements of best practices for conducting and documenting a search under this subsection.
`(ii) CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MATERIALS AND STANDARDS- In maintaining the statements of best practices required under clause (i), the Register of Copyrights shall, from time to time, consider materials and standards that may be relevant to the requirements for a qualifying search under subparagraph (A).
`(3) NOTICE OF USE ARCHIVE- The Register of Copyrights shall create and maintain an archive to retain the Notice of Use filings under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III). Such filings shall include--
`(A) the type of work being used, as listed in section 102(a) of this title;
`(B) a description of the work;
`(C) a summary of the search conducted under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I);
`(D) the owner, author, recognized title, and other available identifying element of the work, to the extent the infringer knows such information with a reasonable degree of certainty;
`(E) a certification that the infringer performed a qualifying search in good faith under this subsection to locate the owner of the infringed copyright; and
`(F) the name of the infringer and how the work will be used.
Notices of Use filings retained under the control of the Copyright Office shall be furnished only under the conditions specified by regulations of the Copyright Office.
`(4) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY- If an infringer fails to comply with any requirement under this subsection, the infringer is subject to all the remedies provided in section 502 through 505, subject to section 412.
`(c) Limitations on Remedies- The limitations on remedies in a civil action for infringement of a copyright to which this section applies are the following:
`(1) MONETARY RELIEF-
`(A) GENERAL RULE- Subject to subparagraph (B), an award for monetary relief (including actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees) may not be made other than an order requiring the infringer to pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright for the use of the infringed work.
`(B) FURTHER LIMITATIONS- An order requiring the infringer to pay reasonable compensation for the use of the infringed work may not be made under subparagraph (A) if the infringer is a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives, or a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (f) of section 118) and the infringer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that--
`(i) the infringement was performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage,
`(ii) the infringement was primarily educational, religious, or charitable in nature, and
`(iii) after receiving notice of the claim for infringement, and after conducting an expeditious good faith investigation of the claim, the infringer promptly ceased the infringement,
except that if the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright proves, and the court finds, that the infringer has earned proceeds directly attributable to the infringement, the portion of such proceeds so attributable may be awarded to such owner.
`(C) EFFECT OF REGISTRATION ON REASONABLE COMPENSATION- If a work is registered, the court may, in determining reasonable compensation under this paragraph, take into account the value, if any, added to the work by reason of such registration.
`(2) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-
`(A) GENERAL RULE- Subject to subparagraph (B), the court may impose injunctive relief to prevent or restrain any infringement alleged in the civil action.
`(B) EXCEPTION- In a case in which the infringer has prepared or commenced preparation of a work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's original expression, any injunctive relief ordered by the court--
`(i) may not restrain the infringer's continued preparation or use of that new work;
`(ii) shall require that the infringer pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright for the use of the infringed work; and
`(iii) shall require that the infringer provide attribution, in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances, to the owner of the infringed copyright, if requested by such owner.
`(C) LIMITATIONS- The limitations on injunctive relief under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be available to an infringer if the infringer asserts in the civil action that neither the infringer or any representative of the infringer acting in an official capacity is subject to suit in the courts of the United States for an award of damages to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright under section 106, unless the court finds that the infringer--
`(i) has complied with the requirements of subsection (b); and
`(ii) has made an enforceable promise to pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright.
`(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (C) shall be construed to authorize or require, and no action taken under such subparagraph shall be deemed to constitute, either an award of damages by the court against the infringer or an authorization to sue a State.
`(E) RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES NOT WAIVED- No action taken by an infringer under subparagraph (C) shall be deemed to waive any right or privilege that, as a matter of law, protects the infringer from being subject to suit in the courts of the United States for an award of damages to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright under section 106.
`(d) Exclusion for Fixations in or on Useful Articles- The limitations on monetary and injunctive relief under this section shall not be available to an infringer for infringements resulting from fixation of a work in or on a useful article that is offered for sale or other distribution to the public.
`(e) Preservation of Other Rights, Limitations, and Defenses- This section does not affect any right, limitation, or defense to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. If another provision of this title provides for a statutory license that would permit the infringement contemplated by the infringer if the owner of the infringed copyright cannot be located, that provision applies instead of this section.
`(f) Copyright for Derivative Works and Compilations- Notwithstanding section 103(a), an infringer who qualifies for the limitation on remedies afforded by this section with respect to the use of a copyrighted work shall not be denied copyright protection in a compilation or derivative work on the basis that such compilation or derivative work employs preexisting material that has been used unlawfully under this section.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`514. Limitation on remedies in cases involving orphan works.'.
SEC. 3. DATABASE OF PICTORIAL, GRAPHIC, AND SCULPTURAL WORKS.
(a) Establishment of Database-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Register of Copyrights shall undertake a certification process for the establishment of an electronic database to facilitate the search for pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that are subject to copyright protection under title 17, United States Code.
(2) PROCESS AND STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATION- The process and standards for certification of the electronic database required under paragraph (1) shall be established by the Register of Copyrights, except that certification may not be granted if the electronic database does not contain--
(A) the name of all authors of the work, and contact information for any author if the information is readily available;
(B) the name of the copyright owner if different from the author, and contact information of the copyright owner;
(C) the title of the copyrighted work, if such work has a title;
(D) with respect to a copyrighted work that includes a visual image, a visual image of the work, or, if such a visual image is not available, a description sufficient to identify the work;
(E) one or more mechanisms that allow for the search and identification of a work by both text and image; and
(F) security measures that reasonably protect against unauthorized access to, or copying of, the information and content of the electronic database.
(b) Public Availability- The Register of Copyrights--
(1) shall make available to the public through the Internet a list of all electronic databases that are certified in accordance with this section; and
(2) may include any database so certified in a statement of best practices established under section 514(b)(5)(B) of title 17, United States Code.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General- With respect to works other than pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, the amendments made by section 2 shall apply to infringements that commence on or after January 1, 2009.
(b) Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works- With respect to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, the amendments made by section 2 shall--
(1) take effect on the earlier of--
(A) the date on which the Copyright Office certifies under section 3 at least 2 separate and independent searchable, comprehensive, electronic databases, that allow for searches of copyrighted works that are pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, and are available to the public through the Internet; or
(B) January 1, 2013; and
(2) apply to infringing uses that commence on or after that effective date.
(c) Publication in Federal Register- The Register of Copyrights shall publish the effective date described in subsection (b)(1) in the Federal Register, together with a notice that the amendments made by section 2 take effect on that date with respect to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.
(d) Definition- In this section, the term `pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of title 17, United States Code.
SEC. 5. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than December 12, 2014, the Register of Copyrights shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the implementation and effects of the amendments made by section 2, including any recommendations for legislative changes that the Register considers appropriate.
SEC. 6. STUDY ON REMEDIES FOR SMALL COPYRIGHT CLAIMS.
(a) In General- The Register of Copyrights shall conduct a study with respect to remedies for copyright infringement claims by an individual copyright owner or a related group of copyright owners seeking small amounts of monetary relief, including consideration of alternative means of resolving disputes currently heard in the United States district courts. The study shall cover the infringement claims to which section 514 of title 17, United States Code, apply, and other infringement claims under such title 17.
(b) Procedures- The Register of Copyrights shall publish notice of the study required under subsection (a), providing a period during which interested persons may submit comments on the study, and an opportunity for interested persons to participate in public roundtables on the study. The Register shall hold any such public roundtables at such times as the Register considers appropriate.
(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the study conducted under this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.
SEC. 7. STUDY ON COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS.
(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study examining the function of the deposit requirement in the copyright registration system under section 408 of title 17, United States Code, including--
(1) the historical purpose of the deposit requirement;
(2) the degree to which deposits are made available to the public currently;
(3) the feasibility of making deposits, particularly visual arts deposits, electronically searchable by the public for the purpose of locating copyright owners; and
(4) the impact any change in the deposit requirement would have on the collection of the Library of Congress.
(b) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the study conducted under this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.
Photographer
-Freckles-
Posts: 1014
Columbus, Ohio, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Since everybody wants to say scary stuff about what is in the bill, or claim that it isn't really scary, wouldn't it be nice if we actually looked at what is in it?
Here is the current House version of the Bill: *copies and pastes onto word*
thank you 
Photographer
Cat Lemus
Posts: 1221
Orlando, Florida, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Since everybody wants to say scary stuff about what is in the bill, or claim that it isn't really scary, wouldn't it be nice if we actually looked at what is in it?
Here is the current House version of the Bill:
Can I get a summary??
Photographer
Jeremy Lips Photography
Posts: 262
New York, New York, US
Cat Melnyk Photography wrote:
Can I get a summary?? This is why the bill passes of it does.....
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
OK, now I have actually read the House version of the bill, I can comment on this: M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
a) You don't have to talk to them to say you still exist and hold the copyright. Any photo taken prior to 1938 would, by default, NOT be an orphaned work (copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator). If they know you were alive at some point in the last 70 years, then the work isn't an orphan. I'm sorry, but this is completely false.
A work created today can be orphaned tomorrow. (Actually, that's not quite true, but it is once the law takes effect.) All that is required is that "a diligent search" be done by the infringer. If they say they can't find you, and can prove they tried, the work is an "orphan" no matter when it was created.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
b) If they use your work and you step forward, they are required to pay you licensing fees for the entire usage, and immediately renegotiate future usage. This is true, if you are able to prove your claim to being the owner of the copyright. It is also pretty much useless. There is no provision for statutory damages, no provision for attorney's fees. So you pay $10,000 to get a judgment of $500 as a "reasonable licensing fee". Not a lot of protection there.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
This means they pay you money, and you can tell them to stop any further use immediately. As a practical matter, this is false.
On the "pay you money" claim, see above. On the "tell them to stop", it's not effectively true. Under this bill, even a small change to a work allows the infringer to create a "derivative work". Under current law he cannot do that without the owner's permission. Under this bill he can. He can create it, copyright it, and use it - and you cannot stop him even if he is found to have been guilty of infringement.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
c) No rights or obligations have changed, they can't steal your stuff, and there are no alien implants in your brain. I'll grant you the part about alien implants, but the rights and obligations have decidedly changed, they can steal your stuff (after making a "reasonable" payment if they get caught, and you are willing to pay to sue them) and continue to use your stuff even after you get a judgment, because they will be the new copyright holders.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Please get your facts straight before screaming about the sky falling. Or that it isn't.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Photographer
glamour pics
Posts: 6095
Los Angeles, California, US
Damage to models...
...is not as direct as that to photographers.
Models are damaged if they own the photos, and their images/portfolio gets copied and misused all over the web;
Models are also harmed indirectly by piracy. Suppose a model is paid for one shoot, and then thousands of crooks pirate the photos. It over exposes the model, diminishes her novelty and the value of her look, and costs her modeling gigs because people steal photos rather than pay photog/model to create photos.
There's more harm,but that's enough for now.
Photographer
Food 4 Less
Posts: 378
Los Angeles, California, US
Yes As previously stated. this BILL MUST NOT PASS!!! It gives freedom for usage of found images. People now practice this carefully due to fear of financial consequences. This will take the fear away! TXPhotog gave a good link about the negative issues with this bill--please read it! http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnersh … d=11320236
Photographer
Real World Images
Posts: 702
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US
Not Not Good wrote:
Yes that is correct.
Currently people are afraid to use such orphaned works for fear of having to pay a fine.
From everything I've read, the orphan works will take this fear away. Simply put, not knowing who the copyright belongs to, doesn't make it yours.... until this bill passes. Once the bill passes, anything unknown is fair game. If you want any chance of recovering damages, you need to register your images with the copyright office ($30) and the undeclared owner of the orphaned database. (Does anyone really believe that a private business will do this for free.)
As for wedding photographers, when you shoot a wedding, you know the people cant take your prints to Ritz and ask for more copies because Ritz won't violate the copyright. Once your customer fills out the orphaned paperwork, Ritz is off the hook to print away. That will be great for business (not) Keep in mind this is one of the major angles pursued by people lobbying for this bill.  "Poor families that can't reprint old family photo's because the photographer can't be found. "
There is so much to this bill that hasn't been addressed and that is why it got shot down in 2006, nothing has changed except they are trying to steamroll it in this time.
Photographer
M Blaze Miskulin
Posts: 1169
Lodi, Wisconsin, US
TXPhotog wrote:
A work created today can be orphaned tomorrow. (Actually, that's not quite true, but it is once the law takes effect.) All that is required is that "a diligent search" be done by the infringer. If they say they can't find you, and can prove they tried, the work is an "orphan" no matter when it was created. And the instant you show up and show any evidence that it's yours, it ceases to be orphaned, and they owe you money.
This is true, if you are able to prove your claim to being the owner of the copyright. It is also pretty much useless. There is no provision for statutory damages, no provision for attorney's fees. So you pay $10,000 to get a judgment of $500 as a "reasonable licensing fee". Not a lot of protection there. Currently, there are no provisions for statutory damages for unregistered work, so this doesn't change anything. Under current law, to get statutory damages, you must register your work. Under the Orphan Works law, if your work is registered and someone uses it, that's de facto evidence of a failure to do due dilligence, and you get your damages.
Also, when you win that $500, the infringer is required to pay your legal fees (that's the way it works now, and why the RIAA et. al. suddenly make a motion to drop the case "without prejudice" as soon as they think they might not win it.)
Here... Read up on it from someone who actually knows all about the bills and can describe what they're really about:
Public Knowlege
From the article:
In the unlikely event of an owner resurfacing, the bill provides for them to be reasonably compensated, and if the user acts in bad faith, the full panoply of copyright infringement damages rains down on them. This was done out of concern, again, for visual artists who have repeatedly said theyâre not going to be able to take a claim to court because the value is too low. So the claims that "Time Warner is out to steal my stuff and I can't do anything about it" are not true.
Also read this. Particularly, read the responses from AlexC as he addresses issues point by point.
And just as a note: the Orphan Works bills are trying to correct a situation which is currently hurting visual artists such as photographers. There is a massive amount of information, reference, history, and inspiration rotting away in basements for no good reason. Libraries, museums, archives, documentarians, schools, colleges... they're all being deprived of these works because people are afraid to use them. Films are literally rotting away because the celluloid is brittle and unstable. Archivists can't even make a copy of them because that would be illegal. They will be lost forever unless there's a change to the current copyright law.
Are the bills perfect? No. Of course not. There needs to be more work on them to address the various points and concerns. And if they make it to law, that law will be tested in the courts. The idea that it will somehow instantly yank the rights away from everyone is hyperbole at best, if not patent falsehood.
Should there be discussion about this issue? Absolutely. Should we all panic and fire off a thousand e-mails to Congress without actually doing some research and finding out what's going on? I would say that course of action is less than responsible.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
TXPhotog wrote:
A work created today can be orphaned tomorrow. (Actually, that's not quite true, but it is once the law takes effect.) All that is required is that "a diligent search" be done by the infringer. If they say they can't find you, and can prove they tried, the work is an "orphan" no matter when it was created. M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
And the instant you show up and show any evidence that it's yours, it ceases to be orphaned, and they owe you money. And all you have to do is find them and sue them to get it, if they choose not to pay. See below for why that is not practical. Even so, your claim that this only applied to old pictures is false.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Currently, there are no provisions for statutory damages for unregistered work, so this doesn't change anything. False. All my work is registered. Now it becomes vulnerable to being used as "orphan" even though I have registered it. And even though it is registered, I lose my right to statutory damages if someone uses it as "orphan". It is an enormous change.
It's worse. Someone claiming "orphan" status of an image can make a minor change to it, declare it a "derivative work" and copyright it. When they do that, the courts can't even stop them from using it.
That is not true under current law, and it damned well should not be true.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Under current law, to get statutory damages, you must register your work. Under the Orphan Works law, if your work is registered and someone uses it, that's de facto evidence of a failure to do due dilligence, and you get your damages. False again. Registration has nothing at all to do with the due diligence requirement. In fact, the requirement is to ALSO put images into a commercial database (which will not be free, and does not exist) to get even the limited protection of being able to prevail on an orphaned work.
And "your damages" no longer include statutory damages or legal fees, which as a practical matter makes it impossible to sue. The formal legal term for that is, "it sucks".
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Also, when you win that $500, the infringer is required to pay your legal fees (that's the way it works now, and why the RIAA et. al. suddenly make a motion to drop the case "without prejudice" as soon as they think they might not win it.) Yes, that is the way it works now. This bill takes that away! That's the whole point of what I said. Honestly, have you even read this thing, or are you just reading the talking points of its industry defenders?
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
And just as a note: the Orphan Works bills are trying to correct a situation which is currently hurting visual artists such as photographers. There is a massive amount of information, reference, history, and inspiration rotting away in basements for no good reason. Libraries, museums, archives, documentarians, schools, colleges... they're all being deprived of these works because people are afraid to use them. Films are literally rotting away because the celluloid is brittle and unstable. Archivists can't even make a copy of them because that would be illegal. They will be lost forever unless there's a change to the current copyright law. Right out of the Time Warner talking points. None of that helps me one bit. And none is even a little bit relevant to my concerns.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Also read this. Particularly, read the responses from AlexC as he addresses issues point by point. He does address them, and very dishonestly. He acknowledges that there is no effective way for a person to search for the author of a visual work, and yet claims that 99.999% of authors can be found by someone who searches. He claims that authors will not be required to put their works into additional, searchable databases, even while admitting that if they don't, their works cannot be found. That is patently dishonest. You can only say that if you keep your eyes closed while your mouth is moving.
He talks about how wonderful it is that an infringer, if caught, should be required to "negotiate in good faith", and fails to admit that his own organization recommends that the proper compensation to authors should be capped at $200, no matter what use is made of a work, or how much the infringer makes from that use. He and his group gut the whole concept of "negotiation", and then take away statutory damages when we don't like their answer.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Are the bills perfect? No. Of course not. There needs to be more work on them to address the various points and concerns. A lot more than you acknowledge, and it won't happen if people like you keep sprinkling happy dust all over the issue so people can't see the real problems with the bill. Only with great opposition to the bill as it now stands will there be change - and I don't see you arguing for that.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
And if they make it to law, that law will be tested in the courts. The idea that it will somehow instantly yank the rights away from everyone is hyperbole at best, if not patent falsehood. So let me see if I have the argument right:
Yes, the bill sucks, but if it passes, maybe we will get lucky and the courts will overturn it. - on grounds you don't even speculate on.
That's not a good argument for passing it.
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Should there be discussion about this issue? Absolutely. Should we all panic and fire off a thousand e-mails to Congress without actually doing some research and finding out what's going on? I would say that course of action is less than responsible. I would too. That's why I read the actual bill (and reproduced it above for others to read.) That's why I tested the hype of its defenders against what is actually in it, and found that the kinds of things you were saying simply were not true, or not meaningful. And that's why I oppose this bill.
Photographer
Jerry Bennett
Posts: 2223
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
TXPhotog wrote:
A work created today can be orphaned tomorrow. (Actually, that's not quite true, but it is once the law takes effect.) All that is required is that "a diligent search" be done by the infringer. If they say they can't find you, and can prove they tried, the work is an "orphan" no matter when it was created. And the instant you show up and show any evidence that it's yours, it ceases to be orphaned, and they owe you money.
This is true, if you are able to prove your claim to being the owner of the copyright. It is also pretty much useless. There is no provision for statutory damages, no provision for attorney's fees. So you pay $10,000 to get a judgment of $500 as a "reasonable licensing fee". Not a lot of protection there. Currently, there are no provisions for statutory damages for unregistered work, so this doesn't change anything. Under current law, to get statutory damages, you must register your work. Under the Orphan Works law, if your work is registered and someone uses it, that's de facto evidence of a failure to do due dilligence, and you get your damages.
Also, when you win that $500, the infringer is required to pay your legal fees (that's the way it works now, and why the RIAA et. al. suddenly make a motion to drop the case "without prejudice" as soon as they think they might not win it.)
Here... Read up on it from someone who actually knows all about the bills and can describe what they're really about:
Public Knowlege
From the article:
So the claims that "Time Warner is out to steal my stuff and I can't do anything about it" are not true.
Also read this. Particularly, read the responses from AlexC as he addresses issues point by point.
And just as a note: the Orphan Works bills are trying to correct a situation which is currently hurting visual artists such as photographers. There is a massive amount of information, reference, history, and inspiration rotting away in basements for no good reason. Libraries, museums, archives, documentarians, schools, colleges... they're all being deprived of these works because people are afraid to use them. Films are literally rotting away because the celluloid is brittle and unstable. Archivists can't even make a copy of them because that would be illegal. They will be lost forever unless there's a change to the current copyright law.
Are the bills perfect? No. Of course not. There needs to be more work on them to address the various points and concerns. And if they make it to law, that law will be tested in the courts. The idea that it will somehow instantly yank the rights away from everyone is hyperbole at best, if not patent falsehood.
Should there be discussion about this issue? Absolutely. Should we all panic and fire off a thousand e-mails to Congress without actually doing some research and finding out what's going on? I would say that course of action is less than responsible. I read that shit at Public Knowledge, they are the most naive idiots to ever walk the earth, or liars. Every group that represents artists in the U.S. is against this bill (for good reason), Time Warner is for it, enough said!
Photographer
Free at last
Posts: 1472
Fresno, California, US
To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.
That pretty much says it all - bend over and grab your ankles (and don't bother to wait for the lubricant that won't be forthcoming).
Our only hope is for someone to rip off a Disney work.
Photographer
Jerry Bennett
Posts: 2223
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
"Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said the group disagreed with the recommendation of the report that users of orphan works be required to pay âreasonable compensationâ to the owners of orphan works, should they appear after a diligent search."
Hey, what do you know? It turns out the scum from this Public Knowledge group helped write the bills! I'm soooooooo surprised!
Photographer
Jerry Bennett
Posts: 2223
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Photographer
M Blaze Miskulin
Posts: 1169
Lodi, Wisconsin, US
Jerry Bennett wrote:
I read that shit at Public Knowledge, they are the most naive idiots to ever walk the earth, or liars. Every group that represents artists in the U.S. is against this bill (for good reason), Time Warner is for it, enough said! So are libraries, museums, and archival organizations. Somehow I don't think the ALA qualifies as an evil corporation. Don't think the Smithsonian fits under that label, either.
Did "every group that represents artists" get up in arms when corporate America backed the bills that extended copyright protection? Do those groups get up in arms when corporate America goes to battle to protect their copyrights--thereby protecting them for the artists, too? Do those groups get up in arms when Congress enacts laws which decrease the effort needed to protect copyrights and increase the penalties for infringement--thereby doing the same for individual copyright holders, too?
Did you?
So far, in reading "authoritative" opinions on both sides of this issue, I've seen the groups representing libraries and archivists debate specific points with specific, reasoned arguments. On the other side, I've seen groups representing artists say "Big business is going to steal your art! This law is bad!" ... and that's about all.
I've read through the house bill, and while I certainly see some issues that need to be debated, and some provisions which I find to be questionable or even problematic, I also see a lot of restrictions and remedies set in place to mitigate or eliminate the kind of wholesale theft that people are screaming about.
As for the "group[s] that represent artists [are] against this bill", it would do to remember that first and foremost, those groups represent themselves. The RIAA and MPAA claim to represent the artist, and yet they have engaged in campaigns that effectively hurt the industry and the artists.
I don't have the time right now, but perhaps this weekend I will go step-by-step through the text of the law and explain my understanding and interpretation of what's written.
When looking through laws, I'm hesitant to take anyone's word for what it does or does not do. That goes double for anyone who uses scare tactics to push their agenda. But I'm not hesitant to reference sites or sources which more clearly or succinctly explain the viewpoint I hold.
On a side note: I think the artists' groups are being incredibly short-sighted, and missing out on a golden opportunity. An organization could create a powerful, comprehensive, and easily-searched database for artistic works and get it certified under this bill. Then they can use that as a powerful selling point to potential members:
"As a member of our organization, you get free access to our copyright registry, and free, lifetime registration of all your works. Our status as one of the leading, certified registries gives you the strongest protection from infringement in the industry. Your membership and registration puts the full weight of the industry's toughest lawyers behind you, and ensures that any infringing parties meet with the strongest prosecution and face the largest fines allowed by law. You're here to create art; we're here to protect you."
Lots of people here keep calling me an optimist and saying that I'm "sugar coating" things. Actually, I'm a cynic. Why aren't the artist groups offering this kind of protection? What do they gain by opposing this law? Why haven't I seen any point-by-point arguments from their side? I don't believe in altruism. I've worked with enough unions and organizations to know that they're always looking for a way to get more money and more power. I don't know what their angle is yet, but I'm quite sure that there's more to it that they're revealing.
Photographer
Z_Photo
Posts: 7079
Huntsville, Alabama, US
M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Did "every group that represents artists" get up in arms when corporate America backed the bills that extended copyright protection? Do those groups get up in arms when corporate America goes to battle to protect their copyrights--thereby protecting them for the artists, too? Do those groups get up in arms when Congress enacts laws which decrease the effort needed to protect copyrights and increase the penalties for infringement--thereby doing the same for individual copyright holders, too?
Did you? wait. so you say "every group that represets artists" should be against strong copyright and remedies for violations? that artists should be upset with stronger protection for their work? that's just goofy
|
