Food 4 Less
Posts: 372
Los Angeles, California, US
It is going to be legal for people to use your photos without paying for them/giving credit - FOR REAL!
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.
Blatant Rip-Offs - Terminator: Sarah Connor Ad Copies Student Work
While being âinspired byâ and âpaying homageâ to the work of another artist is one thing, blatantly copying someoneâs work without crediting them is another story. The fact that itâs a big player like Fox channel who is ripping the work of a student makes it much worse.
The new âTerminator - Sarah Connor Chroniclesâ advertisement clearly and liberally copies the work of an advertisement student that had been posted on their blog several months ahead of the Fox campaign.
I think the resemblance is striking and obviously more than a coincidence.
All Fox needed to do was credit the poor student and pay him to use his work. What do you think?
Not Not Good wrote: It is going to be legal for people to use your photos without paying for them/giving credit - FOR REAL!
In the other thread that you've also posted in (about the exact same thing I might add), facts were given about how many of your assumptions, that you're stating as facts, could be false.
I have no idea which "interpretation" of this bill is the correct one, but I'd suggest people read up before coming to any conclusions.
edit: There's nothing wrong with being concerned or wanting more information about this...but you are not doing that. You are stating things to be true when there's obviously more to this than you're aware of.
GreatModelChris wrote: Fox just did this to an art student
Blatant Rip-Offs - Terminator: Sarah Connor Ad Copies Student Work
While being âinspired byâ and âpaying homageâ to the work of another artist is one thing, blatantly copying someoneâs work without crediting them is another story. The fact that itâs a big player like Fox channel who is ripping the work of a student makes it much worse.
The new âTerminator - Sarah Connor Chroniclesâ advertisement clearly and liberally copies the work of an advertisement student that had been posted on their blog several months ahead of the Fox campaign.
I think the resemblance is striking and obviously more than a coincidence.
All Fox needed to do was credit the poor student and pay him to use his work. What do you think?
glamour pics
Posts: 6,095
Los Angeles, California, US
A major sponsor of the bill is Google, which is the world's largest infringer, by far, of still photography. Google lives under the threat of a ruinous [correct] court decision which would destroy its piracy-based business model. Until now Google has been okay, by bullying victims, buying them off, and so forth. But via the "Orphan Works" bill, Google is now attempting to thoroughly gut copyright law and take away photographers' ability to protect their own work, and dissuade and punish pirates.
Although the details are somewhat up in the air, the thrust of the bill is clear, as is the motives of Google and other sponsors. Incidentally, to clarify something, the push for such a bill apparently begin legitimately with reference librarians years ago, but the bill was since "hijacked" by Google and other firms with an infringement-based business model.
The bill would also harm illustrators, models, actors, video makers, and other creative people. But the harm is most clear and obvious as to still photos.
BELOW IS SOME LAST MINUTE INFO FROM THE APA, A MAJOR PHOTOGRAPHER'S ADVOCACY GROUP:
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:
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:
everybody on this site should be worried about this bill!!!
We cannot afford to give individuals the legal right to infringe on our copyright.
On May 14, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved some revisions to its version of an Orphan Works amendment. You can see the full text of the bill, as revised, here. In spite of ASMPâs efforts, the bill does not provide even the minimum protections that ASMP considers necessary for photographers, and it is now time for the members to make their voices heard in the Senate.
We urge you to write to your Senators as soon as possible. You can find the name and contact information for your two Senators here. (After you have selected your state, your Senators will be the first two names in the list.)
Re: S.2913 the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008
Dear Senator ________________________________:
I am one of your constituents, a professional photographer, and a member of the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP). It is crucial to my professional livelihood that you oppose this bill in its current form. If this billâs current language becomes law, it would permit, and even encourage, wide-scale infringements of my copyrighted photographs while depriving me of many of the protections currently available to me under the Copyright Act, including the right to ask the courts to award statutory damages and attorneysâ fees. In the publication world, the reality is that most photographs will easily become considered orphaned, depriving me of a significant part of my much needed income.
I urge you to oppose this bill unless and until it is amended to contain at least the minimum provisions that are critical to protect photographers, including but not limited to a notice of use that must be filed before the use is made, upon penalty of losing eligibility to claim orphan work status for failure to file the notice; an archive of the notices, to be maintained by the Copyright Office or an approved third party; and other protections that appear in the current (May 15, 2008) language of H.R. 5889.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide you with any additional information. Thank you for your time. I hope that you will take the necessary actions to protect my interests and prevent the passage of this bill until it is amended to be fair and reasonable to all parties.
absolutely nothing illegal about this one.
just like there was nothing illegal about "ice, ice, baby"
if you steal something and change it a little it's yours, i.e. use a different model and different straps and completely change the bottom.
funny that they left the arm-stubs exactly the same, though. and what's up with the x's over the nipples? do robots even have nipples?
rkwphoto wrote: absolutely nothing illegal about this one.
just like there was nothing illegal about "ice, ice, baby"
if you steal something and change it a little it's yours, i.e. use a different model and different straps and completely change the bottom.
funny that they left the arm-stubs exactly the same, though. and what's up with the x's over the nipples? do robots even have nipples?
They ripped off the idea, that's for sure. This was discussed before as well involving an MM photographer. he had a mode that looked like they died from an overdose of fruit loops and some major magazine recreated the same scene.
In the Terminator photo...let's take the "original" and discuss the following: How original of a concept is the original? Has no one ever made a live model appear to be a robot with missing parts? Perhaps the only original idea of his was suspending the subject with straps.
Can Dodge sue Ford and GM for copying their idea of taking modern cars and design them 'retro' style to bring back the glory days? I believe it was Dodge that started that whole thing. And what did it do for Ford? KILLER sales for Mustang and you can bet whenever GM releases the Camaro, it'll be a boon for them.
Weak analogy I know.
However, Fox DID, I believe, obviously use parts of the original image and it's obvious in the arms. Look at two of the dangling wires. They are hanging the same way. Coincidence? I think NOT!!
GreatModelChris wrote: Fox just did this to an art student
Blatant Rip-Offs - Terminator: Sarah Connor Ad Copies Student Work
While being âinspired byâ and âpaying homageâ to the work of another artist is one thing, blatantly copying someoneâs work without crediting them is another story. The fact that itâs a big player like Fox channel who is ripping the work of a student makes it much worse.
The new âTerminator - Sarah Connor Chroniclesâ advertisement clearly and liberally copies the work of an advertisement student that had been posted on their blog several months ahead of the Fox campaign.
I think the resemblance is striking and obviously more than a coincidence.
All Fox needed to do was credit the poor student and pay him to use his work. What do you think?
It resembles it, but it's nowhere near the same shot.
| 
| 
| edu