Your Copyright may be "orphaned" - act now

[tim atherton]

For US members of APUG

From Mike Johnstons Blog:

Emergency for Professional and Creative Photographers

Folks, we have a very serious situation on our hands. Congress is right now rushing into law a bill to legalize the theft of YOUR original photographic work.

It's called the "Orphan Works" amendment to the copyright act. What it basically says is that if anybody comes across your professional or creative photography, any time, anywhere, and then attempts to locate the creator (you) but can't, then they can just take it. Take it and use it however they want to.

You forfeit your right to control your own work. This would be true even of photographs with registered copyright.... more below

Ammendment to copyright law to allow for "orphaned" works


ASMP link

 

[wilhelm]

Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree, the copyright laws in the US have gone so far away from their original intent, it's ridiculous. Works basically never go into public domain anymore - OK, it's lifetime of the creator plus 75 years, which might as well be infinite for purposes of something created today. I see this as a possibility for some of that ridiculousness to be reversed. Once copyright gets back to lifetime of the creator, we'll be getting somewhere.

Will

 

[Eric Rose]

That's unreal! Just who's money is behind this gem? Fortunately up here in Canada we would just send the gals from the Olympic Gold hockey team down and stomp the crap out of any copyright violators. No penalties for high sticking or cross-checking.

 

[Early Riser]

Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree, the copyright laws in the US have gone so far away from their original intent, it's ridiculous. Works basically never go into public domain anymore - OK, it's lifetime of the creator plus 75 years, which might as well be infinite for purposes of something created today. I see this as a possibility for some of that ridiculousness to be reversed. Once copyright gets back to lifetime of the creator, we'll be getting somewhere.

Will

Will, you don't seem to understand that there are people out there who make their living through the sale and reproduction of their images and that perhaps the only valuable aspect of their business that they can pass onto their Heirs, is the copyright to their images. Imagine how much money Ansel Adams image reproductions rights generate for his family and the AA trust. How would you like it if after you pass on, your own business and it's assets, that you spent a liftime building, would not go to your children but instead could be carted away for free by anyone walking in off the street.

 

[mark]

Not to mention the fact that I can close my eyes and say "I can't find the author anywhere" and your image is mine to use how ever I want. SOunds like a bad thing to me. Makes sense to permanently stamp your images on the back, and to put a signature in the image area of your web reproductions.

 

[wilhelm]

Will, you don't seem to understand that there are people out there who make their living through the sale and reproduction of their images and that perhaps the only valuable aspect of their business that they can pass onto their Heirs, is the copyright to their images.

Oh, I understand that quite fully. In my view, there is no reason that anybody other than the artist him/herself (excepting the purely mechanical aspects of sales/brokering and distribution of work) needs to profit from the work of that artist. Just because, say, an ancestor of mine made some wonderful and very popular artwork fifty years ago means absolutely nothing to me today. Am I guaranteed by some law, natural or legislated, that I will benefit from the lives of my ancestors? No, I am not. In fact, nature would suggest the exact opposite: once the ancestor is dead, they're nothing more than rotting biomass.

OK, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the current copyright situation (life plus 75) is valid. Now why should we stop there? Why should the family lose copyright with the grandkids? Why shouldn't the great grandkids get to own that copyright as well? And after them, what about the great-great grandkids? What about the great-great-great grandkids?

Where do we stop? The logical conclusion to our thought experiment is: never.

Things that enter public domain during our lifetimes were created by people who died about 75 years ago. I feel assured that there are many works which will fade into obscurity before they enter public domain, and that's a net loss to all of humanity. The longer the delay before the public can enjoy the heritage of their culture, the less rich our cultural heritage actually is. And you know who loses? Everybody loses.

The Constitution specifies "for a limited time" when discussing copyrights. Things that are created today, unless the creator dies tomorrow and you're very young, you have no hope of seeing in the public domain. They do have a technical limit, but for purposes of the lifetime of a person, they're infinite, which goes against the spirit of what the founding fathers wrote.

Will

 

[Wayne]

I dont see how copyright prevents anyone from enjoying anything, other than the free use of something which isnt legally theirs. On the other hand, I can see where shorter copyrights would prevent people who create and their immediate heirs from enjoying full benefit of their hard work. Life plus 75 effectively gives the copyright to at least one subsequent generation to "enjoy" for their full lifetime. And why shouldnt they?

I'm curious, exactly what sorts of things, and what specific things, do you wish were in the public domain during your lifetime that arent going to be?

 

[Kino]

Will, you don't seem to understand that there are people out there who make their living through the sale and reproduction of their images and that perhaps the only valuable aspect of their business that they can pass onto their Heirs, is the copyright to their images. Imagine how much money Ansel Adams image reproductions rights generate for his family and the AA trust. How would you like it if after you pass on, your own business and it's assets, that you spent a liftime building, would not go to your children but instead could be carted away for free by anyone walking in off the street.

No, no, no, no... Although I can certainly understand the panic the first impression a very simplistic interpretation of this bill causes, it is much more complex than that.

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/copyrightb/orphanworks/orphanworks.htm

Read up and THEN see what you think.

This is an important bit of legislature that has been a long time coming for (among others) film archivists who want to preserve film titles that are still in copyright but the owner cannot be located after much searching. There are specific provisions that make the burden of proof that the author cannot be found, fall to the entity requesting the use. There is also a very specific path of recourse for the infringed-upon copyright holder to enact if they find someone using their copyrighted materials without a proper search.

I'm not saying it is perfect, but it has been well researched and much commentary has been made on and about it, so read up!

Frank W.

 

[Kino]

I dont see how copyright prevents anyone from enjoying anything, other than the free use of something which isnt legally theirs. On the other hand, I can see where shorter copyrights would prevent people who create and their immediate heirs from enjoying full benefit of their hard work. Life plus 75 effectively gives the copyright to at least one subsequent generation to "enjoy" for their full lifetime. And why shouldnt they?

I'm curious, exactly what sorts of things, and what specific things, do you wish were in the public domain during your lifetime that arent going to be?

This issue has been beaten to DEATH on other forums, but I guess we have to hash it out here again...

The intent of copyright is to give the author exclusive rights to exploit authored materials for a LIMITED time frame and then pass these works into the public domain for universal enrichment of the public. Don't care if anyone likes that concept or not, that's the law...

First of all, you have to understand that US Copyright law is not monolithic; your rights vary according to the time in which you authored your work(s).

I can't possibly write all required to answer your question, but here is a place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Frankly, the bulk of the early Disney material would be in the public domain has the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act failed to be passed.

When corporations start having special privileges on copyright public citizens cannot have, as is given in the SBCA, then we start down the slippery slope toward perpetual ownership of public discourse and "art space" by corporations.

I don't want to live in that World, do you?

 

[Dave Parker]

I don't remember when I went to school anything that I signed that said, I wished my work to slide into the public domain whether I am dead or alive, unless I have contracted with a company to do works for them, anything else I produce remains property of either myself or my estate, I could care less about the "public domain" if the public creates, then they own it, if I create it, I own it, if I create something tommorow that has broad appeal in 50 years, just as with any family, I fully expect my decendants to benefit from it, without having to worry if someone steals it from some website or other such digital capture means..if you disagree with the fact that the person creating the product has and continues to own the rights to it even after death, then by all means release your works to the public domain, but don't expect me to do the same, my photography is my work, just as Henry Fords cars were his work!

Dave

 

[wilhelm]

I'm curious, exactly what sorts of things, and what specific things, do you wish were in the public domain during your lifetime that arent going to be?

Right off the top of my head: recordings by Elvis Presley, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Miles Davis, just to name a few. Amazing innovators (dare I say geniuses?) in music, and they're all locked up until almost assuredly after I'll be worm food.

Imagine if Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner and Tchaikovsky were still under copyright. Would we even know about them?

To bring it a little closer home here on APUG, no reason Ansel Adams's work should be locked up, or Diane Arbus, or Robert Mapplethorpe, or Herb Ritts, or Harry Callahan, or Ezra Stoller, or ___________.

Will

 

[Dave Parker]

Right off the top of my head: recordings by Elvis Presley, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Miles Davis, just to name a few. Amazing innovators (dare I say geniuses?) in music, and they're all locked up until almost assuredly after I'll be worm food.

Imagine if Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner and Tchaikovsky were still under copyright. Would we even know about them?

To bring it a little closer home here on APUG, no reason Ansel Adams's work should be locked up, or Diane Arbus, or Robert Mapplethorpe, or Herb Ritts, or Harry Callahan, or Ezra Stoller, or ___________.

Will

So what your saying, is you want to be able to claim these greats life works for free and use them in the manner you deem fit?!!!

Talk about amazing..

Dave

 

[sanderx1]

The intent of copyright is to give the author exclusive rights to exploit authored materials for a LIMITED time frame and then pass these works into the public domain for universal enrichment of the public. Don't care if anyone likes that concept or not, that's the law...

Well, I'm not sure that is the intent of copyright. Why should some things I make with my hands stop being mine faster than some others only becuase I used a pen and not a chisel on the second? The whole "materials for a limited time" thing just applies to the US, a tiny corner of the planet. The Constitution gives me the right to authorship and copyright protection before it gives me religious freedom and other such minor things. Just because yours is written from a different POV doesn't make it any more universal.

Really, the Berne convention leaves way too much playing space for members that have much different ideas about copyrihght like the US.

 

[Kino]

I don't remember when I went to school anything that I signed that said, I wished my work to slide into the public domain whether I am dead or alive, unless I have contracted with a company to do works for them, anything else I produce remains property of either myself or my estate, I could care less about the "public domain" if the public creates, then they own it, if I create it, I own it, if I create something tommorow that has broad appeal in 50 years, just as with any family, I fully expect my decendants to benefit from it, without having to worry if someone steals it from some website or other such digital capture means..if you disagree with the fact that the person creating the product has and continues to own the rights to it even after death, then by all means release your works to the public domain, but don't expect me to do the same, my photography is my work, just as Henry Fords cars were his work!
Dave

Ok this burns my butt..

If you want to live in a World where every possible image can be copyrighted forever, then deny anyone the right to photograph a mountain or bridge or river from the same vantage, or near same vantage point, forever, then you are welcome to it, but I certainly will fight you with arms if need be before I allow it to happen.

If the law were as draconian as you would have them be, then I could very easily make a case that almost all photographs you have ever taken in your entire life do infringe upon someone else's work and your works should be destroyed.

Who the heck ever asked you to sign an agreement that you liked any law? Somehow I don't think Copyright law was part of any school curriculum outside of law school and what the heck does that have to do with anything? You signed on the dotted line when you were born in to this country because it is a law and you are a citizen.

If that makes you mad, then you need to talk to your legislators, because they sold you out on the Sony Bony Copyright Extension Act; they gave corporations special privileges, but shortened personal rights when they had the ability and power to extend both; that should tell you what they think about your rights...

As it stands now, when your rights lapse, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, regardless of your opinion. People will be legally able to take your images, reproduce them and sell them. Your argument will get you about 2 inches inside a courtroom before the judge throws you out on your ear.

Sorry, its just the facts...

Now, if you want to incorporate, you COULD take advantage of the extensions afforded corporations, but that might be expensive in the long run.

Yeah, there are many laws I don't like, but willing them out of existence doesn't work. Also, you need to think through the implications of what you want; you might not like the results of what you wish.

OK, flame suit on...

 

[Kino]

Well, I'm not sure that is the intent of copyright. Why should some things I make with my hands stop being mine faster than some others only becuase I used a pen and not a chisel on the second? The whole "materials for a limited time" thing just applies to the US, a tiny corner of the planet. The Constitution gives me the right to authorship and copyright protection before it gives me religious freedom and other such minor things. Just because yours is written from a different POV doesn't make it any more universal.

Really, the Berne convention leaves way too much playing space for members that have much different ideas about copyrihght like the US.

Well, how about this for US Copyright Intent:

http://www.calpoly.edu/~cschefti/Talks/IPRW/intent.html

and more in depth:

http://www.calpoly.edu/~cschefti/Talks/IPRW/credits.html

Several lifetimes worth of reading there...

True, when you discuss copyright on an open board like this, it invariably degenerates into chaos because the copyright laws are not uniform around the World.

I was speaking strictly of US Copyright laws and how they apply to US citizens; as such I cannot comment on other countries or how your rights vary in the US and really don't care to, because ours are so complex as to be insane anyway.

 

[sanderx1]

I was speaking strictly of US Copyright laws and how they apply to US citizens; as such I cannot comment on other countries or how your rights vary in the US and really don't care to, because ours are so complex as to be insane anyway.

Essentialy, as far as US is party to Berne, it has to offer the same protections to work produced in / by persons from other Berne signatories as it offers to works by its own citizens. Unfortunately it is not banned from extending total rip-off clauses it applies on the works of its own citizens to those of others. At least as long as the results stay within the US.

The same applies to other Berne signatories.

 

[df cardwell]

Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree, the copyright laws in the US have gone so far away from their original intent, it's ridiculous. Works basically never go into public domain anymore - OK, it's lifetime of the creator plus 75 years, which might as well be infinite for purposes of something created today. I see this as a possibility for some of that ridiculousness to be reversed. Once copyright gets back to lifetime of the creator, we'll be getting somewhere.

Will

Will

Pretend for a moment you made your living with your camera. Your copyright is your ONLY lever. You, with respect, have no clue.

.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Right off the top of my head: recordings by Elvis Presley, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Miles Davis, just to name a few. Amazing innovators (dare I say geniuses?) in music, and they're all locked up until almost assuredly after I'll be worm food.

Imagine if Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner and Tchaikovsky were still under copyright. Would we even know about them?

To bring it a little closer home here on APUG, no reason Ansel Adams's work should be locked up, or Diane Arbus, or Robert Mapplethorpe, or Herb Ritts, or Harry Callahan, or Ezra Stoller, or ___________.
Will

You seem to know about them, so I suppose copyrighting doesn't result in a lack of awareness, perhaps only rip off.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think there's some major confusion of what copyright means going on here. If the works of Mozart or Beethoven were still under copyright to their heirs, those works would not have disappeared - just that 25 cents of every Beethoven CD sold would be going to the Beethoven family, and that if you wanted to re-record Beethoven's 9th, you'd have to pay the Beethoven family a licensing fee. So CDs would cost $15.25 instead of $15. Whoop-de-doo. And if you pissed off the Beethoven family, you wouldn't be able to re-record the 9th, no matter how much cash you tossed their direction.

Within Copyright law there exist several reasonable use clauses that allow for "infringements" otherwise excluded. You can, for editorial purposes, depict copyrighted material (such as the Coca Cola logo) even if it leads to an unflattering association. You can incorporate existing works into new works so long as you can demonstrate that the incorporation was a subordinate part of the new work, and not the substance of the new work, and that the purpose of the incorporation was to comment on or otherwise respond or react to the original work (Satire being a prime example).

 

[Dave Parker]

Ok this burns my butt..

If you want to live in a World where every possible image can be copyrighted forever, then deny anyone the right to photograph a mountain or bridge or river from the same vantage, or near same vantage point, forever, then you are welcome to it, but I certainly will fight you with arms if need be before I allow it to happen.

If the law were as draconian as you would have them be, then I could very easily make a case that almost all photographs you have ever taken in your entire life do infringe upon someone else's work and your works should be destroyed.

Who the heck ever asked you to sign an agreement that you liked any law? Somehow I don't think Copyright law was part of any school curriculum outside of law school and what the heck does that have to do with anything? You signed on the dotted line when you were born in to this country because it is a law and you are a citizen.

If that makes you mad, then you need to talk to your legislators, because they sold you out on the Sony Bony Copyright Extension Act; they gave corporations special privileges, but shortened personal rights when they had the ability and power to extend both; that should tell you what they think about your rights...

As it stands now, when your rights lapse, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, regardless of your opinion. People will be legally able to take your images, reproduce them and sell them. Your argument will get you about 2 inches inside a courtroom before the judge throws you out on your ear.

Sorry, its just the facts...

Now, if you want to incorporate, you COULD take advantage of the extensions afforded corporations, but that might be expensive in the long run.

Yeah, there are many laws I don't like, but willing them out of existence doesn't work. Also, you need to think through the implications of what you want; you might not like the results of what you wish.

OK, flame suit on...

Sorry your butt is burned Kino..

I was making a broad reaching statment as was another in this thread...

By the way, I do happen to be incorporated and have been for many years now, in fact in the photography business, I have three corporations.

We are not talking about locations being copyrighted, we are talking about the image I take being copyrighted, pretty easy, just cause Ansel took a picture of half dome, don't mean I can't take a picture at the same location...but it is still not the picture Ansel took, now is it...

If you don't like my expansive comment, then don't read it, now if it makes you feel better to direct your flames at me, then so be it

Have fun, get out and take pictures, and put your butt in a cooler place..

LOL

Dave

 

[Kino]

I guess the point I would like to make for US based photographers is that you can protect your works for extended periods of time if you register your works properly and plan your estate properly, but it will have to be treated like a business expense and is not something that will be free or cheap (unless you just happen to be a copyright lawyer who is a pro photographer) or easy.

The legislation introduced is NOT intended to displace your normal rights; those are still in place BUT they are up to you to invoke.

If want your images treated as intellectual property, then you have to treat them as such yourself and invest time, money and energy to exploit and protect their intrinsic value, otherwise why should the State run around behind you and pick up your dirty laundry?

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Is there a difference between copyrighting a negative and am image? What I mean when you make a print from an 'old' negative is the copyright inherent to the 'new' print?

 

[Dave Parker]

If want your images treated as intellectual property, then you have to treat them as such yourself and invest time, money and energy to exploit and protect their intrinsic value, otherwise why should the State run around behind you and pick up your dirty laundry?

I have no desire to have the State run about behind me, picking up my dirty laundry, but I also don't expect them to run around throwing the mud to make the laundry dirty. I have invested the money to ensure my intellectual properties, and will continue to fight tooth and nail to make sure they stay in place!

Dave

 

[Nige]

once upon a time we could say "only in America" in response to things like this, sadly these things infiltrate our society as we copy so much of American life...

 

[Kino]

Sorry your butt is burned Kino..

I was making a broad reaching statment as was another in this thread...

By the way, I do happen to be incorporated and have been for many years now, in fact in the photography business, I have three corporations.

We are not talking about locations being copyrighted, we are talking about the image I take being copyrighted, pretty easy, just cause Ansel took a picture of half dome, don't mean I can't take a picture at the same location...but it is still not the picture Ansel took, now is it...

If you don't like my expansive comment, then don't read it, now if it makes you feel better to direct your flames at me, then so be it

Have fun, get out and take pictures, and put your butt in a cooler place..

LOL

Dave

Dave,

OK, I sat in snowbank and I am better... ;-) I don't know why this stuff gets my goat...

No, I know that locations can't be copyrighted, but infringement can be interpreted to include artistic intent, which then can be construed to include the subject, angle, time of day, etc., so in a round-about way, location CAN be copyrighted. If Adams wanted to go after everyone who took a photo of half dome from a vantage point even remotely similar, he could have done so; he would have been insane, but he could have done so and might have won in some instances.

IMHO, the concept of a well regulated body of art and literature in the public domain is important to a democratic society.

Why do people find that threatening?