Your Copyright may be "orphaned" - act now

[RAP]

Sounds like something the stock photo houses would love to see go through! Imagine all the millions of images in their files that will survive the photographer's who produced them and the millions or billions of potential revenues those images can generate after the photographer is dead that the stock house do not have to pay out.

Also, how does this reflect on the royalty free images on cd's? You just pay one fee and can use the images as many times as you want? Technically you are not supposed to pass them on to others, but whose to police millions on millions of images circulating?

Just think of all those images that Google, Yahoo, and all the other search engines are indexing? These guys are making millions off all those images because the can base there advertising rates on the number of hits and views their search engines generate.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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?

Here in the US, the copyright clock starts ticking the moment you click the shutter. The only way an "Image" would have a new copyright date would be if you incorporated it in whole or in part into an entirely new work. Just reprinting an image at a different contrast grade, or adjusting the burning and dodging, would not automatically make it a "new" image. Now, if you solarized an image, and sepia-toned it, when you had previously made a "straight" print of it, that could in theory be considered a "new" work, and carry a different copyright date. It's sort of irrelevant since copyright law in the US is now life of the artist plus seventy-five years. The copyright date is more important for administrative and archival purposes than it is for determining when copyright expires. It is very important of course, for determining when an infringement occurs if it is actionable or not.

 

[df cardwell]

The hot issue, to this minor photographer and self employed person, is that as it sits today, one is entitled to only as much copyright protection as one can defend in court. One gets the Law one can Afford.

The LAW says one thing, but if a client wants to take your image, the client can.

YOU have to fight to get it back. If a opportunist 'artist' wants to take an image you made this morning, and 'appropriates' it, you have the right to FIGHT IT OUT for compensation. It is ONLY the threat that MIGHT defend their rights that keep criminal behaviour at bay. Not to mention, having the rights taken by another, like a patent thief.

We're not talking freeloading photographers seeking entitlements. It's simply the business of putting food on the table next week. The movie business is a little different ... if two commercial still photographers get together and agree what they will each charge a client, that is COLLUSION in this country, even if the client owns every media outlet in the state and can determine what each editor will pay in the name of a free and open market. That's right, photographers are not allowed to set rates. Fat lot of good that would do anyhow.

Consider that invoking Beethoven and the cost of a CD is a bit of a snowjob.

If YOU think that if you drag your 8x10 out into the prairie, make that once in a lifetime shot and instead of getting paid for the magazine cover you so richly earned, you find that International Outdoor Pictures is running it everywhere, making tons with it for advertising, and is suing you to get it off your website.... don't come crying to me. And good luck getting paid.

.

 

[Dave Parker]

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?

Kino,

In actuallity, I have no problem with public domain, I do have a problem with being forced to to put my stuff in public domain, the only person who should make that choice is the artist or the artists designated envoy, I do agree, that there are a great many things that we would have missed without the public domain, but that should be the choice of the people involved and not a legislative body, who has no undestanding, lets face it, if your like me, 90% of the pictures I take, are not worthy of sale, but could be worthy of publication, but that should be my choice and not the choice of someone else who claims to have tried to contact me and "says" they can't find me, that is just to much latitude in my opinion, if something that I take belongs in the public domain, then it should be my choice..

Dave

 

[tim atherton]

You can, for editorial purposes, depict copyrighted material (such as the Coca Cola logo) even if it leads to an unflattering association.

Possibly not so in the near future - see the earlier thread on Trademark Defamation legislation

 

[Kino]

Again, you need to read the legislation and not rely on second-hand interpretations; you just don't throw up your hands and say," Oh I tried" because it has very specific protections for people who use it as an umbrella to steal.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Here in the US, the copyright clock starts ticking the moment you click the shutter. The only way an "Image" would have a new copyright date would be if you incorporated it in whole or in part into an entirely new work. Just reprinting an image at a different contrast grade, or adjusting the burning and dodging, would not automatically make it a "new" image. Now, if you solarized an image, and sepia-toned it, when you had previously made a "straight" print of it, that could in theory be considered a "new" work, and carry a different copyright date. It's sort of irrelevant since copyright law in the US is now life of the artist plus seventy-five years. The copyright date is more important for administrative and archival purposes than it is for determining when copyright expires. It is very important of course, for determining when an infringement occurs if it is actionable or not.

Thank you.

 

[wilhelm]

Pretend for a moment you made your living with your camera. Your copyright is your ONLY lever.

OK, this new wrinkle in the copyright process doesn't add much; copyrights are there, whether anybody likes it or not. Without having read the actual text of this (proposed?) change to the rules, it's likely that a copyright holder would still have the option of suing the copyright violator. Which is all that copyrights, patents, and trademarks do anyway - gives a person or company the legal standing to sue people.

Pretending aside, I was complaining about what happens after the creator of the work (i.e. the one making his/her living with copyrighted material) is dead.

Will

 

[wilhelm]

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?!!!

Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints? None. How about if I wanted to listen to some Elvis recordings that I didn't pay for. I don't think The King would get too upset.

If you look again, every single person I listed is dead. Remember the old adage about "you can't take it with you"?

Will

 

[Kino]

(Again, only speaking about US Copyrights) With the proper precautions, your decedents CAN continue to benefit from your work for at least 50 years beyond your death, but the concept of public domain remains yet a valid force in US Law.

And, after a brief time-out, I have to apologize publicly to SatinSnow for the broadside I delivered on his post. Regardless of my beliefs, I should be able to present a counter-argument in a more mature fashion and I let my emotions rule my hand.

I'd like to blame it on the weather or whatever but I cannot.

My apologies to SatinSnow and everyone upset by my outburst.

 

[tim atherton]

Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints? None. How about if I wanted to listen to some Elvis recordings that I didn't pay for. I don't think The King would get too upset.

If you look again, every single person I listed is dead. Remember the old adage about "you can't take it with you"?

Will

SO, lets take an example. You spend your working career building up a small business - say a hardware store or a small book -keeping/accounting business or a mechanics shop. When you retire you pass it on to your children. But a couple of years after you hand over the business you die. That day, anyone who is passing and who feels like it can just come in and take anything they want - empty the shelves and the cash register. Move into the building - whatever.

That is what you are suggesting. (and remember, in the case above, if the business kept running, it could be passed on to your grandchildren - or sold off and the money shared out - as a photographer/creator, you basically can't even do that)

You do know that Communism lost when the wall came down don't you...?

 

[Nige]

and in Tim's example, the 'business' might be the most valuable part. Stock gets transfered at cost (probably stuff anyone can buy themselves) but you pay for the 'good will' to be able to run the store under that name, etc

 

[WarEaglemtn]

"Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree,"

This is not alarmist. The proposed legislation is a threat to those of us who want control of who uses our work, where it is used and how. No matter how much there are businesses I would NEVER lease image use to. If this passes I would have no control, only the fees owed to an attorney after the fact in trying to enforce my copyright.

A 'fair price' for the use of the image? Another one I would have to hire an attorney to argue if they didn't agree to what I asked. If they have to ask first then we can negotiate... we agree or they don't use the image, as it is now. If this passes they use the image & then we negotiate... or they don't negotiate and once again I make a lawyer rich. Or, we are far apart on the cost for the image. They have already used it and I am stuck.

Image value is not set. Some images get used for $100-500 or so while the same image for another use is $100,000 or even more. An image used in a major publication without permission though after a cursory search and 'we don't know who shot it' and I am once again negotiating from weakness.

Then we have those images that many of us have with model releases with written restrictions. The cursory search doesn't turn up the photographer, BUT... he is liable to the model, rep, agency & company that paid for it. Now we are in the middle and lose all around.

Bad law, bad idea and a pox on any legislator who votes for this abortion in print.

 

[Dave Parker]

Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints? None. How about if I wanted to listen to some Elvis recordings that I didn't pay for. I don't think The King would get too upset.

If you look again, every single person I listed is dead. Remember the old adage about "you can't take it with you"?

Will

I am aware that every single one of these people are dead Will, but that should void their lifes work?

I may not be able to take it with me, but that still does not nullify the value of the work, or does it?

Dave

 

[Dave Parker]

(Again, only speaking about US Copyrights) With the proper precautions, your decedents CAN continue to benefit from your work for at least 50 years beyond your death, but the concept of public domain remains yet a valid force in US Law.

And, after a brief time-out, I have to apologize publicly to SatinSnow for the broadside I delivered on his post. Regardless of my beliefs, I should be able to present a counter-argument in a more mature fashion and I let my emotions rule my hand.

I'd like to blame it on the weather or whatever but I cannot.

My apologies to SatinSnow and everyone upset by my outburst.

Kino,

No worries here, I came across a bit strong also, no need to apologize, we are both passionate about what we believe in..this is an issue that gets alot of us going on each side.

again, no worries, and if I came across wrong, I apologize to you as well.

Dave

 

[Kino]

(snip)Bad law, bad idea and a pox on any legislator who votes for this abortion in print.

I'd be the last one to say that a law can't be abused; it can and probably will be abused in some fashion, just as many laws of our nation are currently being abused right now by US leadership in Washington (regardless of party).

But if this law is NOT the way to go for truly orphaned works, what does everyone suggest?

Now, theoretically, let's say we get a copyright law that states that your rights last forever and are unimpeachable.

You shoot a series of photographs of a major weather disaster that wrecks your State. Your heirs own the rights to the work for a hundred years and exploit it for ever diminishing profits as the event recedes into history. One day, a descendent of yours who holds the rights destroys all the negatives, prints and digital files they possess of the series because they don't want to be bothered with them, however a small group of these negatives get mistakenly left at an image bureau for 70 years, forgotten and unclaimed. The owner of the bureau dies and wills his remaining holdings to a major university archive.

20 years pass and that relative dies and the estate is dissolved with no one purchasing the rights to seemingly non-existent negatives, prints or digital files. OK, now someone finds and indentifies the images in that University archive and wants to use them because they are the sole surviving documentation of this historical disaster and the archive administration, which does dilligent research and finds that the rights were never reassigned is confronted with a the situation of having unique historical documents that should be destroyed by law.

Would you rather the archive destroy the images or have a mechanism to legally preserve and use them?

Now, if you think that is a far-out scenario that would only happen in a million years, you would be wrong; very, very wrong.

Similar situations happen all the time, but with work within the scope of rights of current copyright law.

Should an archive let the last copy of any work rot if they cannot contact the author or copyright holder?

Would you rather have it turn to dust than be preserved without your permission?

Should someone be denied use of any images if they don't have iron-clad permission to use them?

 

[bill schwab]

Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints?... blah, blah, blah...

I will repeat what Don said. You haven't a clue. Your argument is pretty lame as well. You can listen to a copy of Elvis recordings right now without paying. Ever borrow a CD? Check music out of a library? Record something off the radio for personal use? Tape a TV show to watch later? Etc., etc. You can even make a crappy reproduction of an Ansel Adams print to hang on your wall if your taste is that bad. Copyright doesn't stop you from enjoying the works, it stops you from making money off something you did nothing to create or for which you did not pay.

Bill

 

[removed account4]

Here in the US, the copyright clock starts ticking the moment you click the shutter. The only way an "Image" would have a new copyright date would be if you incorporated it in whole or in part into an entirely new work. Just reprinting an image at a different contrast grade, or adjusting the burning and dodging, would not automatically make it a "new" image. Now, if you solarized an image, and sepia-toned it, when you had previously made a "straight" print of it, that could in theory be considered a "new" work, and carry a different copyright date. It's sort of irrelevant since copyright law in the US is now life of the artist plus seventy-five years. The copyright date is more important for administrative and archival purposes than it is for determining when copyright expires. It is very important of course, for determining when an infringement occurs if it is actionable or not.

while the image is copyrighted as soon as the shutter clicks, if someone harvests it and uses it without your consent, your ownership/rights are not proved in court unless you *register* the image/s with the copyright office.

lawyers will not assist someone without the certificate of registration (received once the image is registered in washington dc.) courts won't even hear a case even though you may have original negatives, prints, digital files &C, it don't matter --- the paper stating it is yours is the only thing that will get you in a courtroom.

i called my senators & congressmen today, i urge you all to do the same to voice your concerns regarding this bill. the asmp site has a form letter you can fax as well...

- john

 

[Kino]

while the image is copyrighted as soon as the shutter clicks, if someone harvests it and uses it without your consent, your ownership/rights are not proved in court unless you *register* the image/s with the copyright office.

lawyers will not assist someone without the certificate of registration (received once the image is registered in washington dc.) courts won't even hear a case even though you may have original negatives, prints, digital files &C, it don't matter --- the paper stating it is yours is the only thing that will get you in a courtroom.

(snip)
- john

That is simply not true; in the age of the Internet, I don't understand why easily accessed information is passed over for conjecture. That was a prior version of copyright law that was revamped in 1978 in the USA.

Please go to:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

and read. It is all there, straight from the horse's mouth...

 

[Wayne]

I love this idea that an artist's work should become public domain upon their death. If it were, Elvis, Stevie, and Ansel would have had to wear bullet-proof vests. What a silly idea, one that would never be advanced by anyone who actually holds copyright of anything of potential value.

It sounds like the law has good intentions behind it (maybe), but I dont like the smell of anything this Congress has its paws on.

 

[removed account4]

That is simply not true; in the age of the Internet, I don't understand why easily accessed information is passed over for conjecture. That was a prior version of copyright law that was revamped in 1978 in the USA.

Please go to:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

and read. It is all there, straight from the horse's mouth...

actually kino, it is true ...

registration is cheep -it is the best 30$ you will ever spend.
unless you try to enforce your copyright, you won't know the BS you will
have to deal with if you do not have a registration and you *try* to go to court.

try to hire a lawyer, you won't find one one -- contact asmp, they will tell you the same thing - register, or you will be sorry down the road ...

been there, done that ( and almost lot my shirt!)

 

[Kino]

actually kino, it is true ...

registration is cheep -it is the best 30$ you will ever spend.
unless you try to enforce your copyright, you won't know the BS you will
have to deal with if you do not have a registration and you *try* to go to court.

try to hire a lawyer, you won't find one one -- contact asmp, they will tell you the same thing - register, or you will be sorry down the road ...

I don't doubt that is the advice the lawyers give, (heck, I say that too) but the law is supposed to allow you to self publish and maintain copyright without formally applying; that is supposed to be a "great-leveler" so that the common man can avoid being trod upon by larger interests.

Too bad most lawyers are too cynical to attempt to uphold the law and it is simply too expensive to pursue that tact; it shouldn't be that way.

 

[Early Riser]

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

Will let's say that your worst case scenario, that copyright would stay within the heirs or inheritors of the artist who created the work for perpituity, became reality. Where is the damage or harm to society? Because the artist dies that means it's ok for a bunch of strangers, vultures, to pick at his life work and make money off of his efforts? The copyright just keeps other people from making money off of it. If you created a substantial business wouldn't you want to be able to pass that business on to your kids, grand kids, etc? Will when you die can we all come to your home and take all of your possessions? From what you write certainly you wouldn't want your kids to have any of them.


As for your statement of "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." That's just ludicrous. The artists heirs will license the work if there is a demand for it. The public if it wants will still be able to see it. If the work is good it'll be in galleries and museums. And if there isn't someone there to license it then there are other problems. What if you decide to take a print of mine and invest your own money into producing 100,000 posters of it for sale, what happens to your investment if 50 other people do exactly the same thing?

You can pass your car or your baseball card collection, etc. down to your kids, grandkids, great grand kids etc. Why shouldn't I be able to pass on my life's work?

As for the proposed legislation which was the topic of this thread, I have already faxed out 20 letters to Congress and Senate stating my opposition to it.

 

[removed account4]

I don't doubt that is the advice the lawyers give, (heck, I say that too) but the law is supposed to allow you to self publish and maintain copyright without formally applying; that is supposed to be a "great-leveler" so that the common man can avoid being trod upon by larger interests.

Too bad most lawyers are too cynical to attempt to uphold the law and it is simply too expensive to pursue that tact; it shouldn't be that way.

if you want a "poorman's copyright" you can always send duplicate images to yourself in date stamped ( barrel stamp ) envelope, and never open the envelope. that is acceptable in court as a valid copyright, and it costs as much as the postage you put on it.

i agree, it is a sad state of affairs.

-john

 

[Kino]

Sounds like something the stock photo houses would love to see go through! Imagine all the millions of images in their files that will survive the photographer's who produced them and the millions or billions of potential revenues those images can generate after the photographer is dead that the stock house do not have to pay out.(snip)

It doesn't change the underlying copyright law; in the US you still would get the term of the artist's life + 75 years. I

Nothing in the proposed law would change the current terms of a copyrighted image.