It is becoming harder and harder for photographers to survive without putting their work on the web. It should be assumed that any image is copyrighted, unless the photographer clearly states otherwise, rather than the onus being on proving your ownership. There are certain situations where use of images should be sanctioned even if copyright cannot be proven (eg after passage of time and proof is hard to ascertain and the use is in the public interest) but this fairly uncommon instance is being used on a general level to erode the rights and livelihood of all photographers.
Your Copyright may be "orphaned" - act now
-
- Thread starter tim atherton
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
Forum statistics
It needn't be assumed. It's true...it's the law...so far. You can't uncopyright an image before the copyright expires, you can only sell, lease or otherwise assign rights. Keep in mind, the photographer isn't always the original owner of the copyright if the image is produced as work for hire.
And I do believe my comments have been lifted out of the context and course of discourse of the thread from which I was arguing, which is disingenuous at best... (and, my apologies, as this is an International forum, but I am arguing US Copyright as I know it so YMMV).
You should at least acknowledge that this was from very early on in the argument thread and taken out of context.
I do so resent being a straw man.
Above, I was objecting to the "never ending copyright" argument when someone attacked the concept of "public domain". PD has been an underlying basis of our copyright system since day-one and I absolutely reject the concept of "forever copyright" and the imperial implications it puts forth. This has its origins in English Common Law and, as it is my understanding, it was designed so that no one family or group of royalty could own every aspect of your life without end.
Sony Bono, who pimped for the Disney Corporation by fooling with the copyright laws, hoping to make their profit making machine both eternal and equivalent of a socialist tit on the capitalist pig.
The entertainment corporations already feel they have a right to an eternal subsidy from the People of the United States and have been making head-runs at legislation that would guarantee this for YEARS now.
If you think you have problems now, add permanent copyright to your woes and corporations will own your asses, forever. Period.
As for the dirty laundry remark, that was in direct response to the implication that a professional photographer, someone who's life blood is made by crafting images, should somehow bank their entire intellectual property rights sphere on published, but not formally registered, images.
While technically not required under the law, if you make your living this way, I think it the height of foolishness NOT to formally register your images to protect your livelihood.
I don't register my images because I DON'T MAKE MY LIVING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER; if I did, I would formally register.
Back to the argument at hand...
While this legislation works its way through Congress and the Senate, I find less and less to like about it, the potential for intentional abuse being the worst aspect of the bill and I have always said that any law can be misused.
But I think your argument, Don (and I do say this with the greatest respect) is highly and deeply flawed in that you do not address the ROOT of the problem here; the political will of the party in power to enforce the EXISTING laws in means faithful to the intent of the law.
We can sit here and argue how many angels can dance on the head of pin, if this law is good or bad, but if the current government administration refuses to appoint civil servants and law enforcement administrators who will do their sworn duty, it matters not.
Just as your stated problems won't go away with this bill being passed, the very problems it is supposed to be addressing probably won't go away either because the fox put in charge of the hen house will allow the feared abuses.
Business as usual.
We get the government we deserve.
Jsgtraw unsubstantiated leap and implication that I don't understand "published" vs "registered. Go back and read the thread.
You should at least acknowledge that this was from very early on in the argument thread and taken out of context.
I do so resent being a straw man.
Above, I was objecting to the "never ending copyright" argument when someone attacked the concept of "public domain". PD has been an underlying basis of our copyright system since day-one and I absolutely reject the concept of "forever copyright" and the imperial implications it puts forth. This has its origins in English Common Law and, as it is my understanding, it was designed so that no one family or group of royalty could own every aspect of your life without end.
Sony Bono, who pimped for the Disney Corporation by fooling with the copyright laws, hoping to make their profit making machine both eternal and equivalent of a socialist tit on the capitalist pig.
The entertainment corporations already feel they have a right to an eternal subsidy from the People of the United States and have been making head-runs at legislation that would guarantee this for YEARS now.
If you think you have problems now, add permanent copyright to your woes and corporations will own your asses, forever. Period.
As for the dirty laundry remark, that was in direct response to the implication that a professional photographer, someone who's life blood is made by crafting images, should somehow bank their entire intellectual property rights sphere on published, but not formally registered, images.
While technically not required under the law, if you make your living this way, I think it the height of foolishness NOT to formally register your images to protect your livelihood.
I don't register my images because I DON'T MAKE MY LIVING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER; if I did, I would formally register.
Back to the argument at hand...
While this legislation works its way through Congress and the Senate, I find less and less to like about it, the potential for intentional abuse being the worst aspect of the bill and I have always said that any law can be misused.
But I think your argument, Don (and I do say this with the greatest respect) is highly and deeply flawed in that you do not address the ROOT of the problem here; the political will of the party in power to enforce the EXISTING laws in means faithful to the intent of the law.
We can sit here and argue how many angels can dance on the head of pin, if this law is good or bad, but if the current government administration refuses to appoint civil servants and law enforcement administrators who will do their sworn duty, it matters not.
Just as your stated problems won't go away with this bill being passed, the very problems it is supposed to be addressing probably won't go away either because the fox put in charge of the hen house will allow the feared abuses.
Business as usual.
We get the government we deserve.
Jsgtraw unsubstantiated leap and implication that I don't understand "published" vs "registered. Go back and read the thread.
And your quote is a great example of confusing law with enforcement...
The law is clear, if the above happens, you have been infringed and have rights (or should have).
Enforcement is a function of the elected party in the United States; clearly the Bush administration does not care one whit about the rights of anyone beyond the corporate level.
As to the Orphan Issue, I do think I have some clue as to the problem.
Kino
I didn't intend to transform you into a straw man, many apologies.
AS FOR the political issues, well, a PM is on its way.
All else, thanks for joining in.
don
I didn't intend to transform you into a straw man, many apologies.
AS FOR the political issues, well, a PM is on its way.
All else, thanks for joining in.
don
I was neither speaking in response to or in reference to anything you posted. I didn't even use the word "published."
My apologies to Don, its very hot and muggy and I am a cranky old fart.
I still stand for what I say, but wish I had said it better and without rancor toward anyone.
Also to Jstraw; my wrong leap to conclusions. Sorry.
I need to save my venom for my congressman, senator and other elected officials...
I still stand for what I say, but wish I had said it better and without rancor toward anyone.
Also to Jstraw; my wrong leap to conclusions. Sorry.
I need to save my venom for my congressman, senator and other elected officials...
Have some cold beer. Here's something nice from our Atwater Block Brewery,
a nice Kolsch style called D'lite. Snobs drink it from the skinny glasses,
but pouring it over one's head works in a crisis.
a nice Kolsch style called D'lite. Snobs drink it from the skinny glasses,
but pouring it over one's head works in a crisis.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |