The Orphans Works Act 2008......??

[Lovetullys]

I wan't sure where to put this so I hope this is ok.......

Have any of you heard about this bill going in ?? I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but I think it means that copyrights pretty much mean nothing unless you jump threw ten thousand hoops :?

Since I don't think I could copy the whole bill here, I'll add the link that was sent to me........ Scroll down some for the bill....

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?bill=11320236&size=full

[sacstoy02gt]

Great time to write your congresscritters....well, last action on that bill was May 7, '08....


edit....some current info:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/10/orphan04.html

[Calnumismatist]

The bill was "hotlined" and will soon be law if and when it passes the House of Reps. It will get buried among thousands of other bills when it goes before the President.

Here is another Article (http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/09/orphan03.html)

[traveler36]

So I'm assuming anyone can log onto Photozo, go into the gallery and just go shopping? What do we do as dedicated amateurs, pros and hobbyists, empty our galleries and just talk about the photos we've taken and let our imaginations do the rest? This is another example of the lying weasels that manage to baffle us with BS to get into our governments. It really is true...we have the best government money can buy.

[Lovetullys]

That seems to be how it is :(

[Skippy]

What scares me, is there are bills like this being passed all the time and we don't hear about them until after the fact. Is greed or power hunger that drives Google and Microsoft?

I don't sell my pictures, but it sounds like this bill could cause some of you problems down the road. And should by some lucky lighting strike that I had one stolen, it would upset me a lot. We are getting closer and closer to the old movie, 1984.

Skippy

[Lovetullys]

What scares me, is there are bills like this being passed all the time and we don't hear about them until after the fact. Is greed or power hunger that drives Google and Microsoft?

I don't sell my pictures, but it sounds like this bill could cause some of you problems down the road. And should by some lucky lighting strike that I had one stolen, it would upset me a lot. We are getting closer and closer to the old movie, 1984.

Skippy

Closer by the day !!

[JimL]

I have written my congressman expressing opposition to the pending bill.
I pointed out that sales of my photos in another state by orphan users would deprive Kentucky of both sales and income taxes. The same is true of federal taxes as unlicensed photo will sell for lower rates by the unauthorized user who will in turn pay lower taxes on the diminished amounts.
JimL

[Tbel]

I should be amazed (but sadly I’m not) that The Govt. will go through so much trouble to impose DRM for music Legally purchased (to the point where If the company you purchased it from goes out of business your out of luck). Yet they won't protect any of us from dishonest individuals. Even making it easier to steal original works. :evil: :twisted:

[Calnumismatist]

What scares me, is there are bills like this being passed all the time and we don't hear about them until after the fact.


Oh if you only knew. In my last profession I testified in front of legislators quite a few times and tried to stop a few bills. Early this year a stupid bill (four paragraphs) was passed that was among 21,000 pages sent to the President for his signature.

These types of things happen way too often and most Americans have absolutely no clue what gets passed.

[steffies]

First, everyone should copyright their work. That way you're protected. And second, there's not a "thousand hoops." It's fairly easy and not very costly. It can be done online, but more images can be sent in on a DVD for the same amount of money.

[Lovetullys]

The copyright isn't the problem, it's loosening the laws which makes it easier for people to use copyrighted work with an "I didn't know" excuse and I tried to find the photographer...........

[Capt Rick]

This is the way I feel about it..........Our government SUCKS!!!!

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f68/RickHiott/uncle-samcopy.jpg

[steffies]

The copyright isn't the problem, it's loosening the laws which makes it easier for people to use copyrighted work with an "I didn't know" excuse and I tried to find the photographer...........

And it makes it easier for us to sue those people and get money from them (from the way my senator explained it to me) Any time we post images online we're taking a risk. The easiest way to avoid that is to not post anything you care about, online. Regardless of the Orphan law people still steal your work and simply posting © on it really does nothing.

[Lovetullys]

Sorry Steffi I think your senator told you what you wanted to hear. This bill will not help the original artist. It will protect the person that steals the works. Sure you can try to sue, but the way the law is written the protection goes to the other person with the ignorance excuse, I didn't know...yadayada...........

[Skippy]

Steffie, I think Kathy is right. In following some of the links above, I found this written in Aug. this year.


Under copyright law, if publishers wish to use

others’ creative works, they must obtain licenses

for those uses. Current copyright law provides severe

financial penalties for copyright violations,

available only after the copyright holder registers

the image with the US Copyright Office and sues

in federal court. Photographers face huge expenses

in bringing cases to federal court, but the

costs can be recovered if the photographer has

registered the image properly and wins the case.

Under proposed orphan works legislation, infringers

who fail to license creative works because

they couldn’t find the copyright holders would not

be liable for punitive damages or attorneys’ fees,

but only for the actual costs of licensing the images.

This is the heart of orphan works – it would

give the user “peace of mind” that they would not

face stiff penalties.


I believe that it is right, along with some other disturbing things. Back a few weeks ago, Brad told his story of one of his picture's lifted from the a website. With the punitive and legal fees lifted, Brad would probably would have gotten nothing. He would not even be able to get a lawyer to take it on for fees, like some lawyers would do.

What I don't understand is why there is a need to mess with the copyright laws anyway. There are only a handful of images that cannot be interchanged with another. The one that instantly comes to mind is the picture taken at the time of OK bombing. The fireman walking away from the damage with the child in his arms. If it were mine, I wouldn't necessarily want money for it, but at least recognition. Had that been e-mailed to a friend who then sent it everywhere, it could be very hard to track the owner, but it should be done.

Off my soapbox.

Here is a link to the two page article that the quote is from. It also brings up possible international violations to treaties we have already agreed too.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/09/images/orphan_works_article.pdf

Skippy

[Calnumismatist]

Libraries and catalogues want to use images. The search for the "copyright" owner can be expensive and time consuming. Which of course equals money.
By doing a quick search they can use the image and claim ignorance if the true owner is not found.
On the backside of this, if you normally charge say $1000 for an original image and you want to sue under the new law (if passed and signed) you can only sue for that $1000 fee.

Of course this would not cover your lawyer, the court fees, your time, and all the other things associated with a lawsuit. So it would really limit those who could afford to sue.

While I understand the simple logic of the parties interested in obtaining photos, it would hurt the small photographer who makes his living by selling his photos.

[Skippy]

Steve,

I agree. Brad would have had no satisfaction at all. At best he would have been offered twenty bucks. If it was a Simon Legree, it would have been, a so sue me. :-( :-(

Why do libraries need this? Thinking of traditional libraries who loan things that are already published.

Oh, and it is going to cost the taxpayer as I understand it to set up the searchable databases.

Skippy

[Lovetullys]

Seems that the government snips more of our rights away daily !!

[JimL]

Here is a thought. If you can't find the owner it would be safe to assume that you didn't create it and therfore it belonged to someone else. Don't use it.

JimL

[PPPhoto]

I'm definitely opposed to this change in copyright laws and only can hope that it won't actually pass.

One thing that I have heard, and I'm not sure that this is entirely true or not, is that there could be stiffer penalties for some offenses. If someone purposely removes a copyright notice to allow themselves to use the image, they can't claim innocent infringement. In this day, that means that all photographers need to put the copyright notice in the EXIF. Unfortunately, EXIF is easily stripped, even when it's not on purpose. So, this would be hard to prove that someone did it on purpose. It's just a mess anyway you look at it.

[steffies]

Sorry Steffi I think your senator told you what you wanted to hear. This bill will not help the original artist. It will protect the person that steals the works. Sure you can try to sue, but the way the law is written the protection goes to the other person with the ignorance excuse, I didn't know...yadayada...........

It certainly looks that way. Typical politician!

[Calnumismatist]

Why do libraries need this? Thinking of traditional libraries who loan things that are already published.

The actual problem is with older photographs (which is already covered by "usuable" copyright). When larger magazines and libraries update, they will run across photos that they do not have the right to use. Today they have to do an extensive search to find who owns the right to use it. This of course costs time and money.
Someone actually figured out that if you did a quick google search and did not find the photographer, you could just use the picture.

Now of course most people are not "educated" enough to be a law maker, so the logic seems to escape those of us with "common sense".

I asked my congressman if I found a car sitting on the side of the road that had the keys in it, and I shouted very loudly if anyone was the owner, if I could take it if no one answered. If I got caught, I would gladly pay the costs of the gas used.

The current system has been used for years with good results. It protects the owner of the photograph.
Again, it seems that I personally am not "educated" enough to understand why any law maker would "protect" the thief, but this is why I don't work on Capital Hill.