New Orphan Works legislation hearings

[Furono]

So what does everyone know and think about this? Looks like a hearing took place on 3/13/2008 .

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427

"This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law the total creative output of any “creator” receives passive copyright protection from the moment you create it. This covers everything from the published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries, letters and family photos of the average citizen.

But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would “signal” to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work. "

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00259

Steve

[chuckinsocal]

I haven't read or studied it but I have 2 kneejerk type thoughts:

1. I looks like someone is tryng to start his own commercial registry business.

2. Does this mean that if I post photos of my family birthday party, lets say, that anyone can grab them and profit from them if I fail to "register" them with some commercial registry that may or may not be competent enough to store and properly index the photos?

I'm thinking that the implications are too far and wide for this to go anywhere anytime soon. But, then again, weirder things have happened.

Worth keeping an eye on.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

[claudermilk]

Sounds like someone has an agenda & a way of profiting from this already figured out. On the surface I don't like the sounds of it at all.

[mbellot]

Just fabulous.

While corporations like Disney and Sony are pushing for even longer copyright terms Congress prepares to throw the individual artist under the proverbial bus.

:huh

[Angelo]

http://current.com/items/88910758_artists_of_all_kinds_you_can_kiss_your_co pyright_rights_goodbye

[evoryware]

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

[Sam]

I have downloaded Both the house, and senate versions of this abomination.

I am attempting to wade through this, but it is a little difficult. I don't read / write / or speak shyster.

Moderators: there seems to be two threads on this subject. Can you perhaps combine them?

I think this is VERY important to anyone who creates "creative works", as well as everyone here.

Maybe it would be a good idea to create a list that accurately provides a summary of the "Orphan Works Bill".

I'll start: If you find anything inaccurate, please speak up, and later we can create a final summary.

Interim summary:

1. I can't find any definition of "Orphan Works".
2. May be in violation of international laws, and treaties.
3. In order to have ANY copyrights, you will have to register you work.
4. Bill refers to commercial data bases, without any real definition, or statement as to how these would be paid for.
5. Virtually eliminates punitive damages, along with attorney fees. This will completely eliminate any ability you currently have to protect your work. Currently the down side to copyright infringement could be a very large judgment against you. Under the new law the down side to copyright infringement would be to pay what you would have paid had you been honest and paid upfront. OH, yeah....no down side, just the up side of free images if your not caught, or the copyright owner doesn't have the financial ability to pursue you.
6. References "reasonable compensation" but again no real definition other than. "the amount on which a willing buyer and willing seller in the positions of the infringer and the owner of the infringed copyright would have agreed with respect to the infringing use of the work immediately before the infringement began."
7. Copyright infringer can obtain a copyright to a derivative work, even if the work derives from copyright infringement. This make sense to who?

OK, I'm mad enough for one day, I'm gona go have a drink, and eat some worms.

Sam

[chuckinsocal]

Hi Sam,

Would you please provide the links so we can download our own copies?

Thanks.

Chuck Cannova
www.customrideportraits.com

[Sam]

Unfortunately I posted the link on the other thread. :D

The Illustrators' Partnership of America (http://illustratorspartnership.org/)

Sam

[Pezpix]

Another link here with good information.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/orphan-works-bills-introduced-in-usa


What concernes me is this...

'Under this orphan works legislation, nothing you do would be protected unless it is registered with these commercial registries... they are orphaning all unregistered work'

[evoryware]

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

They updated this a day after I posted it.

[Bandit959]

I haven't been around here for a while but this topic broght me back.

From what I've bene able to gather, this bill was poposed a few years back by Getty Images and Corbis. (aka Bill Gates). It failed that and it's back as another way for big corporations to make money.

It appears that you'll have to register your works at a cost. If not, it seems that they can be claimed as "Orphan Works" even if you have a copyright.


There's an interesting article over at Animation World Magazine that talks about this at length.
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1

From that article...

Do you think the U.S. Copyright Office is here to protect you from this legislation? Think again.

Brad Holland of the Illustrators' Partnership shares his notes from a recent meeting with David O. Carson, general counsel of the Copyright Office.

Brad Holland: If a user can't find a registered work at the Copyright Office, hasn't the Copyright Office facilitated the creation of an orphaned work?

David O. Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries.

BH: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register?
DOC: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest!


The author of the article is pretty angry with the whole bill, so consider that when you're reading.

[Pezpix]

The passion in that article really does hit well with its intended audience IMO. I'm watching this one very close and if it does pass, it will have very little time before becoming a reality, at least for non-visual works
Jan. 1, 2009.

[claudermilk]

Just saw this: http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html Once you get past the author's self-congratulatory back-patting attitude (IMHO her URL is very inaccurate based on this article) there are some things to think about & some interesting links. I'm not all the way through them yet myself.

I tried to read the actual bill. Good grief what a baroque, twisted mess. And the lawyers wonder why we all hate them with such passion! Just say what you mean to say and stop obfuscating it to the point nobody can understand it--all that does is bring suspicion the author is trying to pull something.

[Glory2Jesus4Photography]

It is written to pull something check this link out and listen to the audio interview it explains a ton and gives the background. http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html

Ohh this is bad soo soo bad

Just saw this: http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html Once you get past the author's self-congratulatory back-patting attitude (IMHO her URL is very inaccurate based on this article) there are some things to think about & some interesting links. I'm not all the way through them yet myself.

I tried to read the actual bill. Good grief what a baroque, twisted mess. And the lawyers wonder why we all hate them with such passion! Just say what you mean to say and stop obfuscating it to the point nobody can understand it--all that does is bring suspicion the author is trying to pull something.

[StevenV]

ASMP's current view: http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php
"ASMP believes that, on balance, the House version is a bill that photographers can support. We believe that the Senate version could still benefit from some changes."



I haven't read enough yet... :dunno

[ian408]

I think the most important thing we, as photographers, can do is try and
understand this. But as we do this, know that it is our responsibility to
properly identify work that is ours using commonly accepted practice.

[kygarden]

I just saw this. It's a little scary for anyone looking to protect & make money from their work.

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?billid=11320236

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/07/orphan-works-faqs.html

[evoryware]

http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=88374&highlight=orphan

[kygarden]

Yeah...it's been looming for awhile now apparently. Hopefully it'll continue to loom and never take place. This is one of the reasons why gridlock in Washington is actually a good thing. The more those jokers write legislation, the more they screw things up :)