Copyright Bill

[DAvid]

There is a bill in congress that could seriously affect nearly every competitor and photographer out there. Read this article...
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&article_no=3605

[DAvid]

I received this clarification in a group e-mail earlier today. Apparently there is nothing pending. Yet. It seems to be something that may be brought up again in the future.

Here was a response at another site.

Announcement: Clarification on Orphan Works
Posted By: Justin
Date: Tue, 4/15/08, 1:12 am

I just looked at that petition and the claim of "That proposal is now
being fast-tracked in Washington with a good chance of passage before
the end of this Session." is false. No proposal is currently on the
table. The last proposed Orphan Works Bill (H.R. 5439) expired when
the House session closed that year in 2006.

However, Orphan Works legislation is NOT an urban legend. The
government does want to pass an Orphan Works Bill (in one form or
another) and it should be a legitimate concern of visual artist like
illustrators and photographers. So, please, don't tell people otherwise!

The last time orphan works was officially addressed was The Register
of Copyrights before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary on March 13, 2008
(United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress, 2nd session).
That was just last month. You can find information and a video on the
testimony here...

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

And here is the official statement from The Register of Copyrights...

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

: If the Orphan Works legislation passes, you and I and all
: creatives will lose virtually all the rights to not only our
: future work but to everything we've created over the past 34
: years unless we register it with the new, untested and privately
: run (by the friends and cronies of the U.S. government)
: registries. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone
: wishing to steal your personal creations won't successfully call
: your work an orphan work, and then legally use it for free.

: In short, if Congress passes this law, YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT
: TO MAKE MONEY FROM YOUR OWN CREATIONS!

Even with how poorly written and unfair to the copyright holder most
of the proposed language has been so far, the above statement is still
false. You can read it for yourself here...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5439:

Some new aspects were introduced in the March 13, 2008 official
statement from The Register Copyright here...

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

Orphan Works is something the government and copyright office does
wants to address. I believe an Orphan Works Bill will be passed at
some point in our near future and if we are not watchful, the bill
could be harmful and potentially disastrous for independent creators
of visual works, like photographers and illustrators.

Because of this, we need to constantly fight for it to be written with
provisions that are fair for copyright holders, have language that
will make it difficult for corporations to infringe copyright holders
and profit from the infringements, and provide a lower-cost method of
resolving copyright disputes. We have to fight for a workable bill
that is fair to the creators.

However, spewing and repeating gross misinformation is not the way to
do it. So please, get familiar with the legislative environment,
existing copyright law, and begin media surveillance for what might be
proposed in the next revision or draft of the Orphan Works Bill. Then
voice your concerns with informed and accurate statement about the
language in the proposed draft, it's interaction with existing laws
and how it may affect you.

[genex]

hence the importance of keeping your copyright info right on the photo whenever possible. thanks for caring :)

[mark000]

Here was a response at another site.

Announcement: Clarification on Orphan Works
Posted By: Justin
Date: Tue, 4/15/08, 1:12 am....

...even more helpful would be a link to the site on which this was posted, and an identification of Justin.

There is a lot of great information online, and a lot of confusion, hysteria and outright lies. Know the source of statements can be helpful sorting out valid info from BS.

[mark000]

No Copyright Left Behind
by Paul Rapp

http://rapponthis.blogspot.com/

I’ve been deluged over the last week with e-mails from worried clients and artist friends about this horrible Orphan Works copyright legislation before Congress that’s gonna wipe out everybody’s copyright. And bears, oh my! The culprit is a hysterical Web post by some guy named Mark Simon on the Animation World Network that has somehow gained viral traction and that people are apparently believing.

It’s all nonsense. Mr. Simon is, IMHO, an idiot. Blogger Meredith Patterson puts him rightfully in his place, and describes what is really going on, at maradydd.live journal.com. (http://maradydd.livejournal.com/) If anyone sends you Simon’s post, please send them Meredith’s. If there’s one thing I hate, it’s lies and ignorance in public discourse.

Here’s the deal: Since 1978, everything that’s been created, and much of everything that hadn’t been published prior to 1978 or already fallen into the public domain, suddenly were bestowed with automatic copyright ownership. A creator doesn’t need to do anything but create to have federally protected copyrights.


The problem being that much of what’s out there is stuff that no one is interested in protecting. Only a small fraction of what’s been created has a copyright owner thinking that he or she is going to ever be paid for it. For the vast majority of stuff someone may have once cared about at one time, there’s no current interest. Back when copyrights had to be registered and renewed after the initial 28-year term, less than 15 percent of the registered copyrights were renewed. Nobody cared.

This has caused a real problem with the public: What creative works can be used, reused, revived, incorporated, or messed around with when, under the current law, virtually everything is technically subject to copyright ownership by somebody, even though, for the vast majority of stuff out there, there is no somebody—at least no somebody who cares about their copyright?

It’s a massive disconnect, and I’ve seen it play out again and again in ways that inhibit the dissemination of information, of knowledge, of beauty, because folks were paranoid of publishing pre-existing works out of fear that somebody would pop up out of nowhere and say “that’s mine!”

In her blog, Patterson uses the example of your parents’ wedding pictures from 1955. You want to publish them? Guess what? The copyrights are probably owned by the photographer! Who was who? And is now where? You don’t know? Uh-oh. I get asked all the time by archivists and historians about what they can and can’t do with a box of old photos, or paintings, or manuscripts, or books, that were found in an attic of an old house, and that contain wonderful glimpses of history, and for which a creator or current copyright owner cannot be determined. I explain that publishing this stuff will involve a bit of risk that a copyright holder might appear and spoil the party. Archivists and historians generally don’t want to know from risk. So all this great stuff stays in boxes.

The Orphan Works legislation that Mr. Simon is so wigged out about, and doesn’t remotely understand, hasn’t even been introduced yet, but word is that it will be soon. The legislation will probably seek to rectify the problem of lingering, abandoned copyrights, to loosen this stranglehold of ghosts on our culture, by allowing the reuse of pre-existing materials in situations where after a reasonably diligent effort, no copyright owner has been located. If, after the work is re-published, a copyright owner shows up and says “that’s mine,” the copyright owner will be entitled to a reasonable licensing fee for the use, but won’t be able to stop the use.

Space doesn’t allow me to go into the details and potential problems of the Orphan Works law, and they are significant. But suffice it to say that there’s no bogeyman, there’s no abject stealing, the sky is not falling, artists will not starve while freezing in the dark. Nothing in the realm of copyright law is ever even close to being perfect, and this law certainly won’t be. Stuff can be gamed, faked, copyright owners may have to be a little more vigilant. But the world won’t be that much different than it is already: the world of copyright is already a world of gaming and faking, and copyright owners are supposed to be vigilant about their works.

The net from the Orphan Works laws, if they’re done right, will be a huge positive.

—Paul Rapp

[mark000]

hence the importance of keeping your copyright info right on the photo whenever possible. thanks for caring :)

That is an obvious remedy, (except for images that are already floating around cyberspace.)

Since not everyone here has experience with this, can anyone please advise on easy ways to insert copyright info into photos and videos?

Thanks.

[TomNine]

Mark, thanks for following through with that. The panicky urban myth version of things always circulates faster than the actual story.

Here is some recent information about where the orphan works legislation sits now:

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

http://orphanworks.blogspot.com/

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

Mark, whatever tool you are using to process your photos should be able to add copyright info to the image. This info can be easily enough removed, but it's a start.

[mark000]

Prof. Lessig of Stanford is an outstanding expert on legal policy in the digital information age.
Below is his take on the "Orphaned Works" issue, from today's New York Times
--Mark

Little Orphan Artworks

By LAWRENCE LESSIG
NY Times Op Ed May 20, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?em&ex=1211428800&en=eec4a57af99601ae&ei=5087%0A

CONGRESS is considering a major reform of copyright law intended to solve the problem of “orphan works” — those works whose owner cannot be found. This “reform” would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the public.

The problem of orphan works is real. It was caused by a fundamental shift in the architecture of copyright law. Before 1978, copyright was an opt-in system, granting protection only to those who registered and renewed their copyright, and only if they marked their creative work with the famous ©. But three decades ago, Congress created an opt-out system. Copyright protection is now automatic, and it extends for almost a century, whether the author wants or needs it or even knows that his work is regulated by federal law.

The old system filtered copyright protection to those works that needed it; the new system regulates indiscriminately. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that just 2 percent of copyrighted works that are 55 to 75 years old retain any commercial value. Yet the system maintains no registry of copyright owners nor of entities from which permission to use a copyrighted work can be sought. The consequence has been that an extraordinary chunk of culture gets mired in unnecessary copyright regulation.

The solution before Congress, however, is both unfair and unwise. The bill would excuse copyright infringers from significant damages if they can prove that they made a “diligent effort” to find the copyright owner. A “diligent effort” is defined as one that is “reasonable and appropriate,” as determined by a set of “best practices” maintained by the government.

But precisely what must be done by either the “infringer” or the copyright owner seeking to avoid infringement is not specified upfront. The bill instead would have us rely on a class of copyright experts who would advise or be employed by libraries. These experts would encourage copyright infringement by assuring that the costs of infringement are not too great. The bill makes no distinction between old and new works, or between foreign and domestic works. All work, whether old or new, whether created in America or Ukraine, is governed by the same slippery standard.

The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans.

The change is also unwise, because for all this unfairness, it simply wouldn’t do much good. The uncertain standard of the bill doesn’t offer any efficient opportunity for libraries or archives to make older works available, because the cost of a “diligent effort” is not going to be cheap. The only beneficiaries would be the new class of “diligent effort” searchers who would be a drain on library budgets.

Congress could easily address the problem of orphan works in a manner that is efficient and not unfair to current or foreign copyright owners. Following the model of patent law, Congress should require a copyright owner to register a work after an initial and generous term of automatic and full protection.

For 14 years, a copyright owner would need to do nothing to receive the full protection of copyright law. But after 14 years, to receive full protection, the owner would have to take the minimal step of registering the work with an approved, privately managed and competitive registry, and of paying the copyright office $1.

This rule would not apply to foreign works, because it is unfair and illegal to burden foreign rights-holders with these formalities. It would not apply, immediately at least, to work created between 1978 and today. And it would apply to photographs or other difficult-to-register works only when the technology exists to develop reliable and simple registration databases that would make searching for the copyright owners of visual works an easy task.

A hired expert shouldn’t be required for an orchestra to know if it can perform a work composed during World War II or for a small museum to know whether it can put a photograph from the New Deal on its Web site. In a digital age, knowing the law should be simple and cheap. Congress should be pushing for rules that encourage clarity, not more work for copyright experts.

Lawrence Lessig is a law professor at Stanford.

[genex]

Thanks for posting that Mark. I really respect Dr Lessig's views and I hope all photographers and others support the fight against this orphan works legislation.

On the good side, I just finished reading the new copyright proposals for group electronic registrations and it looks good...

[bikiniclad]

Very important, thanks for posting:)

[LarryN]

There is a bill in congress that could seriously affect nearly every competitor and photographer out there. Read this article...
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&article_no=3605

Here is some info on that other copyright bill which is before the house of commons. It may have an effect on competitors. Under this new copyright bill, customs officers and police officers will have the right to seize and search without warrants ipods and computers for illegally downloaded music.