[little laker]

I'm just posting this link to a DPReview topic, on the The Orphan Works Act passing in the US Senate.
There is a good chance that it'll get deleted, however if it does a google search should tell you something about it.

For those that aren't aware, from what I understand the Orphan Works Act basically gives anyone the right to use your photographs for anything they choose to. If they can't contact you with what they consider as a reasonable amount of effort.

Any photographer whom has ever posted an image on-line risks loosing all the rights to it if this act becomes law.

[MRRiley]

Indeed, something to watch out for. I've been following this but their sneak move got by me in the midst of the Wall Street meltdown.

I'd encourage all US members to visit the site: Tell the House Judiciary not to pass the Orphan Works Bill to send a letter to your congress-critter in opposition to this bill.

The Orphan Work bill primarily benefits large media outlets or other "users" of intellectual property. It virtually guts current copyright law and permit people to use your work if they cannot reasonably (undefinned) contact you for permission and you have very little recourse after the fact. It also places copyright registration in the hands of private industries who have a financial incentive to collect as much intellectual property as possible and distribute it as widely as possible.

It is NOT a good thing for photographers... or other visual artists!

[navcom]

Not really a good law to have and seems to be another example of a government that exists only to perpetuate itself and make it's own life easier. Copyright is copyright, even if you can't find the owner. If in doubt, the law should fall on the copyright owner's side, just like it should on any property rights. That's the reason we have copyright laws!

Copyright laws don't exist to make life easier for the government or copyright office or for someone trying to use someone elses material. They exist to protect the property owner. Just like the original eminant domain laws didn't exist to allow the government to seize your property for any reason they came up with. It was only allowed in cases where it was neessary for the common good (everyone's good) and not without proper compensation. Common good used to mean situations such as correcting flood plains to save the town, etc. and it had to benefit all tax payers, not just a handful or a particular business. Now you can take land to build a sports stadium. Geez! This copyright law sounds suspiciously similar.

On our end, having proper EXIF data and attaching thorough copyright information to your pictures will solve much of the problem. Upon reading the draft, the user of the copyrighted material will have to prove they have "searched in vain" for the owner of the material. If it's embedded in the file, they have no recourse to say they took all reasonable steps. And the law says you can still get compensated after the fact if you can prove it's your work. Nothing new about that.

My suggestion would be to start getting into the habit NOW of embedding as much info into our images as possible, just in case. It's a good habit anyhow and one I'm lax on as well. It's not a guarantee, but it's a good practice.

[LaRee]

Indeed, something to watch out for. I've been following this but their sneak move got by me in the midst of the Wall Street meltdown.

I'd encourage all US members to visit the site: Tell the House Judiciary not to pass the Orphan Works Bill to send a letter to your congress-critter in opposition to this bill.

The Orphan Work bill primarily benefits large media outlets or other "users" of intellectual property. It virtually guts current copyright law and permit people to use your work if they cannot reasonably (undefinned) contact you for permission and you have very little recourse after the fact. It also places copyright registration in the hands of private industries who have a financial incentive to collect as much intellectual property as possible and distribute it as widely as possible.

It is NOT a good thing for photographers... or other visual artists!

Thank you for the link. I hope everyone follows it and sends an e-mail. The link makes it very easy to do so, and it is important that we send this message!

[dws1117]

Thanks for posting this. I let my congress critters know of my opposition.

[Fl_Gulfer]

I did the same...foolish congressmen

[cindy s]

Does it change anything if we register our images through the Copyright Law Office?

[little laker]

I wouldn't want to find out the hard way Cindy, when just a letter might protect your rights

[chirpy]

I thought the USA was a signatory of the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" in 1989. I guess they're pulling out of it if this comes into law as seems to be in direct contravention of it. I'd hope for retaliatory action from other nations if they do this which will throw international copyright into chaos. Then again, the USA only seems to pay lip service to it anyway by requiring registration of works which also contravenes the convention.

[JohnV3]

I suppose that there may be times when the owner cannot be contacted with reasonable effort and therefore, a great image couldn't be viewed by more people. The owners will have to make sure that they are identifyable and can be easily contacted to prevent theft and aid litigation if necessary.

[cpopham]

I thought the USA was a signatory of the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" in 1989. I guess they're pulling out of it if this comes into law as seems to be in direct contravention of it.

I had a snarky response to this thread along those lines written out, put decided against posting it because it was pretty much flamebait. I agree 100% though.

Note to Americans: please don't confuse foreigners disliking your government's foreign policy with disliking your country.

[little laker]

I suppose that there may be times when the owner cannot be contacted with reasonable effort and therefore, a great image couldn't be viewed by more people. The owners will have to make sure that they are identifyable and can be easily contacted to prevent theft and aid litigation if necessary.

If someone happens to use your image innocently enough, after wiping out the data data while re-sizing it on their web site. Without knowing about the copyright laws, like most people don't. Your hooped. The chances are that they don't know where they got the image from.

Another situation.
You get a call from National Geographic, and take a 6 month assignment.
You can't check your e-mail during that time, and that's your only current contact method listed on your data.
When you get back from the assignment you see these posters all over the place, with your photograph on them.
Your again hooped.

For that mater, is all of the contact info ever embedded in your images still current.
In my case only my e-mail address is the same as a year ago, and it's the first thing that so many people change.

There are so many possible situations where they'll be able to use your image without your permission. So why would you even want them to be able to.

In my opinion it's a bill that just shouldn't have even made it as far as it has

[lithos]

You know what's funny? ThePirateBay.org - they're in Sweden, please note - for years got letters from legal teams in the US citing things like "You are in violation of US Federal Law Blah Blah; please cease and desist." TPB would write back with something like, "Please note that we are Swedes, who live in Sweden, who operate ThePirateBay.org out of Sweden, and are not prosecutable under US law. Kiss our Scandinavian a*ses."

And yet, the letters would still flow, still stating that "You are in violation of US Federal Law - CEASE AND DESIST..." over and over. And ThePirateBay.org would reply the same way, normally getting more and more offensive.

Took years for the legal teams to figure that there might be people in Sweden who have the internet and websites and such, even if such websites came in a kit and had graphic non-verbal instruction sheets and the websites always ended up with code left over, and were not a bunch of Americans playing silly buggers. Stereotypical Americentralism at its finest.

Which makes me wonder: I'd imagine most of these images used would taken from the internet - gotta love the global, anonymous aspect of the web.

So what if one of my images is taken by an American company?

I'd be willing to bet that they'd treat it the same way. "We assume everyone on the Internet is American."

Then I'd love hear the farcical courtroom chatter.

"We used your image because we assumed you were American, because this law only applies to Americans and that's what law we used when we took your image."

"Then why didn't you contact me?"

"Because you're not American. We could not find any contact details for you in the US, because you obviously live in Australia. You've got the accent and passport and birth certificate and everything."

"So my status as an American purely depends on whether or not it suits you."

"Yes."

More likely, though, the company would complain to other companies, and these other companies would salivate at the idea of being able to access a whole planet-load of images, and petitions congress to nag the president to chew on the ear of our prime minister until our PM passes the same law, lest America boycott us, maybe throw us on the terrorist watchlist, not give us our F-35s we've paid for, or what have you.

Note that this bill does two equally harmful things:

One, it's a one-way street. If you use an images taken from a corporation, it's gonna be much harder to argue that you couldn't contact them, rather then vice-versa (a company takes your image and says it couldn't contact you.)

So in order to effectively protect your images, you'll need the same level of contactability as a company: ads in papers, magazines, on billboards, a few secretaries, receptionists, a PA, and a call centre in Mumbai.

Not gonna happen.

Two, in order be easily contactable, you're gonna have to start putting your real name, address and phone number all over the net if you post pics online (and how many people don't these days.) And we know how dangerous that is.

And at any rate, who's gonna win if it goes to court? You, a hobbyist photog, or a legal team composed of a dozen Harvard graduates with an unlimited budget?

This "better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission" bill is shite. Shite to the core.

[stevebrot]

You know what's funny? ThePirateBay.org - they're in Sweden, please note - for years got letters from legal teams in the US citing things like "You are in violation of US Federal Law Blah Blah; please cease and desist." TPB would write back with something like, "Please note that we are Swedes, who live in Sweden, who operate ThePirateBay.org out of Sweden, and are not prosecutable under US law. Kiss our Scandinavian a*ses."

Letters such as you mention fall under the category of what is termed "due diligence". If you have a copyright, a trademark, or even a patent and do not pursue obvious violations (even if in a clumsy way), you will not have a leg to stand on in a civil proceedings regardless of the nation where the suit is brought.

I am somewhat familiar with ThePirateBay.org. The site was started by anti-copyright activists. Now that term may apply to a full spectrum of people ranging from outright content thieves to journalists concerned about protection of fair use provisions. At one time the site's content included more than just access to content for free. Current ownership of the site is apparently by people who make money doing pay-per-click (ads).

Since they do not actually host the copyrighted material, but rather provide a catalog of torrent sources, it is somewhat fuzzy as to whether they are open to prosecution or suit. It is a little bit analogous to me posting that a person can score some crack on the Willamette seawall in Portland. The statement is true, but unless I get a cut, it hardly constitutes conspiracy, collaboration, or even advertising.

Legalities aside, all I can say is that I would be a little miffed if I were a professional photog and found that a few 1000 of my images were listed as an available torrent on their site!

Steve

[stevebrot]

I thought the USA was a signatory of the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" in 1989. I guess they're pulling out of it if this comes into law as seems to be in direct contravention of it. I'd hope for retaliatory action from other nations if they do this which will throw international copyright into chaos. Then again, the USA only seems to pay lip service to it anyway by requiring registration of works which also contravenes the convention.

Since when does the U.S. require registration of copyright? To hold a copyright, all you have to do is claim it and defend it if it is infringed. Now you may register a copyright, but that merely bolsters your claim to statutory damages and gives you specific legal rights if the issue ever goes to U.S. court.

If anyone is interested

U.S. Copyright Office

As for the legislation mentioned by the OP, I would recommend that the U.S. members of this forum contact their representatives. There is an election coming up...

Steve