More important stuff.
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php
Quote:
"The U.S. Copyright Office issued its report on Orphan Works only a couple of weeks ago. The end of that report contained proposed language for an amendment to the Copyright Act. That proposal is now being fast-tracked in Washington with a good chance of passage before the end of this Session. In my opinion, if that language is enacted in its current form, it will be the worst thing that has happened to independent photographers and other independent visual artists since Work Made for Hire contracts.
Orphan works are basically works whose copyright owners cannot be located. The term "Orphan Works" is really a dangerously misleading phrase. It makes it sound as if it includes only a few works that are not valued enough by their creators to warrant taking care of them. That may be true for owners of many kinds of copyrights. However, the reality is that for independent photographers and illustrators, the majority of your published photographs may well become Orphan Works. The reason for that is that, unlike just about every other category of copyrighted works, photographs and illustrations are typically published without any copyright notice or credit to the photographer or illustrator. The one exception to that has traditionally been editorial uses, but even there the trend seems to be away from providing credit lines. As more and more photographs are published on the Internet, credits become even rarer. Worse, even if you registered your photographs at the Copyright Office, there is no mechanism for identifying you or your photograph or for locating you through those records, if the user does not know your name.
Under the proposed legislation, a person or other entity who wants to use a copyrighted work is required to make only a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to locate the copyright owner. If, after making such a search, the user is unable to locate the copyright owner, he/she/it gets an almost free license to use the work.
If the copyright owner never comes forward, the user gets to use the work for free. Even if the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, the MOST the copyright owner can get is "reasonable compensation," i.e. a reasonable license fee for the use actually made. There is NO possibility of statutory damages or attorneys' fees, even if the work was registered before the use was made without your permission.
Wait, it gets worse: If the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, "where the infringement is performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, such as through the sale of copies or phonorecords of the infringed work, and the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement, no award of monetary relief shall be made."
The fact that the potential compensation is so low presents a fatal impediment to collection: if you discover one of your works being used and demand only your reasonable licensing fee, but the person refuses to pay, you cannot afford to sue to collect the minimal amount to which you are entitled. Without the possibility of an award of attorneys' fees or statutory damages, no lawyer would take your case; and if he or she did, you would end up paying far more legal fees than you could possibly collect.
The bottom line is that, even if you have done everything right, including registering your photographs immediately at the Copyright Office, every photograph that you publish may be up for grabs if it doesn't have a published credit. Yes, people have to contact publishers to try to identify and locate you, but if that doesn't produce your name and/or contact information for any reason, they may be entitled to a free, or almost free, pass."
The latest word on the bill:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6346417.html
"After months of negotiations, Congress is addressing a bill to deal with orphan works, which are still in copyright but whose owners cannot be located. The bill was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and will be reviewed by the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, which Smith chairs. The bill would make such orphan works more easily available for reuse by making potential penalties for copyright infringement minimal if an infringer made a sufficient, good faith effort to locate the owner of a work without success. Prue Adler, associate executive director of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), said the bill was a step forward, if imperfect. "There are some provisions in the bill that we would like to see improved upon," Adler said, adding that ARL would work to secure the bill's passage. "Based on many hours of negotiation, we believe this bill is a positive step forward beyond the Copyright Office draft language," she said."
Two comments from the micropayment yahoo group:
"
I for one am very opposed to this Orphan Works Bill. I think everyone
here knows what's involved in it so I won't bother rehashing it, but
from the discussions I have read on microstock sites this is something
we are all very concerned about. I have not heard it pooh-poohed
anywhere.
I am curious what we should be doing about it? Other than calling,
e-mailing or writing our congress people, what leverage to we have in
this? I am all for political action, but in addition to calls to
action, there needs to be some organized effort, otherwise it fizzles.
If you have information to share about how to fight this beyond
talking about it in forums I would welcome that information and I am
sure others here would too :-).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention again."
"I think the thing that surprises me is that iStock is not organizing the members and
appointing a representative to go to Washington. So far both Getty and Corbis have
testified in front of congress in an unprecedented show of solidarity. If Getty was there,
where was iStock? There are very few corporations with a price tag of 50 million who do
not have a lobbyist in Washington.
PPA has an organized movement and a lobbyist in Washington, so that is at least one
group to approach. If you do a google for "orphan works bill" there are a lot of
photographer's organizations that are fighting. Writing to them and lending support,
whether it be money to pay lobbyists or sign a petition could be helpful. Bombarding our
congressional representaives is another way to let our voices be heard. I believe one of
the iStock posts begins with a letter that can be copied and sent to your representative.
Send one daily:-) They will usually respond with a form letter defending their support of
the bill, so that's when you call the office and get more insistent. I would hope that if a
petition were started within the microstock community everyone would sign it. Any one of
us who belongs to any of the existing organizations could deliver it to that group. I'm a
member of PPA and NPPA. I'll gladly drop a petition on their doorsteps:-)
Contacting the local media and trying to stir up awareness is another possibility. It's
amazing how many artists say, "Oprhan what? Huh?"
The bottom line is that those working in stock are the ones with the most to lose. Others
have been fighting the battle for us. If we can come up with creative ideas to sell products
for others, we should be able to come up with creative ideas to protect our IP. "
Orphan Works Bill
Linear Mode
