Drastic Changes to Copyright Legislation?

[Mike Gazda]

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3605&page=1

Do you think this is something to be genuinely concerned about?

[Matt Mullarkey]

WOW.. that can't happen !!!!

[John Waugh]

I can happen and It will happen if all working artists don't get up and get working to short circuit the private registry proponents in this overt grab at our license rights. this has been quietly gathering speed.

[Daniel Buck]

I haven't had any trouble with copyright stuff myself, but from the stories I keep hearing and reading about, I've all but lost hope in copyright on images as it is. Companies and people really have no fear when stealing someones image (thanks to the internet, no doubt, where everything is deemed 'fair game' by most people). A bit disheartening.

I've heard of a few stories when people won copyright issues in court... but who really has time (and money!!) to go to court? Not me. :-( Photography is not what puts food on my table, so maybe I don't have the vigor that some may. But if it came down to going to court, I'd skip it. Images ARE my life, but my life doesn't have time and money enough to go to court to defend one of those images. I'm not sure if that's more pathetic than this proposed copyright change, or not.

It almost sounds like an argument for the other side, but anything I post up on the net, I consider good as stolen. I put my name and copyright on the image, but mostly just to say to myself that I did. I really doubt that makes anyone stop and think before they use my image for something of their own.

[Mark Scheuern]

I just got back from the ASMP Strictly Business 2 conference and there was a lot of discussion about this. It's a genuine concern. Two ways to prepare yourself, should this nonsense actually get put into law, is to always embed copyright and contact info into your metadata for anything that goes out and to always try to get a credit line for editorial work. Well, three: register your images with the copyright office. Daniel, registering your images allows you to recover court costs. It would still be a PITA but it's better than allowing someone to profit from your work and walk all over a right guaranteed to you in the Constitution. The reason people infringe in the first place is they're betting that they won't get caught or, if they are, the copyright owner isn't going to bother to go after them.

Here's some more info about the bill from the ASMP:
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php

[Daniel Buck]

doesn't it cost $ to register your images? I looked into it a while back, but decided not to because I was in college at the time, and didn't exactly have much funding. I'm not exactly poor right now, but the idea of paying to register my images still sounds silly, I take tons of images, I would go broke if I had to add 'registration' cost to my cost of equipment, software, printing (and film, chemicals & paper for non-digital stuff) and everything else. :-(

[Mark Scheuern]

It's $45 per submission but, depending on which form you use, you can submit either up to 750 images or an unlimited number each time. I wish it was free, too, but if you do it in large batches it's not too bad. The 90 day period prior to registration is also covered so it's a good idea to do it regularly but it's not like you have to do it continuously.

I agree that it's not fun but being active in discouraging infringement helps everyone and the potential payoff is big: if you register, you can collect statutory damages, too. Plus, even if you don't actually want to go to court, letting someone know that you've registered makes you a much bigger threat and they'll likely come to an agreement with you.

Good article on the advantages of registering here:
http://www.publaw.com/advantage.html

I'll admit I'm negligent in doing this regularly like I should, too. I'd rather be spending my time shooting and there are other ways I'd prefer to spend my money. I'm glad the conference reminded me how important it can be.

[John Waugh]

Here is a response to the Orphaned Works article for comparison.
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html

[Mark Scheuern]

I think she's mostly correct in pointing out errors in Mark Simon's orphan works article but that's somewhat of a straw man approach. That he's wrong doesn't make her right.There are plenty of reasons why it's clearly a bad idea even when the bill is factually described and trade organizations like the ASMP and the Stock Artists Alliance have taken a more reasoned approach to trying to limit the scope of the legislation.

[Jamie Holladay]

Here is the House bill if anyone is interested

http://www.orphanworks.net/HR5889OWActof2008.pdf

[Jim Sykes]

Here is a link that will take two minutes to fill out a form and will write all your representatives to tell them this is a bad thing. Fill it out, it only takes a couple minutes and you dont even need to know who your reps are.

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/utr/2/?a=11340161&i=87228538&c=&u=capwiz.com%2Fillustratorspartnership%2Fhome%2F

[Mark Scheuern]

Done! Thanks!