Time to throw tea into the harbor

[Susan Strom]

Important issue...be informed

(This is major, don't ignore). We've been hearing of this for a couple of years. Photographers and video creators, proposed Orphan Works legislation is back on the table. Not being political here or starting political discussion...this is about copyright law and potentially losing protections due to corporate greed. Basically, it is a type of legislated theft. This article urges us to get involved in protecting our rights, and really doing something about it. Take a look...and at the copyright office "official" report below.

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

I didn't want to just take a third party's word for it and stop there. Take a minute to read and decide your position and what actions to take. This isn't something that we should just watch from the sidelines. It has huge implications so it is important to know all the latest developments...

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

 

[David Drummond]

This really sucks, but you know... why is it any different than what already happens? People steal our stuff left and right now, from the everyday person online to media to big productions. It's more than a full time job just to stay on top of it. I know, I tried.

Open source "everything" is coming in the near future, mark my words.

 

[Susan Strom]

It does take a lot of time, but it is worth the investment. I still find provisions of the proposed legislation onerous. I’m not sure the guy from Animation World Network has all the provisions right but it is worth looking at the reports from the LoC and from http://www.govtrack.us/ at the source.

He did make a good point though, that artists tend to be apathetic and corporations do not. I don’t believe in the 'open source' assumption, unless one creates something and puts it out there specifically for that purpose. It is not right that those who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a copyrighted work should have say in what happens to it, against the artist's wishes. It is remarkable how wrong that is.

I have never had large media company or publisher infringe; we have always had a normal amiable written contract between us. There have been small businesses who have infringed from time to time, but ceased to do so after being notified.

Keeping an eye on pending legislation and acting as needed is worth the sweat in this case. We don’t pitch enough tea into the harbor anymore. I wonder if our ancestors would have accepted photo radar, as just one example.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

ASMP is reporting fairly regularly on this:

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

FWIW, it sounds like they've shifted lobying strategy away from trying to kill these bills and are instead trying to make them as favorable as possible for photographers.

Our analysis

It has become clear is that some Orphan Works law is likely to be passed sooner or later. Key members of the House and Senate want it; significant user groups such as museums, academic institutions and publishers want it; and the general public wants it. ASMP understands the need for, and welcomes, a solution to the Orphan Works problem. Our objective has never been to defeat Orphan Works legislation as such. Rather, our goal is and has always been to make sure that any Orphan Works bill is fair to visual artists. In addition, it appears that the political environment this year is substantially more favorable to creators than it is likely to be over the next few years. These factors make it important for ASMP to help craft an Orphan Works bill that treats photographers and other visual artists fairly, and to support the passage of a fair and workable bill in this Congress.

 

[Susan Strom]

We have to make sure though that “photographers” is clearly defined as creators, and does not mean the massive for-profit stock collections, also under the “photographers” umbrella, who stand to benefit greatly by the expansion of their libraries and subsequent rolling out of new royalty-free product, from images that were previously protected somehow. I could see how these “photographers” could lobby intensely FOR the passage of Orphan Works legislation or any relaxing of laws that protect individual copyright holders.

Maybe I’m taking an oversimplistic view of this, but to me, the creator of an artwork calls the shots when it comes to usage of his/her work. Call it Kindergarten Intuition but didn’t we learn not to take things that don’t belong to us? This isn’t that complicated. I challenge the producer in a bind. If a project’s success hinges on copyright infringement from the get-go, “I can’t produce my movie without questionable usages” the production is inherently flawed, lacks creative solutions and is trying to take shortcuts before it even gets off the ground.

To me, the electronic frontier makes current copyright law, that protects creators, even more pertinent than ever.

 

[Susan Strom]

More information; this one from an illustrators guild.

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00262

"the US Orphan Works amendment is not an exception to copyright law to permit the archiving and preservation of old, abandoned works. It is a license to infringe contemporary works by living artists worldwide. Its goal is to force these works into private commercial US registries as a condition of protecting copyrights."