Again, you need to read the legislation and not rely on second-hand interpretations; you just don't throw up your hands and say," Oh I tried" because it has very specific protections for people who use it as an umbrella to steal.
Here in the US, the copyright clock starts ticking the moment you click the shutter. The only way an "Image" would have a new copyright date would be if you incorporated it in whole or in part into an entirely new work. Just reprinting an image at a different contrast grade, or adjusting the burning and dodging, would not automatically make it a "new" image. Now, if you solarized an image, and sepia-toned it, when you had previously made a "straight" print of it, that could in theory be considered a "new" work, and carry a different copyright date. It's sort of irrelevant since copyright law in the US is now life of the artist plus seventy-five years. The copyright date is more important for administrative and archival purposes than it is for determining when copyright expires. It is very important of course, for determining when an infringement occurs if it is actionable or not.
Pretend for a moment you made your living with your camera. Your copyright is your ONLY lever.
OK, this new wrinkle in the copyright process doesn't add much; copyrights are there, whether anybody likes it or not. Without having read the actual text of this (proposed?) change to the rules, it's likely that a copyright holder would still have the option of suing the copyright violator. Which is all that copyrights, patents, and trademarks do anyway - gives a person or company the legal standing to sue people.
Pretending aside, I was complaining about what happens after the creator of the work (i.e. the one making his/her living with copyrighted material) is dead.
So what your saying, is you want to be able to claim these greats life works for free and use them in the manner you deem fit?!!!
Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints? None. How about if I wanted to listen to some Elvis recordings that I didn't pay for. I don't think The King would get too upset.
If you look again, every single person I listed is dead. Remember the old adage about "you can't take it with you"?
(Again, only speaking about US Copyrights) With the proper precautions, your decedents CAN continue to benefit from your work for at least 50 years beyond your death, but the concept of public domain remains yet a valid force in US Law.
And, after a brief time-out, I have to apologize publicly to SatinSnow for the broadside I delivered on his post. Regardless of my beliefs, I should be able to present a counter-argument in a more mature fashion and I let my emotions rule my hand.
I'd like to blame it on the weather or whatever but I cannot.
My apologies to SatinSnow and everyone upset by my outburst.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints? None. How about if I wanted to listen to some Elvis recordings that I didn't pay for. I don't think The King would get too upset.
If you look again, every single person I listed is dead. Remember the old adage about "you can't take it with you"?
Will
SO, lets take an example. You spend your working career building up a small business - say a hardware store or a small book -keeping/accounting business or a mechanics shop. When you retire you pass it on to your children. But a couple of years after you hand over the business you die. That day, anyone who is passing and who feels like it can just come in and take anything they want - empty the shelves and the cash register. Move into the building - whatever.
That is what you are suggesting. (and remember, in the case above, if the business kept running, it could be passed on to your grandchildren - or sold off and the money shared out - as a photographer/creator, you basically can't even do that)
You do know that Communism lost when the wall came down don't you...?
and in Tim's example, the 'business' might be the most valuable part. Stock gets transfered at cost (probably stuff anyone can buy themselves) but you pay for the 'good will' to be able to run the store under that name, etc
Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints? None. How about if I wanted to listen to some Elvis recordings that I didn't pay for. I don't think The King would get too upset.
If you look again, every single person I listed is dead. Remember the old adage about "you can't take it with you"?
Will
I am aware that every single one of these people are dead Will, but that should void their lifes work?
I may not be able to take it with me, but that still does not nullify the value of the work, or does it?
(Again, only speaking about US Copyrights) With the proper precautions, your decedents CAN continue to benefit from your work for at least 50 years beyond your death, but the concept of public domain remains yet a valid force in US Law.
And, after a brief time-out, I have to apologize publicly to SatinSnow for the broadside I delivered on his post. Regardless of my beliefs, I should be able to present a counter-argument in a more mature fashion and I let my emotions rule my hand.
I'd like to blame it on the weather or whatever but I cannot.
My apologies to SatinSnow and everyone upset by my outburst.
Kino,
No worries here, I came across a bit strong also, no need to apologize, we are both passionate about what we believe in..this is an issue that gets alot of us going on each side.
again, no worries, and if I came across wrong, I apologize to you as well.
(snip)Bad law, bad idea and a pox on any legislator who votes for this abortion in print.
I'd be the last one to say that a law can't be abused; it can and probably will be abused in some fashion, just as many laws of our nation are currently being abused right now by US leadership in Washington (regardless of party).
But if this law is NOT the way to go for truly orphaned works, what does everyone suggest?
Now, theoretically, let's say we get a copyright law that states that your rights last forever and are unimpeachable.
You shoot a series of photographs of a major weather disaster that wrecks your State. Your heirs own the rights to the work for a hundred years and exploit it for ever diminishing profits as the event recedes into history. One day, a descendent of yours who holds the rights destroys all the negatives, prints and digital files they possess of the series because they don't want to be bothered with them, however a small group of these negatives get mistakenly left at an image bureau for 70 years, forgotten and unclaimed. The owner of the bureau dies and wills his remaining holdings to a major university archive.
20 years pass and that relative dies and the estate is dissolved with no one purchasing the rights to seemingly non-existent negatives, prints or digital files. OK, now someone finds and indentifies the images in that University archive and wants to use them because they are the sole surviving documentation of this historical disaster and the archive administration, which does dilligent research and finds that the rights were never reassigned is confronted with a the situation of having unique historical documents that should be destroyed by law.
Would you rather the archive destroy the images or have a mechanism to legally preserve and use them?
Now, if you think that is a far-out scenario that would only happen in a million years, you would be wrong; very, very wrong.
Similar situations happen all the time, but with work within the scope of rights of current copyright law.
Should an archive let the last copy of any work rot if they cannot contact the author or copyright holder?
Would you rather have it turn to dust than be preserved without your permission?
Should someone be denied use of any images if they don't have iron-clad permission to use them?
Last edited by Kino; 02-27-2006 at 08:42 PM.
Reason: clarify concept
Linear Mode
