Why not? What damage would Ansel Adams take if I wanted to print a copy of one of his prints?... blah, blah, blah...
I will repeat what Don said. You haven't a clue. Your argument is pretty lame as well. You can listen to a copy of Elvis recordings right now without paying. Ever borrow a CD? Check music out of a library? Record something off the radio for personal use? Tape a TV show to watch later? Etc., etc. You can even make a crappy reproduction of an Ansel Adams print to hang on your wall if your taste is that bad. Copyright doesn't stop you from enjoying the works, it stops you from making money off something you did nothing to create or for which you did not pay.
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.
while the image is copyrighted as soon as the shutter clicks, if someone harvests it and uses it without your consent, your ownership/rights are not proved in court unless you *register* the image/s with the copyright office.
lawyers will not assist someone without the certificate of registration (received once the image is registered in washington dc.) courts won't even hear a case even though you may have original negatives, prints, digital files &C, it don't matter --- the paper stating it is yours is the only thing that will get you in a courtroom.
i called my senators & congressmen today, i urge you all to do the same to voice your concerns regarding this bill. the asmp site has a form letter you can fax as well...
while the image is copyrighted as soon as the shutter clicks, if someone harvests it and uses it without your consent, your ownership/rights are not proved in court unless you *register* the image/s with the copyright office.
lawyers will not assist someone without the certificate of registration (received once the image is registered in washington dc.) courts won't even hear a case even though you may have original negatives, prints, digital files &C, it don't matter --- the paper stating it is yours is the only thing that will get you in a courtroom.
(snip)
- john
That is simply not true; in the age of the Internet, I don't understand why easily accessed information is passed over for conjecture. That was a prior version of copyright law that was revamped in 1978 in the USA.
I love this idea that an artist's work should become public domain upon their death. If it were, Elvis, Stevie, and Ansel would have had to wear bullet-proof vests. What a silly idea, one that would never be advanced by anyone who actually holds copyright of anything of potential value.
It sounds like the law has good intentions behind it (maybe), but I dont like the smell of anything this Congress has its paws on.
That is simply not true; in the age of the Internet, I don't understand why easily accessed information is passed over for conjecture. That was a prior version of copyright law that was revamped in 1978 in the USA.
and read. It is all there, straight from the horse's mouth...
actually kino, it is true ...
registration is cheep -it is the best 30$ you will ever spend.
unless you try to enforce your copyright, you won't know the BS you will
have to deal with if you do not have a registration and you *try* to go to court.
try to hire a lawyer, you won't find one one -- contact asmp, they will tell you the same thing - register, or you will be sorry down the road ...
been there, done that ( and almost lot my shirt!)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
registration is cheep -it is the best 30$ you will ever spend.
unless you try to enforce your copyright, you won't know the BS you will
have to deal with if you do not have a registration and you *try* to go to court.
try to hire a lawyer, you won't find one one -- contact asmp, they will tell you the same thing - register, or you will be sorry down the road ...
I don't doubt that is the advice the lawyers give, (heck, I say that too) but the law is supposed to allow you to self publish and maintain copyright without formally applying; that is supposed to be a "great-leveler" so that the common man can avoid being trod upon by larger interests.
Too bad most lawyers are too cynical to attempt to uphold the law and it is simply too expensive to pursue that tact; it shouldn't be that way.
Oh, I understand that quite fully. In my view, there is no reason that anybody other than the artist him/herself (excepting the purely mechanical aspects of sales/brokering and distribution of work) needs to profit from the work of that artist. Just because, say, an ancestor of mine made some wonderful and very popular artwork fifty years ago means absolutely nothing to me today. Am I guaranteed by some law, natural or legislated, that I will benefit from the lives of my ancestors? No, I am not. In fact, nature would suggest the exact opposite: once the ancestor is dead, they're nothing more than rotting biomass.
OK, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the current copyright situation (life plus 75) is valid. Now why should we stop there? Why should the family lose copyright with the grandkids? Why shouldn't the great grandkids get to own that copyright as well? And after them, what about the great-great grandkids? What about the great-great-great grandkids?
Where do we stop? The logical conclusion to our thought experiment is: never.
Things that enter public domain during our lifetimes were created by people who died about 75 years ago. I feel assured that there are many works which will fade into obscurity before they enter public domain, and that's a net loss to all of humanity. The longer the delay before the public can enjoy the heritage of their culture, the less rich our cultural heritage actually is. And you know who loses? Everybody loses.
The Constitution specifies "for a limited time" when discussing copyrights. Things that are created today, unless the creator dies tomorrow and you're very young, you have no hope of seeing in the public domain. They do have a technical limit, but for purposes of the lifetime of a person, they're infinite, which goes against the spirit of what the founding fathers wrote.
Will
Will let's say that your worst case scenario, that copyright would stay within the heirs or inheritors of the artist who created the work for perpituity, became reality. Where is the damage or harm to society? Because the artist dies that means it's ok for a bunch of strangers, vultures, to pick at his life work and make money off of his efforts? The copyright just keeps other people from making money off of it. If you created a substantial business wouldn't you want to be able to pass that business on to your kids, grand kids, etc? Will when you die can we all come to your home and take all of your possessions? From what you write certainly you wouldn't want your kids to have any of them.
As for your statement of "The longer the delay before the public can enjoy the heritage of their culture, the less rich our cultural heritage actually is. And you know who loses? Everybody loses." That's just ludicrous. The artists heirs will license the work if there is a demand for it. The public if it wants will still be able to see it. If the work is good it'll be in galleries and museums. And if there isn't someone there to license it then there are other problems. What if you decide to take a print of mine and invest your own money into producing 100,000 posters of it for sale, what happens to your investment if 50 other people do exactly the same thing?
You can pass your car or your baseball card collection, etc. down to your kids, grandkids, great grand kids etc. Why shouldn't I be able to pass on my life's work?
As for the proposed legislation which was the topic of this thread, I have already faxed out 20 letters to Congress and Senate stating my opposition to it.
I don't doubt that is the advice the lawyers give, (heck, I say that too) but the law is supposed to allow you to self publish and maintain copyright without formally applying; that is supposed to be a "great-leveler" so that the common man can avoid being trod upon by larger interests.
Too bad most lawyers are too cynical to attempt to uphold the law and it is simply too expensive to pursue that tact; it shouldn't be that way.
if you want a "poorman's copyright" you can always send duplicate images to yourself in date stamped ( barrel stamp ) envelope, and never open the envelope. that is acceptable in court as a valid copyright, and it costs as much as the postage you put on it.
Sounds like something the stock photo houses would love to see go through! Imagine all the millions of images in their files that will survive the photographer's who produced them and the millions or billions of potential revenues those images can generate after the photographer is dead that the stock house do not have to pay out.(snip)
It doesn't change the underlying copyright law; in the US you still would get the term of the artist's life + 75 years. I
Nothing in the proposed law would change the current terms of a copyrighted image.
Again, the REAL issue is when the artist is alive. Currently, with all the contracts and copyrights, we ( working photographers ) are vulnerable to the clients who signed the contracts ! Every few years, with increasing frequency due to the internet, another step is taken to eviscerate the copyright protection in the US. This is just another step.
What is going on is simple: by numbing the public to the notion of copyright's vitality, and importance, even a simple defense beomes harder. It becomes more difficult to prove the value of an image to a judge, and jury, regardless of the Copyright Act as amended.
Let's say .... Joe Photographer is commissioned to shoot a new car on a mountainside out west. Let's pretend it will be shot on film, another fantasy, but let's go on. Joe gets the job for several thousand dollars which will break even for the job. Joe figures it ges his expenses paid to be in a picturesque spot, and he signs all the contracts, carefully stipulating he retains all rights to the image.
He shoots the job, and shoots the scenics that will be the profit for this trip.
Not only does the client go on to use the image beyond the terms of the contract,
they clain copyright ownership of his scenics, arguing some cock and bull work-for-hire nonsense.
Twenty years ago, Joe would have had them turning on a spit over hot coals but TODAY, faced with the corporate legal muscle of the opposition, and the awareness that public perception that a photographer's work is HIS has changed, what does Joe do ?
Painting the photographer has the enemy of the people is logic serving the most perverse premise. Yet, that is how things have gone. This is just one more step to Copyright Law, in effect, protecting those able to steal the property of those who created it.
Linear Mode
