Simple, if Advertizing Agency wants photograph, they can't use any existing photograph, they must hire photographer, model and others and to make specific photograph for that campaign. If things are defined like that in laws, then more jobs for photographers, models and others
So, for example photograph can be used commercially only once and for that specific purpose (you hired me to make portrait of you, you paid and you have that portrait, that is one commercial use), and all other uses can be for educational, promotional (for photographer - exhibitions and books, and for model on photograph - let say fashion models books), and that would be that.
Something like that. Just one idea...
__________________
Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
When I'm dead, who cares. All my stuff goes to charity. But I have a few thoughts about the 'orphaned copyright' issue.
I generate a small income from print sales, and I want that work copyright protected, while I'm alive. I don't want to open Time, Outdoor or National Geographic and see one of my photographs and not have been paid for it. I'm living in what I refer to as a "toes up" house. They'll carry me out toes up when I die. So I'm having my studio stamp revised to include my address.
If you want you can find preple. Yellowpages.com lists 44 J Sarff's, including my old address. If you google my name you find entries about my artwork and shows. However, J. Sarff pulls up Dr. John Sarff, a researcher in plasma fusion at UW-Madison and a prolific writer (no relation).
My point is with a little effort, you can be found.
I would appreciate any further thoughts or comments on this bill.
I think the objection to the bill is the clause(s) that say, in layman's words, "if I l like and image that I want to use commercially, but I can't find the artist, then I can use the image any way I want." Kind of like a rights grab.
I'm not sure what the standard is in "I can't find the artist" which is what I think people are up in arms about.
Take a site like flickr, which has millions if not billions of images. How many of those accounts are still active with the artists' information current? How many of those images have the meta-data tags /EXIF fields 'filled in' to show copyright ownership? I would bet most do not. For a company like flickr, this is a bonanza in 'free' images that they could use or market to companies 'royalty free' should they want to.
Then again, this could all be over-reaction and conspiracy theory too!
No, it actually began as a sincere attempt to give archives a means to legally copy and preserve orphaned works of art that are important and of which, the owner cannot be located.
Having worked at the Library Congress Motion Picture Preservation Lab for 13 years, I know a thing or two about it, as the LOC has been a driving force behind getting this legislation on the docket.
How'd you like to spend a $100K preserving an orphaned film, only to have some relative pop-up 20 years later and sue you for your efforts?
A LOT of this footage is actuality footage of historical persons and events -- should we allow it to rot because there is no one to give permission to copy it?
However, that's not to say that even the best intentioned laws cannot be twisted around by disingenuous or dishonest people and used at cross purposes to their original intent.
However, everyone seems to be acting as if the Copyright Office is now somehow acting as a policing agency and that this new legislation will somehow rob them of this power when nothing could be further from the truth.
Who is naive enough to think they actively search out copyright infringement and enforce your rights?
The burden of proof of infringement STILL lays on the copyright holder and, regardless if you actively register for copyright or not, YOU have to enforce your own rights to your intellectual property.
This law would not change a thing in that aspect, but it might embolden some with more resources than scruples to attempt to beat-down the system.
If you want you can find preple. Yellowpages.com lists 44 J Sarff's, including my old address.
Which could be worse than finding none; one of them might be an amateur photographer with a few dozen pics on Flickr, and too thrilled to ask questions (or haggle over the price) when someone calls asking for permission to use one of his photos.
I guess that's one advantage of using my callsign in user IDs and such; anybody familiar with callsigns will know how to get contact info for the right Joe Bramblett, rather than the prisoner in Georgia or the PhD in California.
Admittedly, I haven't yet read this bill. However, judging from the comments posted here, another issue would seem to be the concept of assets, and the ability of passing them on to heirs, even if only for one generation.
Logically, anything which "dies" with a person only has real value during that person's lifetime. If a photographer wants to will his copyrights to his or her family, it would seem that this new law would render
those rights a lot less valuable.
Anyone who has read the bill
have any comments on this? Are there any lawyers out there?
The ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) is the pre-eminent organisation
for professional photographers in the US, and has led in legal issues on behalf of PHOTOGRAPHERS for decades.
COPYRIGHT is a fundamental issue for Photographers, and ASMP is the first place one should look !
Linear Mode
