This is a succinct editorial from a journalism oriented site,
of real, honest-to-goodness, published pros whose life will be dreadfully
effected by this legislation. PLease, read it for yourself.
It begins,
"As readers of The Digital Journalist are well aware, we have been a staunch supporter of photographers' copyright since our first issue.
In the United States, photographers, artists and writers enjoy a degree of protection to their intellectual property that is rarely found in other countries. Essentially, copyright is automatically granted to the creators from the moment of inception. Although to be solid enough to stand up in courts, it is necessary to prove that you have registered the photograph, article, song, or other artistic work with the U.S. Copyright Office.
For freelancers or independent creators, it is this copyright that allows them and their heirs to derive income from the sale of their unique work. Since most of these independent creators rarely have secure pensions, the body of the work they have produced over their lifetimes in fact becomes their annuity."
I guess the point I would like to make for US based photographers is that you can protect your works for extended periods of time if you register your works properly and plan your estate properly, but it will have to be treated like a business expense and is not something that will be free or cheap (unless you just happen to be a copyright lawyer who is a pro photographer) or easy.
The legislation introduced is NOT intended to displace your normal rights; those are still in place BUT they are up to you to invoke.
If want your images treated as intellectual property, then you have to treat them as such yourself and invest time, money and energy to exploit and protect their intrinsic value, otherwise why should the State run around behind you and pick up your dirty laundry?
I agree. Estate planning would be the way to go if you are concerned.
Until you have defended yourself against a Copyright Grab,
you don't believe that it is possible that you have to defend your rights SO FREAKIN' HARD
to just to keep what is YOURS. Properly registered, etc., etc., etc.
If this ISN'T a problem, why are the experienced, capable, first string PROS terrified of this and fighting it so hard ?
In my OWN experience, small and inconsequential as it is, and long before the internet, I had to take on a newspaper with more resources than I, and it was a long hard battle that cost me a great deal. And I could not defend myself long enough to defend against the theft of an image, that had been duly copyrighted, and even PUBLISHED, and won awards. You only have the rights you are capable of defending, despite the Law. It is why there are organsations like ASMP that CAN help an artist defend a copyright theft.
The issue at stake is NOT that a photographer must properly copyright their work.
It is absolutely NOT that not the sick old "Welfare Queen" argument that a creative artist is looking for a free ride or special rights. It is NOT about The State picking up my dirty laundry.
It is that there is currently an artfully exploited charade which harvests images, using unbridled avarice and feigned innocence,
counting on the theft of copyright images going unnoticed
and - if discovered - defensible because the image had become orphaned.
It is about preventing Big Business, Little Business, and every two bit crook that thinks himself a groovy hipster using the Internet for the free flow of information, to steal the COPYRIGHT and defying both the artist and the LAW to find him out and take it back. It has been hard enough in the PAST, PRE-INTERNET ERA to defend yourself, meaning losing thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, taking all your energy and time from your work, and being 'blacklisted' from further work. Today, it is next to impossible to patrol your work.
The heartbreaking thing about this discourse, at APUG, is the profound misunderstanding of both the Copyright Law, and the Orphan issue.
Post an image in the APUG Gallery. Even if you don't really care whether some Big Corporation steals your image and uses it as the basis of an advertising campaign, you could be forced to remove the image from the gallery and never allowed to show the image - even if it has been copyrighted - if the theft is excused because the image an 'orphan'.
EVEN IF you think that images shouldn't be copyrighted, and that you are happy to post pictures on FLICKR and your own website, how do you feel about somebody appropriating your image (to use the correct Post Modern term) and compelling you to remove your own image from your own page because they claim it is theirs ? Neat-O, ain't it ?
Very well said. There have been some terribly saddening things said in this thread. It's worth remembering that "copyright" is supposed to be a noun, not a verb. The verbs are "register" and "defend." My copyright comes into being with the creation of the work...with or without registration. This is how it must be.
__________________ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.
It is becoming harder and harder for photographers to survive without putting their work on the web. It should be assumed that any image is copyrighted, unless the photographer clearly states otherwise, rather than the onus being on proving your ownership. There are certain situations where use of images should be sanctioned even if copyright cannot be proven (eg after passage of time and proof is hard to ascertain and the use is in the public interest) but this fairly uncommon instance is being used on a general level to erode the rights and livelihood of all photographers.
It should be assumed that any image is copyrighted, unless the photographer clearly states otherwise, rather than the onus being on proving your ownership.
It needn't be assumed. It's true...it's the law...so far. You can't uncopyright an image before the copyright expires, you can only sell, lease or otherwise assign rights. Keep in mind, the photographer isn't always the original owner of the copyright if the image is produced as work for hire.
__________________ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.
And I do believe my comments have been lifted out of the context and course of discourse of the thread from which I was arguing, which is disingenuous at best... (and, my apologies, as this is an International forum, but I am arguing US Copyright as I know it so YMMV).
You should at least acknowledge that this was from very early on in the argument thread and taken out of context.
I do so resent being a straw man.
Above, I was objecting to the "never ending copyright" argument when someone attacked the concept of "public domain". PD has been an underlying basis of our copyright system since day-one and I absolutely reject the concept of "forever copyright" and the imperial implications it puts forth. This has its origins in English Common Law and, as it is my understanding, it was designed so that no one family or group of royalty could own every aspect of your life without end.
Sony Bono, who pimped for the Disney Corporation by fooling with the copyright laws, hoping to make their profit making machine both eternal and equivalent of a socialist tit on the capitalist pig.
The entertainment corporations already feel they have a right to an eternal subsidy from the People of the United States and have been making head-runs at legislation that would guarantee this for YEARS now.
If you think you have problems now, add permanent copyright to your woes and corporations will own your asses, forever. Period.
As for the dirty laundry remark, that was in direct response to the implication that a professional photographer, someone who's life blood is made by crafting images, should somehow bank their entire intellectual property rights sphere on published, but not formally registered, images.
While technically not required under the law, if you make your living this way, I think it the height of foolishness NOT to formally register your images to protect your livelihood.
I don't register my images because I DON'T MAKE MY LIVING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER; if I did, I would formally register.
Back to the argument at hand...
While this legislation works its way through Congress and the Senate, I find less and less to like about it, the potential for intentional abuse being the worst aspect of the bill and I have always said that any law can be misused.
But I think your argument, Don (and I do say this with the greatest respect) is highly and deeply flawed in that you do not address the ROOT of the problem here; the political will of the party in power to enforce the EXISTING laws in means faithful to the intent of the law.
We can sit here and argue how many angels can dance on the head of pin, if this law is good or bad, but if the current government administration refuses to appoint civil servants and law enforcement administrators who will do their sworn duty, it matters not.
Just as your stated problems won't go away with this bill being passed, the very problems it is supposed to be addressing probably won't go away either because the fox put in charge of the hen house will allow the feared abuses.
Business as usual.
We get the government we deserve.
Jsgtraw unsubstantiated leap and implication that I don't understand "published" vs "registered. Go back and read the thread.
The heartbreaking thing about this discourse, at APUG, is the profound misunderstanding of both the Copyright Law, and the Orphan issue.
Post an image in the APUG Gallery. Even if you don't really care whether some Big Corporation steals your image and uses it as the basis of an advertising campaign, you could be forced to remove the image from the gallery and never allowed to show the image - even if it has been copyrighted - if the theft is excused because the image an 'orphan'.
EVEN IF you think that images shouldn't be copyrighted, and that you are happy to post pictures on FLICKR and your own website, how do you feel about somebody appropriating your image (to use the correct Post Modern term) and compelling you to remove your own image from your own page because they claim it is theirs ? Neat-O, ain't it ?
And your quote is a great example of confusing law with enforcement...
The law is clear, if the above happens, you have been infringed and have rights (or should have).
Enforcement is a function of the elected party in the United States; clearly the Bush administration does not care one whit about the rights of anyone beyond the corporate level.
As to the Orphan Issue, I do think I have some clue as to the problem.
Linear Mode
