Emergency for Professional and Creative Photographers
Folks, we have a very serious situation on our hands. Congress is right now rushing into law a bill to legalize the theft of YOUR original photographic work.
It's called the "Orphan Works" amendment to the copyright act. What it basically says is that if anybody comes across your professional or creative photography, any time, anywhere, and then attempts to locate the creator (you) but can't, then they can just take it. Take it and use it however they want to.
You forfeit your right to control your own work. This would be true even of photographs with registered copyright.... more below
Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree, the copyright laws in the US have gone so far away from their original intent, it's ridiculous. Works basically never go into public domain anymore - OK, it's lifetime of the creator plus 75 years, which might as well be infinite for purposes of something created today. I see this as a possibility for some of that ridiculousness to be reversed. Once copyright gets back to lifetime of the creator, we'll be getting somewhere.
That's unreal! Just who's money is behind this gem? Fortunately up here in Canada we would just send the gals from the Olympic Gold hockey team down and stomp the crap out of any copyright violators. No penalties for high sticking or cross-checking.
__________________
I have no idea what I am doing, but it feels good when I get it right.
Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree, the copyright laws in the US have gone so far away from their original intent, it's ridiculous. Works basically never go into public domain anymore - OK, it's lifetime of the creator plus 75 years, which might as well be infinite for purposes of something created today. I see this as a possibility for some of that ridiculousness to be reversed. Once copyright gets back to lifetime of the creator, we'll be getting somewhere.
Will
Will, you don't seem to understand that there are people out there who make their living through the sale and reproduction of their images and that perhaps the only valuable aspect of their business that they can pass onto their Heirs, is the copyright to their images. Imagine how much money Ansel Adams image reproductions rights generate for his family and the AA trust. How would you like it if after you pass on, your own business and it's assets, that you spent a liftime building, would not go to your children but instead could be carted away for free by anyone walking in off the street.
Last edited by Early Riser; 02-27-2006 at 01:03 PM.
Not to mention the fact that I can close my eyes and say "I can't find the author anywhere" and your image is mine to use how ever I want. SOunds like a bad thing to me. Makes sense to permanently stamp your images on the back, and to put a signature in the image area of your web reproductions.
__________________
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Will, you don't seem to understand that there are people out there who make their living through the sale and reproduction of their images and that perhaps the only valuable aspect of their business that they can pass onto their Heirs, is the copyright to their images.
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.
I dont see how copyright prevents anyone from enjoying anything, other than the free use of something which isnt legally theirs. On the other hand, I can see where shorter copyrights would prevent people who create and their immediate heirs from enjoying full benefit of their hard work. Life plus 75 effectively gives the copyright to at least one subsequent generation to "enjoy" for their full lifetime. And why shouldnt they?
I'm curious, exactly what sorts of things, and what specific things, do you wish were in the public domain during your lifetime that arent going to be?
Will, you don't seem to understand that there are people out there who make their living through the sale and reproduction of their images and that perhaps the only valuable aspect of their business that they can pass onto their Heirs, is the copyright to their images. Imagine how much money Ansel Adams image reproductions rights generate for his family and the AA trust. How would you like it if after you pass on, your own business and it's assets, that you spent a liftime building, would not go to your children but instead could be carted away for free by anyone walking in off the street.
No, no, no, no... Although I can certainly understand the panic the first impression a very simplistic interpretation of this bill causes, it is much more complex than that.
This is an important bit of legislature that has been a long time coming for (among others) film archivists who want to preserve film titles that are still in copyright but the owner cannot be located after much searching. There are specific provisions that make the burden of proof that the author cannot be found, fall to the entity requesting the use. There is also a very specific path of recourse for the infringed-upon copyright holder to enact if they find someone using their copyrighted materials without a proper search.
I'm not saying it is perfect, but it has been well researched and much commentary has been made on and about it, so read up!
I dont see how copyright prevents anyone from enjoying anything, other than the free use of something which isnt legally theirs. On the other hand, I can see where shorter copyrights would prevent people who create and their immediate heirs from enjoying full benefit of their hard work. Life plus 75 effectively gives the copyright to at least one subsequent generation to "enjoy" for their full lifetime. And why shouldnt they?
I'm curious, exactly what sorts of things, and what specific things, do you wish were in the public domain during your lifetime that arent going to be?
This issue has been beaten to DEATH on other forums, but I guess we have to hash it out here again...
The intent of copyright is to give the author exclusive rights to exploit authored materials for a LIMITED time frame and then pass these works into the public domain for universal enrichment of the public. Don't care if anyone likes that concept or not, that's the law...
First of all, you have to understand that US Copyright law is not monolithic; your rights vary according to the time in which you authored your work(s).
I can't possibly write all required to answer your question, but here is a place to start:
Frankly, the bulk of the early Disney material would be in the public domain has the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act failed to be passed.
When corporations start having special privileges on copyright public citizens cannot have, as is given in the SBCA, then we start down the slippery slope toward perpetual ownership of public discourse and "art space" by corporations.
I don't remember when I went to school anything that I signed that said, I wished my work to slide into the public domain whether I am dead or alive, unless I have contracted with a company to do works for them, anything else I produce remains property of either myself or my estate, I could care less about the "public domain" if the public creates, then they own it, if I create it, I own it, if I create something tommorow that has broad appeal in 50 years, just as with any family, I fully expect my decendants to benefit from it, without having to worry if someone steals it from some website or other such digital capture means..if you disagree with the fact that the person creating the product has and continues to own the rights to it even after death, then by all means release your works to the public domain, but don't expect me to do the same, my photography is my work, just as Henry Fords cars were his work!
Your Copyright may be "orphaned" - act now 
Linear Mode
