All your Copyrighted images belong to me...

[aterlecki]

Please have a read of this as it sounds like a massive Copyright property grab:

Urgent Call for Your Action on Orphan Works

If you are in the US then please try and contact your government representative. Nobody in the US government is going to listen to me in the UK moaning (although I believe under the Berne Convention anyone in a country outside the US who is a signatory will be influenced by this legislation)

[a.black]

Uhhhuhh. Sounds like a nice one again from the people "in charge".

[Ken Ford]

I faxed letters to my Senators and Congresscritters today...

[a.black]

I always wonder if I should send letters to the representatives of my area, even though I'm not American. But then I don't know how many Americans do it themselves?

ASMP?

They are:

"ASMP has formed a coalition of organizations which I am representing in connection with Orphan Works that includes the Graphic Artists Guild, the National Press Photographers Association, the Stock Artists Alliance, Advertising Photographers of America, Editorial Photographers, the Illustrators Partnership of America (which carries with it approximately 40 other organizations), and the Picture Archive Council of America (with their General Counsel Nancy Wolff). Some of the other photographers organizations that we have approached have not yet responded to us, so that list may grow."

Huh?

Where are the mainstream groups? You know, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg etc.?

I think I'll actually think about this before joining the herd....

[ErnestoJL]

My question about this is :
Are our works (which some are published in this site´s gallery) protected against actions such as those described by V. Perlman? are them the so called "Orphan works"?

I´m not a pro, nor an US citizen, nor I´m living in the US, but some of my pictures are in the RFF gallery, and I don´t like anyone to use my pictures without permission in written, issued after a trade agreement or contract between parties involved.

This may sound silly, but anyone can make a digital copy of the pictures posted, and at a later date use them as he/she may want at the time if the picture is good enough for their purposes whichever they may be.

So, if the author "cannot" be located under the terms of the new legislation ammendment, or someone just starts to use the pictures after it´s issued, no action would be enough to protect my (or other´s) rights regarding my (theirs) intellectual property.

This legislation if isued would affect directly and mainly US citizens, but what about other people?
If the pictures are posted in a website located in the US, are the pictures posted covered or not by this legislation?

Guess they are too many questions...

Ernesto

[Finder]

The article says the US infringer just needs to make a "search in good faith." So they can take your pictures and if you ever caught them, they simply could say they tried to find you, but could not. And you cannot sue them for damages. Where the image originated is beside the point as the American company would need to be sued in America. Suing them oversea will probably have no affect.

[sf]

Too bad I spend all my money on cameras . . . .my cousin has a very expensive hobby as well. . . . .

[ErnestoJL]

If that´s the case, then there is no way to protect my rights over the works.
Then I´ll wipe out all of my pictures right now. This way I could still exert some sort of control over them.

Ernesto.

[Finder]

Ernesto, the law has not been passed. Why don't you write to one of the US congress members. The more letters whatever the source, the better.

[allthumbs]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

Where are the mainstream groups? You know, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg etc.?

I don't think large organizations would be hurt by such legislation; more likely they would benefit. If I understand it correctly, this one's about exploiting the little guy.

[doubs43]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

Where are the mainstream groups? You know, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg etc.?

As USERS of images, and presently paying to use them, wouldn't those organizations save money by not having to do more than make a "good faith search" and then use the image without paying?

One needs to ask who benefits from this legislation and WHY is it being proposed. It's almost certainly about money and on the face of it, it would appear to be bad legislation.

Walker

[Talisker]

Originally Posted by ErnestoJL

If that´s the case, then there is no way to protect my rights over the works.
Then I´ll wipe out all of my pictures right now. This way I could still exert some sort of control over them.

Ernesto.

Ernesto - your pictures on RFF should be quite safe as if would be very difficult for an infringer to claim that they couldn't contact a member of a discussion forum!

I do wonder what interests this is supposed to protect though...

[ninetyguy]

I would encourage people to look at <a href="http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html">http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html</a> to see some comments on the orphan works issue that are much more complete than the scary press release of the ASMP lawyer.

There's a nice set of links at <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/11/orphan_works_reply_c.html">http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/11/orphan_works_reply_c.html</a> to comments submitted by big groups on both sides (the recording industry, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, libraries, museums, etc.).

I strongly support this law. Congress, for the last many years, has been strongly on the side of intellectual property holders' rights. They didn't become a bunch of communists overnight. The fact that this is even under discussion in the current congress suggests how harmless it is. "Good faith" means just that, and you're not going to see the courts give away IP rights on some weak interpretation of what "good faith" means. The big players (i.e., Disney, Sony, etc.) aren't going to stand for that).

My take on it is that, if your work is used illegally, it's very hard to get compensation now anyway (look at any number of discussion threads in online forums about people who feel their photos have been stolen: I don't think I've ever seen a thread where someone ended up able to afford to go to court and recover damages). You aren't losing anything you actually have, and you are gaining a system where libraries and museums have a better chance of continuing to preserve our culture.

I have been a reader for several months, but this is the first time I have felt moved to register and start posting.

See you around.

Rick