Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court
> that's indefensible.
Fascinating stuff... I describe an ongoing fiasco, our two friends across the
pond go on defending it... It's possible to see how something as awful as the
Orphan Works Bill could even be contemplated over there.
It's invaluable to hear from someone who knows what "a lot of us" are
thinking...
Bob
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Szpakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 6:45:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
*Why defend the indefensible?*
I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court
that's indefensible.
michael
--- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: bob catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
> To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity"
> <[email protected]>
> Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM
> Hi Rob,
>
> Why defend the indefensible?
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
>
> > Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with
> the rest of the world.
>
> Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything
> unless the work is registered. What kind of right is that?
>
> http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html
>
> > The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays
> damages, but that they do so fairly.
>
> That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the
> work isn't registered. ONLY in the States!
>
> > The registry system is optional
>
> The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows
> infringers to use your work with impunity.
>
> > The registry system is optional and is designed to
> build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent)
>
> A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a
> designers and artists association in the UK, is likely
> horrified at the Orphan Works Bill.
>
> Actually, the American registry system is a form of state
> intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated
> anywhere else.
>
> Bob.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
>
> bob catchpole wrote:
> > Rob Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Registration only affects damages where
> copyright is infringed.
> >
> > So if someone uses your work without permission and
> you haven't
> > registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in
> the States.
>
> It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on
> the basis of
> that but I believe this has issues.
>
> > Why not
> > come into line with the rest of the world?
>
> Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the
> rest of the world.
>
> > Just get rid of the need (and
> > expense, $30 a time) to register.
>
> You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the
> date of
> publication can be useful.
>
> > Currently many working photographers in America are
> compelled to do the
> > same as Seth Resnick: "Every image that I shoot
> is registered before it
> > ever leaves my office." To us outside the States
> this seems ludicrous -
> > time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an
> automatic universal
> > right. And in the Land of the Free!...
> >
> > > The purpose behind the “visual registries”
> provisions is to help
> > artists keep
> > > ownership information associated with their
> works...
> >
> > To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of
> their work. Nowhere
> > else do they need to register the fact.
>
> Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in the
> US the same
> as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to
> prevent other
> people from copying their work (and thereby profiting from
> it) the same
> as everywhere else.
>
> Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that need
> tackling,
> even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can be
> improved, and
> Public Knowledge have suggestions for this.
>
> The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big
> corporations can
> afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown
> copyright status.
> Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller
> organization. The
> Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages,
> but that
> they do so fairly.
>
> The registry system is optional and is designed to build on
> services
> like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce
> copyrights and fees
> under the current system. Most professional artists and
> designers
> already belong to such a scheme.
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
