On Sep 28, 2008, at 00:26 , John Sessoms wrote:
From: "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Did any of you stop to think that maybe this is an important issue
to people like us? Maybe some of you out there, who live in the US
and create photographic (or other media) works that others might
want to use, ought to be concerned about copyright laws?
This isn't simply about politics, it's about protecting that which
you have created.
My read on it is it will affect artists, authors & photographers
OUTSIDE the U.S. more than it might affect U.S. photographers.
They're more likely to have works declared "orphan" because they
didn't previously pay to register them with some U.S. repository set
up for that purpose. That's one of the provisions of the act.
It is only a provision that you MAY wish to register your work. If you
do not, you are still protected exactly as you are today. If you do
register a work, then you are able to sue for damages as well as
compensation for use.
Any image you want to protect from infringement has to be previously
registered. If it's not registered, the infringer can claim immunity
from damages because he "believed" it was an orphan work. That
"belief" is all the defense he'll need under this act.
No, the infringer has to PROVE he has searched with due diligence
BEFORE the work was used. Proof has to be in documented form.
And, BTW, once the infringer has invoked his "I honestly believed it
was an orphan work" defense, not only can you not obtain damages,
you won't even be allowed to stop him infringing you copyright.
Under the law, he'll have a "fair use" right to continue using your
work without giving you a red cent.
Again, not true. IF you have the work registered, you can collect
damages. If not, your copyright by current standards forces the
infringer to PAY YOU FOR THAT USE at a rate defined by current
standards. If they continue to use it, they continue to pay you. If
you ask them to stop, they MUST stop, and pay you for use up to that
moment.
The part of the proposed law that is hard on artists and media
creators is that it is up to the copyright holder to "discover" the
unauthorized use before they can do anything about it. Methods of data
basing or publishing your ownership of all your works are still being
debated, allowing searches to be successful by some sort of matching
description like the metadata and/or a checksum of the data contained
in a predetermined sector of the primary subject of the image. Some
sort of search engine would have to be put in place to crawl online
for evidence of your property, as well as some way for users of your
work to have to publish online that use even if it is not used online.
As far as costs for registering, what is being looked at are ways to
register "collections" of works, like "All photographs of copyright
holder in his/her titled collection 'My life from 1990 thru 2008' or
'Joe Schmoe's images of nature as he sees it'" as one work, registered
for a fee like $35. The perceived downside of any publication of your
works in order to protect them puts them out there to more easily by
harvested by infringers, though I imagine that low res. versions with
visible heavy watermarks through the center would suffice to claim the
work as yours yet make it unusable by someone wishing to infringe.
Still a burden for the artist to collect everything and publish it for
protection.
So you see, there are many ways to protect your work that are yet to
be worked out, and I'm sure they will be. There is no finished take on
the entities to be created by which you CAN register your works
allowing you to collect damages for infringement, nor on the fees for
such registration.
As I have posted elsewhere, I personally am tired of and amused by the
artist's community running around online crying "The sky is falling"
when few if any know what the sky is, what color it is, or where it
may fall, if at all. I have as yet to see any post that correctly
states the truth as it is currently, including my own. But I think
reading the legislation in situ, and as much published by both sides
will give you a better sense than reacting to the bulk mail pleas for
help to defeat a law that may in fact benefit creators of content art.
If you really want to be on the cutting edge of this legislation, hire
a lawyer to advise you and keep you up to date on the process.
Joseph McAllister
Pentaxian
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
