tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post8780724793668369536..comments2024-03-20T00:37:30.189-04:00Comments on Photo Business News & Forum: Orphan Works Act = Thieves Charter?John Harringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-80717123629623247472008-05-20T22:19:00.000-04:002008-05-20T22:19:00.000-04:00Who is really behind this bill? I find it hard to...Who is really behind this bill? I find it hard to imagine that it's just a bunch of librarians and filmmakers wanting to make documentaries and grannies looking to clean up a bunch of old photos of the family from the 30's. So, cutting through the verbiage, who are the powerhouses pushing for this "reform?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-20881702702048773752008-05-08T23:22:00.000-04:002008-05-08T23:22:00.000-04:00Thanks for the report. I think if the Orphan Right...Thanks for the report. I think if the Orphan Rights Bill passes, all photographers should place their copyight notice directly on the edge of the photograph and require that it stay there when published. (e.g. it can't be retouched or cropped out.) <BR/><BR/>I know of one photographer who always required credit adjacent to his pictures even in high end advertising. His clients accepted it. <BR/><BR/>If clients complain we can say that we have no choice but to protect ourselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-11525593749856977352008-04-29T10:38:00.000-04:002008-04-29T10:38:00.000-04:00Darn it, I meant "repeal the patent and copyright"...Darn it, I meant "repeal the patent and copyright" laws. They could also, of course, repeal the trademark laws, but that's a Commerce Clause issue.<BR/><BR/>Also, note that repealing any of the laws and not replacing them might be a violation of international treaties, but Congress has the power to do that. No Congress can bind any future Congress in any way. Treaties in force are part of the law of the land and must be obeyed, but the USSC will not attempt to prevent Congress from doing something that would violate a treaty so long as it was clear that they meant to do it and there was no conflict of law.<BR/><BR/>MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-25230554706827525422008-04-29T10:35:00.000-04:002008-04-29T10:35:00.000-04:00While generally speaking I agree with what you've ...While generally speaking I agree with what you've written, I have to differ on your assessment of the Constitutionality of the proposed law. The language reads "shall have the power to secure...," not "shall secure..." It is an enabling phrase, not a mandating phrase. Congress, if it wanted to, could repeal the patent and trademark laws tomorrow, and it would be perfectly Constitutional. <BR/><BR/>If you want proof of the extreme latitude that the USSC allows Congress in this regard, consider that copyright terms have been extended for decades, mostly at the urging of Disney's lobbyists, and may in fact NEVER be allowed to expire. The USSC is fine with this, so long as the increments are technically "limited times." Keep in mind that ten thousand years is a limited time. "Forever minus one day" is a limited time.<BR/><BR/>In some ways, the OW law is a response to the fact that copyrights are probably going to be practically unlimited in duration from here on out - lazy artists and marketing people want to use stuff from decades ago, whose creators are dead or unlocatable, and they're making a Posner-ian "argument to social value" to try to keep from getting sued when somebody realizes that they stole a picture postcard their grandfather made in 1937. From their point of view, since they're not particularly creative and since their corporate sanctioned output WILL be registered nine ways from Sunday, it's a perfectly rational economic choice.<BR/><BR/>MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com