Sylvia Plachy takes the stage on the first of three days at Look3 - Festival of the Photograph.
Look3, the Festival of the Photograph, held for the past two years, enters its' third year this week, June 11th through 13th, in Charlottesville Virginia. A remarkable celebration of photographers, their images, and stories, are on display in galleries around town, as well as on stage at the Paramount Theater each evening.
It was suggested that organizations like the Copyright Alliance, which was in attendance, collectively represents those creators, as they have photographer associations as members. However, to not have a single photographer, illustrator, or painter on stage, while the vast majority of other creators were, seems rather odd.
See if you can discern the answer Gibb gave us, as we asked, and re-asked the question.
The World Copyright Summit, held June 9th and 10th, 2009 was a who's who of organizations and individuals with a wide array of perspectives on copyright issues. Gigi Sohn, President and co-founder of Public Knowledge, a Google-backed organization, shares her perspective on copyright issues, and Orphan Works. Last year, we reviewed a number of Public Knowledge's statements about Orphan Works - Orphan Works - A Unique Set of "Myths" and "Facts" (6/2/08).
Senator Hatch's remarks on the subject were:
I also continue to be very active on passing orphan works legislation.
Last year, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to encourage the use of orphan works - works that may be protected by copyright but whose owners cannot be identified or located. Countless artistic creations - books, photos, paintings and music - around the country are effectively locked away and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the copyright for the work is unknown.
Unfortunately, it often isn’t easy to identify or find these owners of copyrighted work. To make matters worse, many are discouraged or reluctant to use these works out of fear of being sued should the owner eventually step forward.
For years, I have been working with industry stakeholders and copyright experts, including Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, to pass orphan works legislation. The bill seeks to unite users and copyright owners, and to ensure that copyright owners are compensated for the use of their works. I couldn’t agree more with Register Peters when she said, “A solution to the orphan works problem is overdue and the pending legislation is both fair and responsible.”
While it comes as no surprise that orphan works will return this term, such a public pronouncement, during a time when the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking up the nomination hearings for a new Supreme Court Justice, came as somewhat of a surprise. It would have been reasonable to expect that this would be in full discourse this Fall, however, when we contacted Sen. Hatch's office for a comment, his Press Secretary, Mark Eddington, provided us with this quote from the Senator:“Orphan Works remains an important priority for me. Last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed the legislation. I see no reason why Chairman Leahy and I can’t re-introduce this bill in the coming weeks.”
It could reasonably be expected that the bill that is re-introduced will be identical to the one that passed the Senate last session, and then all eyes will turn on Chairman John Conyers. Back in January, at the start of the 111th Congress, we wrote 111th Congress - Orphan Works Futurecast, which details Conyers' past positions as very Pro-IP.
I have been critical of PDN's past photo contests (No Confidence Vote for the PDN/NGS Contest, (1/28/08), but this charge is just outright asinine.
There are three premises that these charges suppose:
1) By having a jury that looks all white, these individuals will select or be pre-disposed to selecting white photographers, white subjects, or issues predominantly of interest to whites.
2) They should have been actively racist in saying "hey we need a _____ guy or a ______ woman here to round out the color spectrum for our judges."
3) That, independant of race, judge(s) "of color" were asked to judge not for the color of their skin but their stature in the industry, and could not do it, for whatever reason.
