tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post2823177105854368696..comments2024-03-20T00:37:30.189-04:00Comments on Photo Business News & Forum: Orphan Works 2008 - A Wolf In Sheep's ClothingJohn Harringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-63150363878839037012009-01-28T23:38:00.000-05:002009-01-28T23:38:00.000-05:00相約到優質的宜蘭民宿喝茶、聊天、賞花,遇著一群和藹可親的民宿主人們,天南地北,溫馨暢談,那種感覺是在...相約到優質的<A HREF="http://www.yilantravel.com.tw/" REL="nofollow">宜蘭民宿</A>喝茶、聊天、賞花,遇著一群和藹可親的民宿主人們,天南地北,溫馨暢談,那種感覺是在別的縣市也感受不到的麥爾https://www.blogger.com/profile/02641262998710463736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-83999876298110167522008-12-03T03:16:00.000-05:002008-12-03T03:16:00.000-05:00Giulio --Being a member of ASMP is not just a one-...Giulio --<BR/><BR/>Being a member of ASMP is not just a one-issue deal. There are countless other great things that they do for members - SB2, corporate discounts, payroll offerings, insurance, and so on. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!<BR/><BR/>-- John<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.beauty4good.com/cosmetics.html" REL="nofollow">新娘化妝</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.weddings-studio.com/hunsasheying.html" REL="nofollow">婚紗攝影</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.freefuncar.com/" REL="nofollow">旅遊巴士</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.recycle-demolish.com/" REL="nofollow">清拆</A><BR/><A HREF="http://blog.sina.com.tw/oilprices/" REL="nofollow">油價</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.weddinghkcorp.com/hunshaxiang_hong_kong.htm" REL="nofollow">婚紗攝影</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.designer-consultant.com/design.html" REL="nofollow">室內設計</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.designer-consultant.com/office-interior-design-hk.html" REL="nofollow">interior design</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-87237740689382127682008-06-24T07:00:00.000-04:002008-06-24T07:00:00.000-04:00it just a jokeit just a jokeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-9749521555428898452008-05-20T18:07:00.000-04:002008-05-20T18:07:00.000-04:00WOW! Didn't any of you artists learn in art school...WOW! Didn't any of you artists learn in art school how difficult reverse type is to READ!!???<BR/><BR/>Good design, like good photography is functional. This website is brutal on the eyes!<BR/><BR/>Trying to get photographers to cooperate on business practice and pricing has been a lost cause for the 30 years I have made a living in this business. Now that I-Stock has a slew of mostly derivative photos on line for peanuts, the future is clear.<BR/><BR/>Our profession, if you call it, that has the value of a Pentax 67!<BR/>And that- ladies and gentlemen ain't much.<BR/><BR/>A top client of mine is traveling to India in two weeks. No he doesn't love Curry- He's setting up the lynching of a whole corporate art department in one of our biggest publishing houses...<BR/><BR/>And when he gets back? I'll bet there is someone in his chair who loves Bollywood!<BR/><BR/>There's no stopping the erosion of the rights of artists now that computers have made creating art so fool-easy.<BR/><BR/>Hell, most morons can take a nice photo- especially when one can see the result right away.<BR/><BR/>It's going to get much better...<BR/><BR/>For the buyers!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911505680698731980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-30522208098048857322008-05-18T17:17:00.000-04:002008-05-18T17:17:00.000-04:00John,How does Orphan Works address issues with tal...John,<BR/><BR/>How does Orphan Works address issues with talent or models in images? All of my talent are paid on usage too. Will this fall into the hands of photographers to require a clause in their releases that they are liable?Geoff Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10084892888596092692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-31031927052363257442008-05-13T18:47:00.000-04:002008-05-13T18:47:00.000-04:00Wow, all that writing - i only you'd just read the...Wow, all that writing - i only you'd just read the bills, instead of someone else's interpretation. <BR/><BR/>Here's a jint - just searchinga registry isn't good enough to qualify as a due dilligence search - thats int he house bill. That kinda smashes the house of cards that you've based all this on.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, read page 7 of the house bill. It counters everything you've said, except that wouldn't make for a nice rant, actually keeping to the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-14116240405682525872008-05-13T12:36:00.000-04:002008-05-13T12:36:00.000-04:00you are acting as if everyone will have access to ...you are acting as if everyone will have access to your raw files/negatives.<BR/><BR/>there is very little you can do with low res files from the internet and what you can do, is already being done by those without scruples and they are getting away with it.<BR/>i.e the recent trevor brown vs crystal castles case.<BR/><BR/>the bill will change nothing that isn't already happening, except help those that it is aimed at, the museums/libraries etc<BR/><BR/>those without scruples are not waiting for this bill before they start their pillaging...believe meAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-15098813332193397662008-05-10T11:17:00.000-04:002008-05-10T11:17:00.000-04:00This is the text of the email I am sending to the ...This is the text of the email I am sending to the committee.<BR/>"As an Australian creative photographer, the proposed Orphan Works Act of 2008 is an absolute affront to any notion of democratic representation, a very real threat to any livelihood I may garner from my work, my hours, my ideas and my creativity, and a travesty on an international scale. The battle cry of your American Revolution against British rule was, "No taxation without representation". My battle cry for the opposition to this proposed Bill would be, "No legislation without representation".<BR/><BR/>Under this proposed act any American (individual or corporation) could legally use any of my images, despite them being copyrighted under Australian law, for free and with no acknowledgement of their authorship. This is utterly unethical and immoral. It presupposes a superiority of US law over any other national jurisdiction, which is illegal according to international law. It removes any control over the use of my works. For example, an extremist right-wing organisation that is outlawed in my country could use my image, for free, to promote racial villification or other causes that I could not in any good conscience endorse. Is this an Act the self-proclaimed "land of the free" wants to be known for? Is this an Act that the supposed "champion" of democracy, free trade, liberty and equality for all can be responsible for?<BR/><BR/>Naturally, I cannot vote in your elections, so you may think my "voice in the wilderness" is safe to ignore, but, as it happens, my wife and son are both American citizens, and so I have family all across the USA, all of whom are registered to, and do vote. I also conduct business with a number of USA based businesses who all value my support and promotion of their products in Australia. They will be hearing from me on this issue, too."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-33273903538572089402008-05-09T10:50:00.000-04:002008-05-09T10:50:00.000-04:00Dear John, Thanks for taking the time to write and...Dear John,<BR/> Thanks for taking the time to write and post this piece, it has helped me tremendously to make up my own mind.<BR/> Sincerely,<BR/>Giorgio NiroAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-60985591102208287902008-05-08T11:29:00.000-04:002008-05-08T11:29:00.000-04:00hear hear!hear hear!annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04882028108030728279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-81988824791116644942008-05-07T14:57:00.000-04:002008-05-07T14:57:00.000-04:00First off, I need to make clear. I worked for Cor...First off, I need to make clear. I worked for Corbis for 7 1/2 years which has afforded me a great deal of knowledge regarding copyright law, how stock agencies come to find and license images and the level of paranoia incumbent to commercial and editorial image user’s. However, I do not have a big stake in the Stock agencies’ position on this topic. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, I no longer work for corbis and have not for a while now. I am a professional stock photographer. I have as much a stake in this whole thing as any one of you would.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I need to make clear hate the pirating of images has been going on wholesale for a very long time. This is nothing new.<BR/><BR/>Below are responses I have written in another forum to which I belong with regard to similar articles about “orphan works” legislation. Not addressed in these original responses are the notion of “derivative works” and models suing photographers. With regard to these I say.<BR/><BR/>Derivative works are far more complex than the author here lets on. Copyright in the derivative work applies only to those parts (changes) which the derivating party has made. Copyright in the changed original work is still held by the creator of the original work. Thus unless a work is altered beyond the recognition of the original, the original copyright is still valid. See below for an excellent definition of derivative works.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work<BR/><BR/>Second, the notion of models suing photographers. First, as any photographer selling her/his work knows. The level of paranoia on the part of image users is very high with regard to using images containing people. It is the user’s legal responsibility to be able to provide a model release or actually verify it’s existence and be able to provide it if there is a suit. In a ironic way this actually strengthens art photographer’s claim as not only is there evidence of the copyright holder brought to the legal table in a suit but evidence that the user did not confirm the existence of a model release with the photographer. Simply stated, legitimate clients using “orphan works” which is what opponents to the bill see as the problem WILL NOT use images with people or property which would require a property release without proof of necessary releases. <BR/><BR/>Ok, everyone needs to stop panicking here. I have read both articles listed within this string. As Kate points out this is not the first mention of some heinous orphan works legislation. In both instances, these articles are written by guys who tend to be pretty radical in their attitudes and not entirely attentive to the true nature of the topic they are discussing. First off, whatever orphan works bill might come around, it DOES NOT mean that artists will lose the rights to their works. The idea of orphan works has long been a part of copyright legislation, the proposed new legislation is meant to better define the actual nature of what orphan works are and how problems have developed in light of the digital age. The idea of orphan works is predicated on the notion that the person or company that would like to use a work of art by a relative unknown must apply due diligence in an attempt to find the artists or his/her heirs or trust. I know several small company owners that use orphan works a lot and for any orphan work they wish to use they hire a researcher and a lawyer and take specific and routine practices to prove due diligence and make a reasonable search for the copyright holder. The notion of orphan works is more about works created in the past than it is about artists in the here and now. Currently, however, in the US, an artist has the option of listing with with ARS or VAGA, both long extant companies that negotiate copyright fees on behalf of an artist. The artist does not have to document every piece they have ever done. You use these organizations to protect your copyright claim. You also use these companies to put your name into the public register, thus lessening orphan works problems. Almost every first and second world country on earth has one or more of these types of national organizations whose purpose is to protect copyright for an artist.<BR/><BR/>Here is an extensive explanation of the proposed legislation. http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>The claim that Corbis and Getty (and other stock agencies) are the primary instigators of this legislation or even support it is downright ludicrous. They have absolutely nothing to gain in this. First off, Corbis and Getty work with individual photographers, illustrators, museums and image archives to license their works on their behalf. It is like a gallery selling an artist’s work, they sell it and they get a commission and the artist gets paid the rest. The creator of the work still holds copyright to the work and in the case of museums and image archives the end user would have to pay a separate fee to the copyright holder for the right to use the image (this is where VAGA and ARS come in). Getty, Corbis, and most other stock agencies hold no claim to the copyright inherent in the work. In fact, contributors (individual artists, photographer’s and illustrators) to corbis can have corbis register their works with the US copyright office at Corbis’ expense. The only exception to this is work for hire or spec commercial shoots, etc. In this case the concept of work for hire is the same as it might be when a photographer shoots for a magazine and the contract gives rights to the film and the images to the magazine. This is a very common scenario. Corbis and Getty do have other wholly-owned collections, for instance Corbis’ Bettmann Archive. But again, while Corbis might own the film or original illustrations in the collection, they do not own the copyright to the actual image. This is still the intellectual property of the creator. To speak to the alleged amassing of giant royalty free collections. most stock agencies, Getty and Corbis included have much royalty-free imagery, however! The RF images they have fall under two categories, one, they have a contract with the photographer who still holds copyright to the image itself, and two, images which the agency actually bought from the photographer (work for hire) and for which the agency also holds the copyright. They are buying the image and it’s intellectual rights (copyright). In addition, the big agencies (corbis, getty, Jupiter) have specific departments the sole purpose of which is to police for images they represent that are used in an illegal and unlicensed way.<BR/><BR/>There are relatively simple fixes to prevent your work from becoming “orphaned.” One, register it with the US copyright office. You do not have to pay a fee for each image, you can register them in bulk for a fixed price. Two, join ARS or VAGA so that your name becomes part of the public record. Three, maintain your own web presence. Have your own site if for no other reason than to put your name into the public record. In other words, make sure your name can be found in a reasonable search by a trained professional in the field. <BR/><BR/>It s a lot harder to claim a work is an orphan work than these people are letting on and again, for the most part orphan works practices are generally geared toward older works where the artist might be dead or there is no reasonable system of tracking them down. Things are a lot different in the here and now. Google yourself. See my posts in the forum. http://www.artbistro.com/topics/3675-your-art-is-not-yours---change-in-usa-copyright-law-/posts The concept of Orphan works has existed in law for a very long time. These new bills are designed to better clarify both artist and user rights. The notion of due diligence in a search for a creator is far more stringent than those opposed to the bill let on. Yes, a creator might lose the right to seek certain types of damages, but the rate of compensation is based upon the licensing fee you yourself would charge for the same use of the work if they come to you or else, if they get this image from an archive or stock agency, it would be based upon price book rates for the same usage. THE SETTING OF THIS FEE IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE OFFENDING PARTY IT IS SET IN BY THE COURT. In other words, you would receive the same amount you would earn if the worked was actually sold by you or your sales agent. There are several means by which to protect your work from "orphan" status. Register it with the copyright office (you can bulk register images). Embed your identity into the IPTC of every image you produce digitally. Join ARS or VAGA in the US who will act as copyright agent on your behalf. Build yourself a web site which is solely about your work and for extra protection, register that site with Google and Yahoo (both free). All of these place and more would need to be checked by a potential end user in a due diligence search for a creator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-48920834940810956782008-05-05T23:09:00.000-04:002008-05-05T23:09:00.000-04:00ASMP - blah, blah fucking blah.Weisgrau wrecked AS...ASMP - blah, blah fucking blah.<BR/><BR/>Weisgrau wrecked ASMP with his self-indulgent paranoia.<BR/><BR/>Stand up and do the right thing. Forget the trade groups, grow some balls and write a letter to your Congressman that requires you to think instead of copying some pro-forma boilerplate.<BR/><BR/>Hiding behind Mama ASMP's apron is going to do the trick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-30300736766791224422008-05-04T09:56:00.000-04:002008-05-04T09:56:00.000-04:00I didn't realize that by being a photographer -- I...I didn't realize that by being a photographer -- I had become a public servant.<BR/><BR/>Here is one photographers testimony before Congress <BR/><BR/>"...If individual independent creators are to be successful in protecting their interests, they must demonstrate their willingness to serve the public interest while they minimize the financial consequences to themselves. Properly addressed with selfishness restrained on the part of the stakeholders Orphan Works legislation can and should find its way into law."<BR/><BR/>(c) 2007 Richard Weisgrau (former ASMP head honco)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-69470459031522109782008-05-04T05:58:00.000-04:002008-05-04T05:58:00.000-04:00Clem:That page lists what ASMP considers achieveme...Clem:<BR/><BR/>That page lists what ASMP considers achievements. A lot of people outside the ASMP frankly, strongly and (in John's case) eloquently disagree. You can pat yourselves on the back and say job well done but you are only kidding yourselves. <BR/><BR/>And for the ASMP to state that this should be supported because it is the best it will ever be just makes you look like you've been mugged.<BR/><BR/>John has clearly put forward strong arguments in opposition and you can address those respectfully or just posture and accuse him of scaremongering.<BR/><BR/>Right now the ASMP are not looking fit for purpose.<BR/><BR/>TimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-2474588103817449832008-05-03T22:30:00.000-04:002008-05-03T22:30:00.000-04:00I am fairly new at all of this and I have read you...I am fairly new at all of this and I have read you book (3 times) John, but I have to wonder why the licensing method is the only way to do business.<BR/><BR/>It's like wedding photography, in my small town here in Ontario the client gets a DVD of the images they select as well as prints. The photographer does not rely on print sales, but rather just charges more up front (Note, not all do this, but all the photographers I personally know)<BR/><BR/>Why could this not be extended to the rest of the photographic industry....Why not up the front end pricing and not rely on licensing. If you get paid enough up front, then who cares if the image gets passed around on the net. I don't think that Saturn cares that my care had 2 owners before me. <BR/><BR/>Sure you can't copy a car and get 10 millions of copies of that car....But if I am being paid enough to create original work to keep the business running and have a good quality of life....I think basing my income on constantly creating in not that bad of a plan.<BR/><BR/>So why is licensing model better then just getting paid to create? Is it that it's because it's the only way it has been done or is there another reason for retaining copyright?<BR/><BR/>I have never really read anything that explains this....any links?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05508673552146893199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-12925636621822860152008-05-03T22:02:00.000-04:002008-05-03T22:02:00.000-04:00John,I think you are misrepresenting the situation...John,<BR/><BR/>I think you are misrepresenting the situation and what ASMP is advocating (and why) in a unhelpful, and perhaps dangerous, way. At best, your post is a gross over-simplification of a very long and complex situation.<BR/><BR/>At the very least, you should have posted a link to the ASMP OW page at the beginning of your post so that readers can see the actual position statements for themselves rather than relying solely on your biased interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Here it is:<BR/>http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php<BR/><BR/>Also, you cast aspersions on the actions and positions of ASMP without ever supplying plausible motivation. Can you explain why?<BR/><BR/>John, with your position of high-visibility, thanks in-part to ASMP, you have a responsibility to speak with prudence and probity and sober discretion. I expect better from you.<BR/><BR/>Please consider these words in the spirit in which they are intended.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>ClemClem Spaldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04772525903933189192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-47260892941877250002008-05-03T20:46:00.000-04:002008-05-03T20:46:00.000-04:00John,I'm confused. I haven't opposed legislation b...John,<BR/><BR/>I'm confused. I haven't opposed legislation before but I want to oppose the proposed Orphan Works bills. Do I just send my "nay" comments to the member for my area, or do I register my concerns with all members of both committees even if they don't officially represent me and my area? Is there any advantage in my sending my concerns/comments/nay vote to other members of the committees? What's the most effective way to voice my concerns?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for a well written, thoughtful article. As a member of both organizations, I was shocked and disappointed by ASMP's and PPA's apparent endorsements of the proposed Orphan Works bill as well. As a member, I felt let down...like my interests weren't being represented on a matter of huge importance. I am just starting out as a professional photographer, however the thought that I will only have limited rights and protections over my own work makes me wonder whether or not I can pursue this profession for the long-term. <BR/><BR/>Thanks, BrendaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-12883566345308239602008-05-01T17:43:00.000-04:002008-05-01T17:43:00.000-04:00Giulio --Being a member of ASMP is not just a one-...Giulio --<BR/><BR/>Being a member of ASMP is not just a one-issue deal. There are countless other great things that they do for members - SB2, corporate discounts, payroll offerings, insurance, and so on. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water! <BR/><BR/>-- JohnJohn Harringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-90958557144848216102008-05-01T16:45:00.000-04:002008-05-01T16:45:00.000-04:00Go get 'em Mr. Zero!This is great info. I wonder a...Go get 'em Mr. Zero!<BR/><BR/>This is great info. I wonder at times like this why I'm a member of ASMP. Are they really operating in our best interest or are they touching their toes.<BR/><BR/>I'm with you all the way on fighting this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-88714663584046967852008-05-01T12:58:00.000-04:002008-05-01T12:58:00.000-04:00Derek --Thanks. That's why I noted that if that ha...Derek --<BR/><BR/>Thanks. That's why I noted that if that happened, to go to the 'website link', and go that route. I appreciated your CC'ing me on what you wrote to them, and you are among over a dozen people, so far this morning, that CC'd me with well written correspondence to the legislators. I can only imagine how many didn't CC me, and just sent along a message. <BR/><BR/>- JohnJohn Harringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16941161605443479300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-37538746325434503322008-05-01T11:51:00.000-04:002008-05-01T11:51:00.000-04:00FYI - My emails to Sensenbrenner & Kohl bounced. ...FYI - My emails to Sensenbrenner & Kohl bounced. In order to send emails to either of them, you need to use the web form on their respective sites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-83169556375205180312008-05-01T11:47:00.000-04:002008-05-01T11:47:00.000-04:00Probably one of your best pieces. This bill is aki...Probably one of your best pieces. This bill is akin to the inmates running the asylum. You pretty much outlined the doomsday scenarios I've been imagining. One of the really troubling things about the bills are they are extremely vague as to what a "reasonable search" is. <BR/><BR/>I'm pretty much convinced there's some group that sees a lot of money to be made by stripping we content creators of our rights and recourse. I don't see how fair use doesn't already apply to the museums' and libraries' need to preserve older works--or if not then a minor adjustment could fix that. Something just really stinks there.<BR/><BR/>I will be making use of your helpful links to register my opposition to the bills, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-18401530962174374022008-05-01T09:15:00.000-04:002008-05-01T09:15:00.000-04:00So what would be the most nefarious example of abu...So what would be the most nefarious example of abuse? Would it be like this: I set up an black market resource center to feed images anonymously to a unscrupulous art buyer and they use the images and say that they couldn't find the owner because someone sent them to them without identifying them initially. So if one website after another had images posted without ids anyone could just take an image, send the owner of that website where they were posted for free an e-mail asking for ownership id and just by the supplier replying, I don't know, would suffice as a reasonable search for the original creator? Again, let's hear some real examples of disastrous behavior and abuse scenarios ALONG with the theories of how bad the law is. Great piece John, I've already sent my opposition to my Senator who sits on the committee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553278593406733377.post-42549819117734900172008-05-01T06:05:00.000-04:002008-05-01T06:05:00.000-04:00Nice piece John.Some heads in the trade groups nee...Nice piece John.<BR/><BR/>Some heads in the trade groups need to be knocked together in a pretty serious way.<BR/><BR/>Lets make some noise people!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com