(Magazine B) should ever get their hands on it???? Read (Magazine A) should never get their hands on it????
David Crossley/Crossley Photography....
(Magazine B) should ever get their hands on it???? Read (Magazine A) should never get their hands on it????
David Crossley/Crossley Photography....
On a lighter note, some time in the future, In a related memorandum, legal consultants to Magazine A and B circulate an interoffice email -
No worries about Magazine A and Magazine B, they are both owned by International Consortium X, which now is the sole owner of print product lines, media lobbyists and some election campaigns. ICX has also recently aquired the paper and ink industries, and is contemplating a merger with MalWart, the nations only retail store. By 2010, ICX will be the sole source for all publications and retail products.
As the photographer has entered into a dispute with one or more International Consortium X's media divisions, the insurance subsidiaries will cancel the photographer's insurance retroactively, and the finance divisions will enforce higher interest rates on the equipment leases due to increased risk.
Internation Consortium X takes all competitive threats seriously. Anyone seeking profit outside of ICX operations will either be assimilated or sued, whichever is less costly.
point understood but
When I wrote that -- I was actually was thinking of a photo I took of detergent suds in a creek in a public park that had no restiction or permits required for photography) and had assumed that I would research what a magazine had paid other cover photographers before negotiating. The ammendment does say fair compensation and legally that includes negotiating what is fair. (I have heard that a photo I took years ago is in cyberspace but right now I can't seem to image Google-it.) If I can't find it now how can I sell it - my original negative would prove its origin but is so severly water damaged that its unusable - it would be my good fortune if a publisher did find it.
If the posts had been positive to my example, I was about to post an example that I subsequently thought of that would not be good that included a model.
How do you think this should be handled? How do you think the copyright law should be changed?
Does the new Kodak/Fuji/KonicaMinolta agreement ["Everplay" XML based] on a new digital image file standard that keeps the owner info intact with the photo help this situation?
Should the ASMP dictate to their members how info on the backs of prints are to be stated? This was suggested by a poster to the ASMP thread oiginally linked in the starting post.
Terence Spross
Donald,
the point I was making was how difficult it could be to find a copyright owner, even for a well known image. These people were actively trying to do the right thing, acknowledging the original creator.
To give another example, friends of mine have a 20x30 poster which features a shot of the interior of NY Central Station (I think) from between the world wars. There is no caption and no photographer credit. I eventually found the photographers name (since forgotten again) but only because I knew what the subject was.
If you know the subject is somewhere in Yosemite then chances are you'll find Ansel Adams, if not it is just a pretty mountain.
Unless your work is well known enough to be readily identifiable by sight alone the chances of "reasonable effort" turning up your name would be fairly slim.
Paul -- got it on the second bounce. Have to hold up my "Slow Children" sign again.
Hey Terence, I was just poking fun within a very serious issue. You've got good points too even though I can't think of any public park or place that has no restrictions or permit requirements for commercial photography. If you know of one the Los Angeles area by chance, please do tell!!!
A few more thoughts - When a person submits a print, at least that can have a terms of use in writing and information on the print itself, even in the borders or on the back side. It seems that every photographer needs to at least put their information on photos this way, as at least marking them on the back has been pretty commonplace for quite a while. I used to do that with a stamp. For some reason, I stopped doing it. Time to start again.
Once a photo enters the digital world, by scanning or otherwise, all bets are off. There are asset tracking systems that scan the net for misapproprated photos, however the cost often exceeds what a photographer might make during the years the image circulates online. Without a specific nnew file format to accomodate rights management in a more sophisticated manner, it seems that current file formats just don't have what it takes.
Certainly, some kind of encrypted key interwoven with the pixel data might work out in a new file format, however again, all the person has to do is scan a print to take out the source information,
however perhaps at least a key could control the resolution. Perhaps the file format could have a self destruction date or code as well.
There are tradeoffs too in terms of privacy. A new tracking file format could turn every photograph into a sort of digital camera in itself, as viewers and users of the photograph could be tracked and monitored. Indeed, to some extent that happens today, however with less certainty than a new DRM file type. The question in any new file format is whether the common photographer can gain benefit, or if it is instead designed in the interests of the large media companies. Does anyone have link to proposed new file formats with DRM in them?
What's difficult to understand is how a department store might prosecute somebody for the theft of a $20 tee shirt, yet a photographer who invested a couple thousand in a photo session with talent casted, etc. has a tougher time when someone misapproprates that image. It's hard to believe that stock photo houses are not opposed.
Perhaps we should all label photos on the front of the photo, as tacky as that can be, right in the image area, and then push for legislation that makes removal of that mark illegal. Hey, the mattress and furniture tags are illegal to remove, right? < big grin>.
It would seem that all of this is leading to desire on the part of big media for "work for hire", a roll back to the days when artists did not receive royalties for their work.
What's difficult to understand is how a department store might prosecute somebody for the theft of a $20 tee shirt, yet a photographer who invested a couple thousand in a photo session with talent casted, etc. has a tougher time when someone misapproprates that image.
Although many people love to call the misappropiate of the image theft (and the movie and music industry particularly love this angle), it is not theft, at least under the law. It may be loss of potential revenue, and it may certainly be bothersome to the photographer, but it is not theft. In particular, the photographer is not denied the continued use of the image. It is easy for it to be overhyped. And yes I make my living producing copyrighted material (and sometimes other form of IP such as patents), so it is very much an issue for me.
Of course, this new law is really just trying to fix a problem caused by the much too long (obviously strictly in my opinion) copyright extensions, but no one wants to address the core problem of mickey expiring. I think the issue is considerably more difficult then presented here in the social good sense, balancing pay for work and without giving undue protection.
On several occasions I have had to negotiate with image researchers for big name textbook publishers who wanted to use one of my micrographs. I have no doubt whatsoever that had this law been in place they would have simply used the image without informing me and fobbed me off with a pittance if I ever found out. The people I dealt with may be exceptional, but I find the idea of publishing companies helping the small-time photographer who would not otherwise have made a sale completely laughable.
I also find it really hard to see how this law will work internationally. How do you think the Chinese will react when next lectured on intellectual property rights when American publications can pretty well rip off every photographer and illustrator in China with a shrug and a wink and a "well we sent a letter to Mr Lee in Taifan but he didn't respond." Hollow laughter and the frantic whirring of their own printing presses I should think.
This is a law designed to allow big publishers to kick sand in the face of small photographers. At least the copyright extensions had some benefits for individual photographers too. This is pure greed.
This wouldn't quite constitute a “reasonably diligent” attempt<cite>
“well we sent a letter to Mr Lee in Taifan but he didn't respond.”
</cite>
to locate the copyright owner—the Report on Orphan Works specifically
notes that the copyright owner has the right not to respond.
The Report discusses “reasonable diligence” in considerable
length, yet in the end actually says very little. Some of the things that
are said are not encouraging. For example, on page 99:
They seem to ignore the fact that old photographs aren't the only ones that“Several commenters pointed out that with some types of works, such
as a print of an old photograph, the copy contains no information
whatsoever about its creator, let alone a current copyright owner. In such
cases, the reasonably diligent steps a user might take to find the owner
will likely be very limited.”
may be lacking identifying information. It's easy to get the impression
that most images would be up for grabs.
The Report goes on to support the development of new registries of works to
facilitate locating copyright owners, and the development of guidelines for
what might constitute “reasonable diligence”. Of course, until
better registries are created, the required effort might be quite minimal,
and until guidelines are developed, the task of definition would fall to
the courts, with the cost of such definition undoubtedly borne by the
owners of infringed works.
In the words of Victor Perlman, Managing Director and General Counsel for
ASMP,
Folks who are concerned about this legislation, especially U.S. residents,“. . . if that language is enacted in its current form, it will be
the worst thing that has happened to independent photographers and other
independent visual artists since Work Made for Hire contracts.”
ought to consider writing to the members of the Senate (and perhaps the
House) Judiciary Committee—all of the relevant information, including
a sample letter, is available on the ASMP link that Tim provided. ASMP
recommend writing to all members, but at the very least, logical contacts
would include Specter (the committee chair), Hatch (the subcommittee
chair), and Leahy, who, in addition to being a photographer, is the ranking
member (i.e., the top Democrat). If your senator or representative is a
member of one of the committees, he or she also is a good bet because these
folks pay far more attention to their constituents than to others.
I'm not sure how much attention is given to comments from those outside the
U.S., but it might not hurt to let these folks know that the proposed
legislation is likely to be seen as a strong challenge to China's
leadership in contempt for intellectual property rights.
I see both sides of this one, as a photographer and university instructor. One MAJOR beneficiary is universities trying to scan collections of out-of print books (often by long-dead authors) for wider distribution. They are generally pretty darned diligent about trying to pay any copyright holder who can be found. This is highly beneficial to academic discourse, and, I believe, should be encouraged.
On the other side, I certainly see how companies will use this to rip off living photographers, and I worry about that for two reasons. One is the obvious financial rip-off, and the second is an image ending up somewhere the photographer never intended, and doesn't endorse. An obvious example of this is that environmental bad actors often have trouble obtaining beautiful nature images, because many photographers simply WON'T license a picture of an old-growth forest to Weyerhauser Paper, or of Prince William Sound (without oil) to ExxonMobil, no matter what the price. I know of several nature photographers who sell stock images, but have clauses in their contracts prohibiting certain industries from ever using the work ("no oil companies" clauses, for example). If the oil companies get frustrated with these clauses, it may be easier for them to come up with a picture where they can't find the artist. Another possible issue like this would be political groups that have a hard time getting certain types of images (many nature photographers tend to be progressive, and conservative candidates might have a harder time than progressive ones coming up with nature images - conversely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many photographers of military subjects were more conservative, and progresssive candidates might have a hard time finding, say, a beautiful image of a F-16 (which is, in its own way, a beautiful object - see John Sexton's gorgeous images of the space shuttle and Chip Forelli's take on industrial subjects)). No photographer should be forced to license an image to a company or cause they do not believe in...
-Dan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks