Signed. The US Congress has better things to worry about than taking money from artists in which they haven't done one thing to earn any of that money.
Signed. The US Congress has better things to worry about than taking money from artists in which they haven't done one thing to earn any of that money.
Not that this would be a good law by any stretch of the imagination. Nor would I encourage or support such garbage as this would seem to implicate.
As far as this destroying ones ability to sell or keep a good copyright protection on ones work is a bit of a stretch.
Any work I publish or sell is protected @ a cost of about $2.00 per image, through a private registery company. So the amount for this protection is only a minor consideration.
My take on this, anyone affording equipment such as we use and the expense of trips, processing and other expenses the price paid is a small insurance policy for that protection. If one is planing to show/sell there work any place that it can be stolen you have little protection now as is without it.
So the registry of work through a private company makes good sense to me, most especially when the Feds are not involved to screw it up.
I am sure if one digs deep enough they will see what the Lobbist are really after and I am pretty sure its not the small time Artists.
I see bigger fish to fry as who and what to battle, such as some National monuments and Parks in some instances requiring permits for any one to go and photograph with intent to sell. Some of the fee's run into hundreds of dollars, So given the battle ground I would think the later would be more of a urgent call. Since this law has passed a few years back...
Or at least the later gets my blood boiling every time it has happened to me and others I have heard about...
Signed
Did anyone even read the ASMP page about this?
The current bill doesn't match the description in the O.P. of this thread. It's here: http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/HR5889draft.pdf
I think we should get our information from ASMP or other trade groups that understand the legislation and have been working with congress. From the ASMP site:
Our analysis
It has become clear is that some Orphan Works law is likely to be passed sooner or later. Key members of the House and Senate want it; significant user groups such as museums, academic institutions and publishers want it; and the general public wants it. ASMP understands the need for, and welcomes, a solution to the Orphan Works problem. Our objective has never been to defeat Orphan Works legislation as such. Rather, our goal is and has always been to make sure that any Orphan Works bill is fair to visual artists. In addition, it appears that the political environment this year is substantially more favorable to creators than it is likely to be over the next few years. These factors make it important for ASMP to help craft an Orphan Works bill that treats photographers and other visual artists fairly, and to support the passage of a fair and workable bill in this Congress.
Our proposal
We made substantial progress towards the goal of a fair and reasonable Orphan Works bill in the last Congress. However, there remained a few difficult but important areas of controversy when the bill was pulled. It appears likely that the starting point in this Congress will be something substantially similar to the last bill with, we are told, some improvements to help deal with the unique problems facing photographers and artists. In order to avoid unnecessary controversy, ASMP is proposing only a fairly small wording change from the last version of the bill that was introduced in the last Congress. We believe that this change will remove the threat to visual creators posed by profiteers seeking to use our works for commercial purposes while leaving intact the advancement of education and the country’s visual heritage, which are the primary goals of orphan works legislation.
In terms of drafting, we are proposing to limit the scope of the Orphan Works defense to:
Uses by individuals for non-revenue producing personal or community purposes, including uses on websites that do not generate revenues for the individuals using the Orphan Works;
Uses in works of non-fiction, such as books, articles or documentary films or videos;
Uses by non-profit educational institutions, libraries, museums or archives qualified for treatment under ¤501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended
in exhibits, including website displays, and
for uses that produce revenues and that are ancillary to exhibits.
In a nutshell, we see little financial harm to creators from the non-profit and non-fiction uses of orphaned images. At the same time, we want to make sure that commercial> users of images and illustrations would not be able to use an Orphan Works defense as a free pass to profit from infringements.
Done, next thing they will try to do is get rid of private stills.
If they want to make more money they should let the rest of the World, not the US, take over the Middle East, ie. Iraq, Afghanistan. But not having the balls to do so it's not going to happen.
The government in the US has become pickpockets to the public and are getting brasher as time goes on.
I trust NOTHING that comes out of the Bush administration. Get ready for the old one-two. It's the step that follows that will be the killer.
What's wrong with using the USPTO as the registration body, or making changes to the USPTO that would be consistent with fair orphan works legislation? As soon as it becomes private, then small business owners like photographers will get screwed. It will be managed in a way that favors big business.
Contrary to a previously expressed opinion, I don't see that legislation favorable to individual photographers is more likely to occur this year. I think we'd be better off waiting until the next administration.
I'm a little late to this party, but, having just read the ASMP article, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
As I understand it, this is coming out of Pelosi's House and Reid's Senate. But since I don't trust them any more than I trust Bush, I suppose that's a moot point.
This whole thing is very ridiculous. An art registry? What is this, the Soviet Union?
However: it provides some interesting options for defiant artists to take on the challenge of making unreproducible art. I mean, after this legislation passes (if it does), you'll have three choices:
1. <thick slavic accent> Seek Approval Certificate and Register "Art" with Central Registry Bureau.
2. Produce public domain art for the good of mankind and all that jazz
3. Become challenged to make things that simply cannot be reproduced. Like what? Like prints in a unique medium that can't be captured digitally, sculptures, live performances, anything that's defined by it's uniqueness and can't be duplicated with digital processes. I mean, if you're a platinum printer worth your salt it's not like those prints can be reproduced - and if they can, what the hell are you wasting your money and time on platinum salts for
So you know, it's not the end of the world. Just maybe the end of stock photography (but stock photography is doomed anyway, with every Joe McDSLR trying to submit to stock agencies, and companies like Adobe integrating stock sites into products like Lightroom). Stock photography can only become less lucrative as more and more people take on DSLR hobbies.
Thanks for posting this on the forum domenico. I signed the petition, will be contacting my local representative as I did when opposing the previous attempt at this Orphan Works. Spread the word people.
Bookmarks