Your Copyright may be "orphaned" - new ammendment

[tim atherton]

(cross posted because of its potential impact) Not a good sign - for US members especially

From Mike Johnstons Blog:

Emergency for Professional and Creative Photographers

Folks, we have a very serious situation on our hands. Congress is right now rushing into law a bill to legalize the theft of YOUR original photographic work.

It's called the "Orphan Works" amendment to the copyright act. What it basically says is that if anybody comes across your professional or creative photography, any time, anywhere, and then attempts to locate the creator (you) but can't, then they can just take it. Take it and use it however they want to.

You forfeit your right to control your own work. This would be true even of photographs with registered copyright.... more below

Ammendment to copyright law to allow for "orphaned" works (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/02/emergency-for-professional-and.html)

ASMP link (http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php)

[Donald Brewster]

Seems like a bit of an over-reaction on Mike's part, but nonetheless an important question. That said, I'm not sure what the business rationale is for this amendment. It seems simple enough to me that if you cannot determine the copyright holder, you don't use it, unless in public domain -- and then you go on to find another photo or hire a photographer to make one. Where are the stock agencies on this? Wouldn't they be the ones potentially affected most?

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't see it as an overreaction. I'll give you a scenario that is likely under this legislation. Someone buys one of my lesser known prints on the secondary market, say at an estate sale. They can't read the signature and make a "reasonable" effort to determine copyright ownership and then go ahead and scan the image and use it in a brochure.

More on this on the Stock Photography Info Website;

www.stockphotographer.info/content/view/130/99/ (http://www.stockphotographer.info/content/view/130/99/)

[Roger Richards]

For those interested in this issue a good person to contact is Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, as he is also a photographer and has been a friend of the White House News Photographers' Association in the past. I am sure that he was not aware of the possible ramifications toward photographers, and would be resp0nsive to our concerns.

[Donald Brewster]

Kirk:

I understand the scenario you present -- and I'm not arguing against it. God knows you've far more at stake in this than I ever would. What I'm puzzled by is why someone thought this was necessary legislation in the first place. Where is the "real" problem this legislation is allegedly trying to fix? Who is pushing this legislation?

Regards,

Don

[Kirk Gittings]

Donald, Good question. In most circumstances bills like this seem to be written to make life easier for some corporate entity. I don't know who in this circumstance.

[Paul Ewins]

Recently I attended a lecture by Lewis Morley which coincided with an exhibition of British Art of the 60's. Lewis is best known for his photograph of Christine Keeler which he says is the third most ripped off photo in the world (after the standard Mao Tes-Tung portrait and Korda's Che Guevara). He showed a large number of variations some made with permission, most without.

One of those was by Matt Groening and featured Homer Simpson on the chair. This was done without permission because they were "unable to find the copyright holder". They went ahead regardless and it all got settled amicably later.

Imagine being the production company assistant who has to track down the copyright holder. How do you search on the net for an image if you don't know the details? Chances are they weren't even born when the shot was taken, have never heard the story and even if they had a copy in front of them wouldn't have a clue who the subject was.

If they can't find the copyright holder for one of the most famous photos in the world, what protection would your work have? And if someone really wants to use an image how hard do you think they will try to find the copyright holder?

OK, your photo gets used and you get paid "a reasonable amount". But what if it wasn't for something innocuous like the Simpsons. How may products would you like your work associated with? Political advertising? Taken out of context to misrepresent actual events? Loss of control is as much an issue as loss of revenue.

[tim atherton]

Libraries, archives and some educational institutions push for this kind of legislation (sometimes they are the allies of creators in the copyright battle, sometimes the enemies...).

But they generally aren't as powerful a lobby as Disney/Hollywood and the recording industry etc- who are the usual suspects in getting these kind of amendments passed after throwing big bucks at Congress.

[Donald Qualls]

It seems funny to me that the same (corporate) folks who pushed for original copyright to last forever (and settled, grudgingly, for a century or so in most cases) now want the rights to take works without permission if they can't find the copyright holder. Bet me anyone who misappropriates a Disney-owned image will wind up in court, having to prove they made a "reasonable effort" to contact Disney (or find out Disney owns the image -- a much harder issue in some cases), but if Disney uses one of my images, say in a movie that grosses $200 million, I'll get a stock fee once I track them down...

Seems to me both ends of this are wrong -- copyrights ought not to outlive the creator of the work (IMO), but use of a work without permission ought to result in compensation beyond the "reasonable" payment that would have been asked if permission had been propertly sought. As Paul said above -- control is as much the issue as money, in many cases. And we've all learned the lesson Mick Jagger was taught by Bill Gates, right? Always ask *too much*, and then triple it if you don't really want to sell to that buyer -- and multiply by 100 if they have *really* deep pockets (Mick missed that last step, leading to "Start Me Up" gracing Windows ads for a couple years).

[Ed Richards]

> Where is the "real" problem this legislation is allegedly trying to fix?

I can answer that, since it is a problem I deal with frequently. First, photographs are collateral damage. The real issue is books. The fast majority of books published since the copyright date in the 1920s are orphans - under the old tax laws, when a book went out of print, it was advantageous for the publisher to give the rights back to the author, who is now long gone, and who probably does not have a literary executor. If I want to republish that book to get it back into circulation or put it on the WWW for scholars, there is no one to ask. It took me two years to get permission to reprint a 1948 public health law book, and the foundation that held the copyright was still in business.

For photos, say I see an illustration in one of these orphan books - not identified, of course. I would need an independent permission to reprint that. The international reference on smallpox is now on the WWW because it is out of print on paper, but most of the illustrations cannot be published because there is no one to ask permission.

[Kirk Gittings]

Ed,

Interesting....now put on your photographer hat and look at it from that perspective.

[Ed K.]

Here's a rant -

There is a big difference between something being older than a certain number of years to gain orphaned status, and something current getting orphaned status. It seems like if copyright holders had to pay a nominal renewal fee for registered works every decade, that would pay for the databases to keep track of it, and possibly solve the problem both for people seeking the public benefit of copyrights, that copyright encourages invention/creation for the public good, AND people who wish to be rewarded during the terms of copyright. If the orphaned provision applied to works over 100 years old, that might not be too bad, however it's still not right.

It is quite sad that our constitution seems to be only relevant when the big boys want it to be. Why should Disney be any different than a small photographer in the eyes of the law? Copy Mickey, go to jail. Rip off a small photographer - no problem if you don't have a lot of money. It doesn't seem fair at all. Whatever happened to equal protection?

I heard too that there is more legislation regarding trademarks on buildings and such. They thrust their trademark into the public domain - the sky -, block my view, and then want to stop me from making images of my city if the images contain trademarks on buildings.

All of it really seems to be a case of the powerful and rich against the less rich and powerful. They want us to buy expensive gear, then they don't want us to profit by its use. They take photos of us and publish our shopping habits and bio for a profit, then they want to simply rip off all of our hard work too, most likely to use for their profits. It's the "haves" vs. the "have nots", and the difference between the two is billions.

And meanwhile, the manufacturers are silent. No support for their loyal Nikonians, Canonophites, Schneiderosauruses or Rodenstomites, yet they promote pro gear. It is disappointing that the camera manufacturers have not come to aid photographers.

I guess this means that all jobs have to be priced to include the anticipated uses in the future, and have onerous contracts to work around such legislation if passed. A contract is more powerful than copyright, and payment before possession is also powerful.

Maybe this is all really society's way of saying "my kid with a pocket cell cam takes as good a picture for me", or "who needs photographers? just download from one of the HD traffic cams or big brother cams for free!"

Even non-professionals should care about this, because much of the good gear available would not be around if there were no pros to buy it when it first came out. Professional photographers do a great deal to help the interests of even pure fine art photographers who do it for love.

I for one shall write to my representative, for what good it may do.

[Ed Richards]

The original term for copyright was 7 years, renewable once, if I remember correctly. That made it all easy. Meant that copyright was really to encourage people to keep doing stuff.

Since then we have extended copyright effectively forever, and at the same time have made it very easy for people to get copyright - you do not have to file anything, so there is no record to check for the copyright. For a photographer, you have to think about how your images are out there - if you sell books and traditional signed prints, your work will be identifiable. (Nothing stops scanner theft now.) If you are in the digital domain, Microsoft has a DRM system (digital rights management) system it wants to sell you. At the very least, we should be thinking about digital watermarks (invisible to the eye) in our digital work.

As for the small guy having trouble enforcing copyright - nothing special about copyright. Just get arrested and you will learn about the real nightmare for the little guy in our legal system.

I do not make these laws and if I were czar, they would be different. I just teach them and complain about them.:-)

[Donald Brewster]

Ed:

OK. I see that particular issue, but the legislation seems to me a ham handed solution (and I know you didn't write the legislation or necessarily support it). Is there something that could narrow cast this a bit more to the identified problem, say to use the illustrations as your example did, that would allow them to be used solely to keep the book whole and not as a separate item? I could see, in theory at least, a solution allowing limited copying to keep a larger work whole and complete. What we don't want is, metaphorically at least, is for the booksellers to cut the maps out to sell separately. Just thoughts.

Don

[tim atherton]

Canadian Copyright already has a version of this and has had them for some time - which is a working compromise between what creators wanted and what archives and such (as in Ed's case above) wanted. Hwoever, archives and library groups have been pushing for a broader "orphan" right akin to the one in question in Congress aka - one which makes the whole thing quicker and easier for them at the expense of Creators rights and control of their work:

"If an interested party wants to licence a work but the copyright owner(s)
can't be located, the interested party can get a non-exclusive licence
from the Copyright Board of Canada to use that work. The interested
party just has to show the Board that the party has made "reasonable
efforts" to locate the copyright owner(s).

However, a more comprehensive law regarding orphaned works was asked to
be included in the now-dead Bill C-60, (but wasn't). By "more
comprehensive", I mean that various library and archive groups want
quicker and easier access to orphan works without having to spend the
time and trouble trying to locate the copyright owners."

(thanks Warren).

Bear in mind regarding Ed's case above - any publisher reprinting a book for which permissions were obtained for a particular edition/time period - as is usually the case (or publishing one for the first time which uses a lot of illustrations from divers sources) HAS to go to the effort of acquiring or re-acquiring permissions and licenses to publish those images or illustrations. That's just part of the business of publishing. The current Canadian system is a working compromise. The proposed amendments would, in practice, lead to little effort at all having to be made to do that.

[Donald Brewster]

Paul:

I wouldn't put Homer Simpson as Christine Keeler on par with the issue being discussed here, since this isn't really a fair use issue (though perhaps would be better if phrased as one?). I would put the Homer Simpson use in the pile of parody cases that are among the most popular of copyright cases raising the fair use defense statutorily recognized in 17 USC 107.

Just to be pedantic, and make some use of this tangent, the ground rules in parody cases are fairly well-established because of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). An initial question is whether a use is a parody. In Campbell, Justice Souter defined a parody as a "literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule." A satire was defined as a work "in which prevalent follies or vices are assailed with ridicule ... or attacked with irony or derision." The distinction is between making fun of the work itself (parody), or using the book to make fun of something else (satire). Under Campbell, this difference is critical: "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

Regards,

Don

[Terence Spross]

One example of how a photographer might get paid under the new amendment:
A photographer is busy with his/her day job and/or current endeavors and isn't paying attention to an earlier work that somehow (somehow covers it I think) gets put on the web as a hi-res image and is floating around in cyberspace without a reference to the photographer. The photographer isn't aware of it until he/she sees it on the cover of a magazine and recognizes it. The publisher really liked that image and was concerned about not knowing the photographer and would normally have skipped it and chose another image. However, the publisher is aware of the new amendment and is no longer fearful of being financially soaked and so went ahead with publication. The photographer upon seeing it and knowing he/she has proof of being the original photographer is happy instead of mad. The photographer gathers evidence of being the originator and calls up the magazine, finds their current pay rates, makes the request and poof within a couple months gets a check. A check that he/she would not otherwise have had.

I understand the concerns of the other posters - I just thought I would stir this into the soup...

[Ed K.]

So the Magazine Writes:

Dear Mr. Spross,

It is our policy to offer an honorarium consisting of a 1 year subscription to the shopping catalog list for all unsolicited works we elect to use, which has a cash value of $4.00 or a book of stamps. With today's rising costs for publication, we simply cannot afford to pay people for commonplace items such as photographs and stories.

The person depicted in the photograph you refer to sued for use of their biography and image. We settled for just $50,000 in damages. As you apparently created the photograph without a proper release yet allowed it to fall into the orphaned works domain, we have referred this to legal to recover damages from you for breach of warranty of title.

[tim atherton]

Terence,

the problem with this is that it allows the publication to dictate the usage rate - and of course they will normally go for the lowest option possible.

Whereas if the image is good enough to grace the cover of the magazine, it's good enough for the photographer to be able to negotiate a good price. Usage is always negotiated if possible - taking into account the size of the magazine, its advertising, the uniqueness of the image etc.
Bill Clinton hugging Monica taken well before the scandal broke dredged from Halsteads? Burnetts - I forget - archive/memory- for example - negotiating that with Time gives the photographer huge leverage. Now imagine some intern had come across it by trawling google.images and just gone ahead and used it. The editors response would be - sure we'll pay you our standard rate.

Any magazines "standard rate" is merely the starting point for negotiations (when you go to the supermarket to pick up your frozen TV dinners, do you go by your "standard rate" or the supermarkets...?). In this situation the photographer has no real chance for negotiation or is just doing so from a position of weakness

Now another twist - imagine the image included a teenage model and the magazine is Biker Weekly. Her parents signed a very limited model release and are now coming after you - the photographer - with their lawyers. You would never have licenced it to Biker Week, but now you are also seen as liable for its use.

Or, lets say for arguments sake that the new Trademark Defamation amendment is also passed by congress. Your photo includes a Coke sign, used by the magazine in a way Coca Cola doesn't like - so again, they come after the photographer.

[David Crossley]

My turn to stir the soup.
"A photographer is busy with his/her day job and/or current endeavors and isn't paying attention to an earlier work that somehow (somehow covers it I think) gets put on the web as a hi-res image and is floating around in cyberspace without a reference to the photographer. The photographer isn't aware of it until he/she sees it on the cover of a magazine and recognizes it. The publisher really liked that image and was concerned about not knowing the photographer and would normally have skipped it and chose another image. However, the publisher is aware of the new amendment and is no longer fearful of being financially soaked and so went ahead with publication. The photographer upon seeing it and knowing he/she has proof of being the original photographer is happy instead of mad". Magazine A.

Magazine B (Magazine A's direct competitor) see's the image and makes a direct call to their legal department. Hey! did,nt we pay that photogapher a kings ransom to license that image to us exclusivey for the next 20yrs, and did'nt that signed and legally binding contract specifically state our competitor (Magazine B) should ever get their hands on it????

David Crossley/Crossley Photography....

[David Crossley]

(Magazine B) should ever get their hands on it???? Read (Magazine A) should never get their hands on it????

David Crossley/Crossley Photography....

[Ed K.]

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.

[Terence Spross]

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

[Paul Ewins]

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.

[Donald Brewster]

Paul -- got it on the second bounce. Have to hold up my "Slow Children" sign again.

[Ed K.]

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.

[Paul Kierstead]

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.

[Struan Gray]

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.

[Jeff Conrad]

<cite>
&ldquo;well we sent a letter to Mr Lee in Taifan but he didn't respond.&rdquo;
</cite>

This wouldn't quite constitute a &ldquo;reasonably diligent&rdquo; attempt
to locate the copyright owner&mdash;the Report on Orphan Works specifically
notes that the copyright owner has the right not to respond.

The Report discusses &ldquo;reasonable diligence&rdquo; 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:


&ldquo;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.&rdquo;

They seem to ignore the fact that old photographs aren't the only ones that
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 &ldquo;reasonable diligence&rdquo;. 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,


&ldquo;. . . 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.&rdquo;

Folks who are concerned about this legislation, especially U.S. residents,
ought to consider writing to the members of the Senate (and perhaps the
House) Judiciary Committee&mdash;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.

[Dan Wells]

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

[Jeff Conrad]

Incidentally, hearings on the proposed legislation are in progress. It
turns out that the House of Representatives were first out of the gate;
yesterday, David Trust, CEO of PPA, testified before the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Inernet, and Intellectual Property. His testimony, as well as
that of several others, is available at

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=221 (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=221).

It's obvious from PPA's proposal that they also see both sides of the
issue, and recognize that some changes are coming and photographers had
best deal with them.

[Kirk Gittings]

You can keep up with this on the Stock Photography Info site.

www.stockphotographer.info/ (http://www.stockphotographer.info/)