Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/05/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:54 PM 5/12/2008, you wrote: >Tina has made some comments that under certain use provisions ( >educational, editorial,, and one I just keep forgetting ) that protections >is no longer available under the proposal. I think that is BS. Especially >if you are a PJ.... there goes your job ( as with wedding photographers, >there is no market any more....) But this is a small ( but verbal) group of >the entire population of photographers, pro and amateur. It is the overall >protection of the population in general that need to be used to decide, not >the special interests...... Documentary is the one you keep forgetting. Photojournalists are protesting the bill. NPPA has come out against it. >I am not arguing, I am trying to understand..... Why or Why not is this a >good bill... I see the good part... where is the bad part? ( apart from my >comments above for the Tina position). Here is what Carolyn Wright, a photo attorney, says are the problems with the current bill: Among the problems Wright sees in the proposed law is the potential availability of an orphan-works defense to commercial users. She quotes the U.S. Copyright Office's original announcement, which said the purpose of new legislation was to address the concern that the uncertainty of orphan-works ownership might needlessly discourage their use in new productive efforts, such as making works available to the public. "This can be accomplished without giving advertisers and merchandisers free reign to commercially use photographs," said Wright, who thinks that modifying the fair-use statute would be a better way to address many of the concerns that have purportedly prompted the orphan-works proposal. Another issue characterized by Wright as major is the determination of reasonable fees, which the new law mandates be paid to the copyright owner, if found. "If the infringer and the photographer disagree on what is reasonable compensation, the photographer will have to file suit to pursue higher payment," she explains, "but the photographer will not have the potential benefit of having costs and attorneys' fees paid if the court determines that the orphan-works defense has been established. Under the current law, courts can award costs and attorneys' fees, based on variety of factors." Since the filing fee of $350 is arguably more than some reasonable license fees, Wright thinks such lawsuits are likely to be cost-prohibitive, forcing photographers to accept lower fees. "Each bill's mandate for a study on remedies for small copyright claims won't help photographers with these problems in the interim," she elaborates. To find out why it is a bad bill, just read the links. For those who are still not convinced, NPPA (The National Press Photographers Association) has also come out against the Orphan Works Bill: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/05/orphan02.html And for our International friends, a blog against OW from England: http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/848/uncle-sams-thieves-charter And some examples of what is possible if this bill passes: http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html Now it has been revealed that the part ASMP was so proud of negotiating, eliminating commercial work from Orphan Work status, was thrown out. Commercial work is now included along with editorial, documentary, educational and non-profit use. http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-senate-markup.html There is nothing good about this bill. ASMP says they are supporting it because future bills might be even worse. What kind of reasoning is that? Tina Tina Manley ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI http://www.tinamanley.com