Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/05/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On the other hand, should it be discovered as to who took an image, who would be liable, the pilferager or the actual creator of the image? s.d. On May 11, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Tina Manley wrote: > At 04:41 PM 5/11/2008, you wrote: > >> Until someone tells me how it could affect ME or those I know of; >> "I ain't doin' nuthin'. " >> >> Jerry Lehrer > > Read the links, Jerry!! Right now, everything you photograph is > considered to be copyright protected the second you press the > shutter. If this bill passes, you will have to register everything > with the copyright office (at about $45 per registration) and, even > if it is registered, anyone who finds your photo on the internet > without any identifying information (or strips the information out) > can use the photo (an Orphan Work) any way they want! If you find > out that they have used the photo without your permission, they are > then required to pay you what THEY consider to be a fair amount for > the usage. The discovery is up to you, there are no penalties, and > the payment amount is up to the infringer. > > Does that sound good? NO!! I don't approve of ASMP's stance on > this because they think the best they can do is get a provision to > prevent Orphan Works from being used commercially. Any editorial, > documentary, non-profit or educational use would be fine!! That's > what I do for a living. I have tried for 30 years to convince > photo-buyers for non-profit organizations that photographers should > be paid for their work - just like CEO's or secretaries or > solicitors who work for non-profits! This bill would convince > them that photos should be free as long as they are used for any > documentary, educational, non-profit, or educational use! If one > of your photos is stolen from the internet, and you discover the > use later, the infringer would only have to pay you what THEY > consider to be a reasonable amount. In these days of micro-stock, > that could be less than 1$. They could use your photo in ways that > you don't want the photo to be used - to support causes that you > don't support. None of that would matter. And you would have to > be the one to trace down the usage and contact the infringer to > demand your "payment". > > There is nothing good about this bill for photographers. Please > read the links and respond! > > You can read ASMP's take on this here: > http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.php > > You can protest here: > http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/ > > Tina > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information