"Orphan Works"

The following is a prepared testimony by David P. Trust, CEO of Progessional Photographers of America, to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

PPA testimony

whoops.....Progessional = Professional

Mr. Sullivan, Thank you very, very much!

There are academics and Libertarians who are adversarial to patent and copyright law. And they have their buzz-words and buzz-logics just like various photography genres have theirs. These academics and Libertarians can often be found close to the development of technology and therefor are a large and cohesive society. They will say that if they tried to find the author of a work or the developer of a system and where unable to then they can use the work or development...because... ?

Of course this is a system of stealing from those outside of a known or preferred network.

This Orphan Works proposal seems to move in the Libertarian direction here concerning copyright but not patents. Of course the proposed law allows for reasonable compensation...which also disallows large awards of damages.

So it would basically be illegal to sue the thief. Well, many small authors or developers are taken advantage of because it is doubtful that they will spend the time or money for litigation. So with this Orphan Works proposal there would be less reward for the risk of litigation...

(Somewhat related, some states have put such low award caps on medical malpractice that it is essentially impossible to sue the medical doctor. Civil action is not suppose to be impossible and somewhere along the line this will reach the Supreme Court. Juries need guidance but civil actions should not be prevented from reaching the courts.)

Back to photography, anything posted on the web should have an author's caption or copyright notice. Then any unauthorized use is...what's that word used in copyright law...

The proposed legislation indeed is bad news. The major photographers' organizations are on this, but the outlook at present is not great. I think the most recent update, current as of March 16, is on the ASMP web site. Contact information for members of Congress, as well as a link to the U.S. Copyright Office's Orphan Works page, also is available on the ASMP site. PPA's comments are available on their site under 'Photographers' and then 'News'. The Stock Artists Alliance also have comments, including the Orphan Works blog mentioned in the original post. The March 21 entry in that blog illustrates the problem quite well; if you read the Report on Orphan Works, you will see that what the Copyright Office consider a “reasonably diligent” attempt to locate a copyright owner doesn't amount to much.

On March 8, 2006, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held public hearings; testimony is available on the Subcommittee's web site. In addition to the testimony by David Trust of PPA, I'd suggest also reading that by Jule Sigall of the Copyright Office, who seems callously dismissive of photographers' concerns.

Actually, I would highly recommend reading Jule Sigall's link above...the part that is pertinent to this discussion is on page 16 - 18 of the PDF document. I read this over an hour ago and still ain't calmed down from it.

I hate to say it folks, but I think I will start plastering my images with copyrites markings from now on. I always believed that just the act of it being on my website and/or in a public forum was enough to secure ownership......but, if this crap is the present thinking in the copyright office and the museums, etc......I see no recourse but to protect my images beforehand. I for one can not afford to be hiring lawyers to pursue after the fact scenarios on a continueing basis as I fear this law proposal would promote.

If these people want a picture that they can not find the author for.........go out and take the damn picture yourself. But, of course, we know they are too talentless to do that. So, they promote laws that allow them to steal, and then put the burden of proof and lawyer fees on the visual artist. THAT is the true intent of this law.....IMHO.

If they can't find the owner, they don't use the image. It can't be any easier to understand than that.

Add to it that if an image is used by a company or group and I as the creator don't want my image used by them... now I am stuck. They use it and I have to deal with scum I wouldn't deal with at all if I had a choice. But, they have used my image for something I would never, ever sell them a license to use in any circumstances.

Thieves are always thieves and now the damn government is trying to force me do have to deal with them.

Yeah look, copyright notice is name and date. So there's nothing in that such that the author has less rights if the author can't be found. Blink the eyes twice, drop a commandment from the sky and everything is different ?

But sure the author name might turn up in a web search engine...however if the author is a minor player then they are more likely to be found with a Google search than with a MS search. So selective or preferred networks can be developed...

Also, captions are legislated (for full rights) ? But digital files do not prevent the removal of captions...

But (or so) I am coming to the conclusion that this proposed legislation is for photojournalism. In other words so that journalists can use news videos or news photographs that have been widely disseminated on the internet. But they already use things in that way...so they now seek indemnification ?

But the indemnification given is not worth the risk of encouraging broad or intentional copyright abuse...

Probably, this proposed copyright reform is just something to package together with proposed patent reform to try and develop broad multi-discipline political support for (patent) reforms.

B Hall....you're not reading the whole thing, apparently. This law places the financial burden of proof on the author. The user can use it, say he searched, and now with only minimal retribution to the author (ie he can't claim enough money to cover lawyer fees) the author ends up spending their own money proving the abuse. That's the falacy of this law. It makes it extremely easy for theives to do their thing, and then only get a slap on the wrist financially........while the author gets "fair" compenstation IF they can prove wrong doing and does not get any compensation for all the lawyer fees.

It's total bullshit. It's going to make photography a free thing to the user, the photographers will go out of business, and the pictures left to steal will get used more and more.

There is no big penalty to the users for wrong doing.....all the "penalties" are placed on the author.

Unlike it is now.............if someone uses your picture now, and doesn't ask your permission, he gets major penalties and you get compensation for your image and the legal fees you had to spend to take this abuser to court.

If you can't understand that, then you're either not reading everything and retatining it...............or, you are one of the abuser's and want this law passed.