We are going to lose copyrights!

[embrodak]

Ahh, I understand. That's a lot less terrible than I thought, but it still sucks!! I'm going to contact my rep, or perhaps use his face on some advertisements...

[Alex168]

Yeah that makes me a proud swedish citizen!

[Liz Caldwell]

Originally Posted by filemanager

I'm not from the US, but why should one have to PAY a fee to retain their copyright??

It kinda like a notary I think, someone to confirm the date you brought the item in and such.

Currently we have what's called a Poor Man's Copyright, which you stick the copyrighted material into an envelope and mail it to your self. If the envelope is still sealed and postmarked when said copyright lawsuit comes up, you can present the sealed envelope as proof that you have the item before other said person.

[Liz Caldwell]

That'll never happen... No way that's ever gonna pass, I'd put money on it.

[johnboy]

Originally Posted by Liz Caldwell

That'll never happen... No way that's ever gonna pass, I'd put money on it.

I wouldn't put money on it myself, but I hope you're right.

[johnboy]

Originally Posted by Liz Caldwell

It kinda like a notary I think, someone to confirm the date you brought the item in and such.

Currently we have what's called a Poor Man's Copyright, which you stick the copyrighted material into an envelope and mail it to your self. If the envelope is still sealed and postmarked when said copyright lawsuit comes up, you can present the sealed envelope as proof that you have the item before other said person.

That sounds good. Here's a problem: a buddy of mine is a fairly successful commercial photog. He's been self-employed for nearly twenty-five years and has tens-of-thousands -- God, maybe more -- of images. So now he has to mail them all to himself? Or register them? Or just cross his fingers and hope that nothing is stolen.

The "Poor Man's Copyright" would work for me (although it's enormously inconvenient) because I just shoot for fun and occasionally show it in art fairs, bars and off beat galleries. However, for a commercial pro (either a freelance individual or a small studio) this proposed law is a disaster. And the law is primarily aimed at screwing them, rather than people like me.

So if we want to insure that it doesn't pass (and it could slip through while everybody is paying attention to election politics) then we'd better contact our legislators.

[dmvp]

I agree with Liz. I don't think it'll pass, but I guess if it does then we'll all have to stop putting our photos on Flickr or any other public site if we don't want people using them.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by embrodak

Ahh, I understand. That's a lot less terrible than I thought, but it still sucks!! I'm going to contact my rep, or perhaps use his face on some advertisements...

Uh no, that would still be an invasion of privacy. Privacy law and copyright law are separate.

[hydroment]

So if we want to insure that it doesn't pass (and it could slip through while everybody is paying attention to election politics) then we'd better contact our legislators.[/QUOTE]

Here is a link to send your US congressional rep a message.

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

The following is a quote from my representative to a similar issue.

"Although the U.S. Constitution is a fairly short document, patents are actually specifically addressed in it. The Patent and Copyright Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 8) directs Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The founders knew that an effective patent system would promote the sciences, and they believed that this was important enough to spell it out in the country’s charter."

I have written and asked what the current status is of the bill, and what form it is now. Elsewhere on the internet, you can read that the bill has been killed, resurrected, and reformed. I would first like to know the threat level.

Hydroment

[phlyersphan]

Originally Posted by jdepould

That's not really the issue. People aren't making truckloads of money selling "orphan" photographs. It's really about commercial use. They want to use "orphan" photos in advertisements.

This is highly alarming. I had heard of this "orphaned works" bit but didn't read into it. I will definitely investigate now. (How many mad symbols will this forum allow in a row?? I'm considering testing that out, for emphasis. Grrr!).