MicrostockGroup

Before we all get into a panic here, we need to understand what this bill is all about.  It's not about making every piece of work orphaned so anyone can use it.  This bill is designed to free the copyright to work who's owner can not be found.  And, before anyone can use that piece of work, they must document what steps they made to find the owner of that piece of work.  Obviously when we submit our photos to the stock agencies, we own the copyright on those photos and when someone purchases the rights to use that photo, it does not give them the copyright to it, it is still yours.  And of course, if they use it in a way that violates the contracts with the stock agency, legal action can still be taken as long as you can prove you own the copyright to that photo.

If you use Photoshop; in the File Info under origin add your name to credit and under source add your website to each and every image. This will provide name and contact and it is defense against the Orphan Bill.

The Orphan Bill will benefit agencies when someone submits a few images and over time forgets about them and the agencies are unable to contact the submitter.

The legislation would enable users to exhibit orphan works if, after a thorough, documented search, the copyright owners are unable to be located.  The legislation outlines the criteria for such a search, and provides for court review to determine if a search has been adequate and done in good faith.  If the copyright owner later emerges, the user must pay reasonable compensation to the owner.   The bill also includes provisions to further protect owners of these orphaned copyrights, should any user exhibit bad faith.

...I'm not too woried as their is legal and financial recourse if you find it being used without permission.

GeoPappas, if you read the first link you provided, this is what it states:

“There are thousands of artistic creations around the country that are effectively locked away and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the work is unknown.  Identifying the owner of a copyrighted work is difficult in many cases and represents a huge liability to those who would bring the work into the public domain without permission,” Hatch said. “This bill represents a commitment from Congress to unlock orphan works so the general public may once again enjoy them.”

“Too many valuable works are unused because their creators are unknown, and potential users fear excessive liability,” said Berman.  “We must act to lower the legal barriers that keep these works from the public.”

“Millions of copyrighted works are effectively ‘locked up’ and unable to be enjoyed by the public due to our current copyright system,” said Smith.  “As a result, investments in new works and expositions by libraries, museums and others are frequently not undertaken due to the possibility of lawsuits and large statutory damage awards.  By placing reasonable limitations on liability, while ensuring that owners receive compensation for the use of their works, the bills introduced today will help reduce uncertainty and encourage creativity.”

I see no reason to get everyone all excited about this.  This is about works of art that the copyright owner can not be found or no one knows who owns the copyright.  

I don't see what the big deal is, at least in the context of microstock. Let's face it. In this business, there are just some instances of image theft that we can't do anything about, and shouldn't bother to get all worked up over. If the idea of someone using your image without paying for it bugs you, then microstock isn't the right business for you. The sheer volume of images distributed through microstock makes it impossible to pursue every instance of misuse.

What is this Orphan Works bill going to do that will really change anything for us? Will things really be any worse than they already are? And if so, is that too much more to handle than what we already deal with? So one or two more people will grab one of my images without paying, and use the Orphan Works bill as protection. Big deal. I'm not losing sleep over it. Most people will continue to pay for images and use them appropriately, and we all will continue to make money.

Besides, what can we really do about it? If this bill is going to pass, it will pass. Writing a few letters isn't going to change much.

No previous version of the orphan works bill has contained such a provision, and my cursory review of this one doesn't show any difference. Where exactly in the bill does it say this, or is this fear mongering?

I agree completely.  It is one thing to try to protect yourself and be outvoted, but it is pretty disheartening to see people value their intellectual property so little they can't even be bothered writing a brief note or making a quick phone call to protect it. 

Isn't it a bit early to be throwing in the towel on this one???

This bill has come back around, what, three times now? It's not going away. I wouldn't call it apathy, just a realistic view of how little control we have over our government.

Some things just aren't worth getting all worked up over, especially when it becomes apparent that no amount of effort will change the situation. And even more so when it's over an issue that really won't affect us as significantly as the doom-and-gloom alarmists would have us believe. Like I said above, if this bill means that a couple of buyers misuse my images and defend their actions with this orphan works bill, that isn't really changing the already common misuse of images in microstock. We're not exactly in the upper echelons of the stock imagery world, and some misuse has to be expected, given the larger number of downloads. I just don't see how this bill will convert any significant number of microstock buyers from legitimate downloaders to rampant image thieves overnight. Most people will still pay for images, and most people will not want to risk any infringement lawsuits.

I have no problem with anyone speaking out against this, and I'll gladly take 10 minutes and do my part, and fire off a letter to my legislators. Given a choice, sure I'd rather see this bill go down in flames. Unfortunately it would likely just be a temporary relief, and the bill would come back up again in on the 2009 agenda.

Add to this the fact that most agencies don't include any file info with the downloads anyway, for the very reason they don't want people adding their own websites and other information.

Another easy contact method is to call Congress, and ask to be connected to your Senator or Representatives office.

Number is 877-762-8762 (or 877-SOB-U-SOB to remember it easily - no joke).

here's a quote from sen leahy's site



http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html

i quickly read the executive summary of the 127 p copyright office doc  http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf  and it seems in line w leahy's remarks

basically, this law HELPS copyright holders while making it easier for legitimate use of prphaned works -- there is NO mandatory registration req.  and i couldn't find anything to indicate we'd LOSE existing copyrights.

under the new law, a user MUST do  reasonable search -- if they use a work after that, and the actual copyright owner later appears, they are STILL subject to a fine.  what's changed is you can no longer sue for the hundreds of  thousands of dollars [but that was never available without registering in the first place].


the 1976 copyright law was passed in part to bring the US into compliance with the rest of the world under the Berne convention that grants copyright automatically on creation and prohibits mandatory registration.  even the current treaty-hating administration isnt proposing to reject the 1976 law.



Steve

more info http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/orphan-works