Digital BW, The Print

I'm not supporting this but it's not clear to me why opponents of the 
Act don't take some comfort in the stipulation that, if you have an 
email or street address or telephone number clearly visible on your site 
and the infringer doesn't attempt to contact you then surely they would 
be accused of not making a "reasonably diligent search". (I would assume 
for example that one unanswered phone call would not be defined as 
reasonably diligent.)

Just checking the "US Copyright office database" doesn't seem to me to 
be reasonably diligent given that the vast majority of images are not 
recorded in the database and if the means of contacting the author was 
obvious.

Howard

Steven Daniel wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I see it. If some company, be it 
> Hallmark, or Joe's postcards, finds a picture somewhere (your web 
> site for example), and they
> check the US Copyright office database, and don't see it listed, they 
> can go ahead and publish it without paying you, the creator, any 
> royalties. They no longer will have the burden of responsibility to 
> make certain the photograph is not owned. Every picture ever created 
> by anyone, whether amateur or professional will have to be registered 
> at the US copyright office to be safe. Currently, all images are 
> AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted from the date of creation for life of the 
> artist, plus 70 years. Registration is optional and generally used 
> for easier enforcement.
> 
> ~Steve
> 
> 
>