Digital BW, The Print

Dear fellow photographers,

I appreciate that this list is not used for political purposes, and I do not wish to violate 
that or continue this thread beyond this notice.  It's just that many of us struggling to sell 
our work will be deeply impacted if the Orphan Works Bill passes, and the following text 
provides a way to read up on its potential effects on you and your artwork and to take 
appropriate action. The text and its link was forwarded to me by a friend who is a 
professional illustrator; there is a section on the site designed solely for photographers as 
well.

My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with the posting of this notice here.

Best wishes,

Christy Stebbins


The Orphan Works Bill goes to the house for a vote tomorrow, yes that is Wednesday!! This 
is the bill that, if passed into law, will allow people to easily use your work without penalty 
and without having to pay you a penny!

There is no time left to make your voice heard. IT'S SO EASY to make sure your senators 
and representatives hear you and how important it is for them to vote NO to this bill. An 
easy to use form is at this link, it's a no brainer. You can customize or do nothing, just fill 
in your info and it will be emailed to the senators and representatives in your state based 
on your zipcode.

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home

Please take 2 tiny minutes to fill this in NOW before it's too late, it's so very important to 
all visual artists. Please forward to all those you'd like to protect and the loved ones that 
care about us all. 

You have been sent this email from the list of past illustrators who have requested agency 
representation through our website. I apologize if this email goes to some illustrators that 
are not American, I do not have a way of filtering my search of the names by nationality. I 
want to do my best for all illustrators regardless of nationality and I believe the passing of 
this bill would ultimately undermine the value and copyright of all artwork worldwide.

Can you give us a few short sentences what this Orphan Works bill is?  
Dumb it down please.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On May 7, 2008, at 10:49 AM, caostebbins wrote:

> Dear fellow photographers,
>
> I appreciate that this list is not used for political purposes, and  
> I do not wish to violate
> that or continue this thread beyond this notice.  It's just that  
> many of us struggling to sell
> our work will be deeply impacted if the Orphan Works Bill passes,  
> and the following text
> provides a way to read up on its potential effects on you and your  
> artwork and to take
> appropriate action. The text and its link was forwarded to me by a  
> friend who is a
> professional illustrator; there is a section on the site designed  
> solely for photographers as
> well.
>
> My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with the posting of  
> this notice here.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Christy Stebbins
>
>
> The Orphan Works Bill goes to the house for a vote tomorrow, yes  
> that is Wednesday!! This
> is the bill that, if passed into law, will allow people to easily  
> use your work without penalty
> and without having to pay you a penny!
>
> There is no time left to make your voice heard. IT'S SO EASY to  
> make sure your senators
> and representatives hear you and how important it is for them to  
> vote NO to this bill. An
> easy to use form is at this link, it's a no brainer. You can  
> customize or do nothing, just fill
> in your info and it will be emailed to the senators and  
> representatives in your state based
> on your zipcode.
>
> http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home
>
> Please take 2 tiny minutes to fill this in NOW before it's too  
> late, it's so very important to
> all visual artists. Please forward to all those you'd like to  
> protect and the loved ones that
> care about us all.
>
> You have been sent this email from the list of past illustrators  
> who have requested agency
> representation through our website. I apologize if this email goes  
> to some illustrators that
> are not American, I do not have a way of filtering my search of the  
> names by nationality. I
> want to do my best for all illustrators regardless of nationality  
> and I believe the passing of
> this bill would ultimately undermine the value and copyright of all  
> artwork worldwide.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?billid=11320236

Or

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb911944.htm

Cheers

david emerick 

dnemerick@...
http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
http://emerick.blogspot.com

> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:54:29 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control
> 
> Can you give us a few short sentences what this Orphan Works bill is?
> Dumb it down please.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>

At 10:49 AM 5/7/2008, you wrote:

>My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with the posting of 
>this notice here.
>
>Christy Stebbins
>
><http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home>http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home

Thank you, Christy.  This is vitally important to anybody who values 
copyrights.  I hope everybody will take two minutes to go to the site 
and send e-mails to your Congress members.  It is a very easy way to 
make your voice heard.

Tina

Tina Manley
ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI
http://www.tinamanley.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was looking for more of a non-lawyer version, something simple.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On May 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, David Emerick wrote:

> http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/? 
> billid=11320236
>
> Or
>
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb911944.htm
>
> Cheers
>
> david emerick
>
> dnemerick@...
> http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
> http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
> http://emerick.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:54:29 -0400
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control
>>
>> Can you give us a few short sentences what this Orphan Works bill is?
>> Dumb it down please.
>>
>> Mark
>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is this enough?

he Orphan Works Act defines an "orphan work" as any copyrighted work whose
author any infringer says he is unable to locate with what the infringer
himself decides has been a "reasonably diligent search." In a radical
departure from existing copyright law and business practice, the U.S.
Copyright Office has proposed that Congress grant such infringers freedom to
ignore the rights of the author and use the work for any purpose, including
commercial usage. In the case of visual art, the word "author" means
"artist."


david emerick 

dnemerick@...
http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
http://emerick.blogspot.com

> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:10:13 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control
> 
> I was looking for more of a non-lawyer version, something simple.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On May 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, David Emerick wrote:
> 
>> http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?
>> billid=11320236
>> 
>> Or
>> 
>> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb911944.htm
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> david emerick
>> 
>> dnemerick@...
>> http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
>> http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
>> http://emerick.blogspot.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
>>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:54:29 -0400
>>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control
>>> 
>>> Can you give us a few short sentences what this Orphan Works bill is?
>>> Dumb it down please.
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
>> resources as they are often being updated.
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
>> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
>> visiting this same page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
>> to keep them short.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
>> from the membership without notice.
>> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
>> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
>> removed from the membership.
>> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
>> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
>> group Owner and Moderators. See ≥Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines≈
>> in the Files section:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>> 
>> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE
>> ≥OWNER≈ AND ≥MODERATORS≈ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL
>> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
>> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
>> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER
>> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ≥OWNER≈ AND ≥MODERATORS≈ OF DIGITAL
>> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
>> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE
>> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
>> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
>> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
>> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

That is non-lawyer talk? Thanks.
:)

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On May 7, 2008, at 11:12 AM, David Emerick wrote:

> Is this enough?
>
> he Orphan Works Act defines an "orphan work" as any copyrighted  
> work whose
> author any infringer says he is unable to locate with what the  
> infringer
> himself decides has been a "reasonably diligent search." In a radical
> departure from existing copyright law and business practice, the U.S.
> Copyright Office has proposed that Congress grant such infringers  
> freedom to
> ignore the rights of the author and use the work for any purpose,  
> including
> commercial usage. In the case of visual art, the word "author" means
> "artist."
>
>
> david emerick
>
> dnemerick@...
> http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
> http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
> http://emerick.blogspot.com
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LOL, Mark. I just did a copy paste from the sites first paragraph.

To me just this paragraph is enough to oppose the legislation. It
essentially says anyone can copy your work and use it commercially if they
show "due diligence" in attempting to contact you for permission.

That is pretty loose terminology and invites copyright infringement.

Cheers



david emerick 

dnemerick@...
http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
http://emerick.blogspot.com

From: Mark Savoia 
That is non-lawyer talk? Thanks.
:)

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On May 7, 2008, at 11:12 AM, David Emerick wrote:

> Is this enough?
>
> he Orphan Works Act defines an "orphan work" as any copyrighted
> work whose
> author any infringer says he is unable to locate with what the
> infringer
> himself decides has been a "reasonably diligent search." In a radical
> departure from existing copyright law and business practice, the U.S.
> Copyright Office has proposed that Congress grant such infringers
> freedom to
> ignore the rights of the author and use the work for any purpose,
> including
> commercial usage. In the case of visual art, the word "author" means
> "artist."
>
>
> david emerick
>
> dnemerick@... <mailto:dnemerick%40smcm.edu>
> http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
> http://smcmmediacenter.blogspot.com/
> http://emerick.blogspot.com
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 11:28 AM 5/7/2008, you wrote:

>That is pretty loose terminology and invites copyright infringement.
>
>david emerick

This is pretty explicit:

>Under this legislation, owners of works would be able to receive
>compensation for the use of their infringed work unless the
>infringement is performed without any commercial advantage and
>primarily for a charitable, religious, scholarly, or educational
>purpose and the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after
>receiving notice of the infringement.

Compensation is based on market surveys chosen by the infringer, 
including microstock.  Editorial photos, documentary work, work for 
non-profits and educational use are all considered to have no value 
and will not be compensated.

Tina

Tina Manley
ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI
http://www.tinamanley.com

I did it yesterday, it is important for us content providers...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tina Manley
<images@...> wrote:

>
> At 10:49 AM 5/7/2008, you wrote:
> 
> >My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with the posting of 
> >this notice here.
> >
> >Christy Stebbins
> >
>
><http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home>http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home
> 
> Thank you, Christy.  This is vitally important to anybody who values 
> copyrights.  I hope everybody will take two minutes to go to the site 
> and send e-mails to your Congress members.  It is a very easy way to 
> make your voice heard.
> 
> Tina
> 
> Tina Manley
> ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI
> http://www.tinamanley.com 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Interesting ...  On the face of it this is a matter confined to the US;
particularly as it relates to a bill in (presumably) the American Congress.

 

But,  how about my images where I'm from the UK.  How can a 'foreign' (for
me) jurisdiction legislate over matters relating to an image whose copyright
is owned by me here in the UK?

 

Steve Gledhill

http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
caostebbins
Sent: 07 May 2008 15:49
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Copyright control

 

Dear fellow photographers,

I appreciate that this list is not used for political purposes, and I do not
wish to violate 
that or continue this thread beyond this notice. It's just that many of us
struggling to sell 
our work will be deeply impacted if the Orphan Works Bill passes, and the
following text 
provides a way to read up on its potential effects on you and your artwork
and to take 
appropriate action. The text and its link was forwarded to me by a friend
who is a 
professional illustrator; there is a section on the site designed solely for
photographers as 
well.

My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with the posting of this
notice here.

Best wishes,

Christy Stebbins

The Orphan Works Bill goes to the house for a vote tomorrow, yes that is
Wednesday!! This 
is the bill that, if passed into law, will allow people to easily use your
work without penalty 
and without having to pay you a penny!

There is no time left to make your voice heard. IT'S SO EASY to make sure
your senators 
and representatives hear you and how important it is for them to vote NO to
this bill. An 
easy to use form is at this link, it's a no brainer. You can customize or do
nothing, just fill 
in your info and it will be emailed to the senators and representatives in
your state based 
on your zipcode.

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home

Please take 2 tiny minutes to fill this in NOW before it's too late, it's so
very important to 
all visual artists. Please forward to all those you'd like to protect and
the loved ones that 
care about us all. 

You have been sent this email from the list of past illustrators who have
requested agency 
representation through our website. I apologize if this email goes to some
illustrators that 
are not American, I do not have a way of filtering my search of the names by
nationality. I 
want to do my best for all illustrators regardless of nationality and I
believe the passing of 
this bill would ultimately undermine the value and copyright of all artwork
worldwide. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve,

If you put images on the Internet or publish them in books or magazines 
that get to the USA it will apply to you.
Even now the US copyright laws makes it virtually impossible to control 
the use of your work in the US unless you register it with the US 
Copyright Office, preferably before publication on the web or elsewhere 
- as I've found.

It is also only too likely the the UK government will follow the example 
of the US on this (rather than that of Canada, which has a system much 
fairer to unlocatable copyright owners) and UK legislation is expected 
in the next couple of years.

Read what I've written about it on >Re:PHOTO 
http://re-photo.co.uk/?p=285 or Tony Sleep's piece on EPUK that I link 
too - and his comments on my piece. Photographers around the world 
should be very worried about this, and particularly those in Britain.

I'd hate to have to disfigure my own work on the web (I think over 
30,000 images) by adding a large and fairly prominent copyright 
overprint to every image, but I think it is probably the only sensible 
approach if this becomes US law.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall    -    Photographer, Writer: NUJ
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
>Re:PHOTO                     http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary               http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere...... 



stephengledhill wrote:

> Interesting ...  On the face of it this is a matter confined to the US;
> particularly as it relates to a bill in (presumably) the American Congress.
>
>  
>
> But,  how about my images where I'm from the UK.  How can a 'foreign' (for
> me) jurisdiction legislate over matters relating to an image whose copyright
> is owned by me here in the UK?
>
>  
>
> Steve Gledhill
>
> http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk
>
>  
>
>  
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> caostebbins
> Sent: 07 May 2008 15:49
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Copyright control
>
>  
>
> Dear fellow photographers,
>
> I appreciate that this list is not used for political purposes, and I do not
> wish to violate 
> that or continue this thread beyond this notice. It's just that many of us
> struggling to sell 
> our work will be deeply impacted if the Orphan Works Bill passes, and the
> following text 
> provides a way to read up on its potential effects on you and your artwork
> and to take 
> appropriate action. The text and its link was forwarded to me by a friend
> who is a 
> professional illustrator; there is a section on the site designed solely for
> photographers as 
> well.
>
> My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with the posting of this
> notice here.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Christy Stebbins
>
> The Orphan Works Bill goes to the house for a vote tomorrow, yes that is
> Wednesday!! This 
> is the bill that, if passed into law, will allow people to easily use your
> work without penalty 
> and without having to pay you a penny!
>
> There is no time left to make your voice heard. IT'S SO EASY to make sure
> your senators 
> and representatives hear you and how important it is for them to vote NO to
> this bill. An 
> easy to use form is at this link, it's a no brainer. You can customize or do
> nothing, just fill 
> in your info and it will be emailed to the senators and representatives in
> your state based 
> on your zipcode.
>
> http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home
>
> Please take 2 tiny minutes to fill this in NOW before it's too late, it's so
> very important to 
> all visual artists. Please forward to all those you'd like to protect and
> the loved ones that 
> care about us all. 
>
> You have been sent this email from the list of past illustrators who have
> requested agency 
> representation through our website. I apologize if this email goes to some
> illustrators that 
> are not American, I do not have a way of filtering my search of the names by
> nationality. I 
> want to do my best for all illustrators regardless of nationality and I
> believe the passing of 
> this bill would ultimately undermine the value and copyright of all artwork
> worldwide. 
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Peter - but how depressing.  And it looks like we in the UK will fall
in line behind the US - so what's new!  I feel powerless.

Like you, I don't want to disfigure my own images on the web with visible
copyright information.  I've not looked into using an invisible digital
watermark in my images so don't know how good it is - but presumably the use
of a widely recognised invisible watermarking (I googled and found DigiMarc
for example) would be sufficient to ensure an image could NOT be claimed by
a thief to be "orphaned".  

Steve Gledhill
http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Marshall
Sent: 09 May 2008 10:11
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control

Steve,

If you put images on the Internet or publish them in books or magazines 
that get to the USA it will apply to you.
Even now the US copyright laws makes it virtually impossible to control 
the use of your work in the US unless you register it with the US 
Copyright Office, preferably before publication on the web or elsewhere 
- as I've found.

It is also only too likely the the UK government will follow the example 
of the US on this (rather than that of Canada, which has a system much 
fairer to unlocatable copyright owners) and UK legislation is expected 
in the next couple of years.

Read what I've written about it on >Re:PHOTO 
http://re-photo.co.uk/?p=285 or Tony Sleep's piece on EPUK that I link 
too - and his comments on my piece. Photographers around the world 
should be very worried about this, and particularly those in Britain.

I'd hate to have to disfigure my own work on the web (I think over 
30,000 images) by adding a large and fairly prominent copyright 
overprint to every image, but I think it is probably the only sensible 
approach if this becomes US law.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall    -    Photographer, Writer: NUJ
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
>Re:PHOTO                     http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary               http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere...... 



stephengledhill wrote:
> Interesting ...  On the face of it this is a matter confined to the US;
> particularly as it relates to a bill in (presumably) the American
Congress.
>
>  
>
> But,  how about my images where I'm from the UK.  How can a 'foreign' (for
> me) jurisdiction legislate over matters relating to an image whose
copyright

> is owned by me here in the UK?
>
>  
>
> Steve Gledhill
>
> http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

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

>I was looking for more of a non-lawyer version, something simple.
>
>Mark
>http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>
>On May 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, David Emerick wrote:
>
>>  http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/bills/?
>>  billid=11320236
>>
>>  Or
>>
>>  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb911944.htm
>>
>>  Cheers
>>
>  > david emerick
>

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
> 
> 
>

Presumably it's not simply about theft of images from websites.  Theft of
images from other sources, including files and prints, should be of equal
concern.  That's why I referred in a post a day or two ago to watermarking
images with copyright information.

 

Steve Gledhill

http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard
Shaw
Sent: 12 May 2008 07:54
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control

 

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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stephen,

I don't think that an invisible watermark by itself will be effective. 
Even currently it isn't much good for online use unless you also sign up 
and pay for a service that scours the web to detect unauthorised use - 
such as Picscout (they claim that their service detects 90% of the cases 
of abuse that are discovered.) I was offered a special deal on their 
services some while ago, but decided it was still rather too expensive, 
and would only make any sense if all my images were registered with the 
US Copyright Office. And of course it isn't any help at all so far as 
use off-line is concerned.

I think it is unlikely given the US bill(s) that there is going to be 
much incentive for image users to search for invisible watermarks, or 
should they find one, to try to find the owner of the image. And it also 
means it won't normally be worth going to court should you find abuse.

Depressing as you say - unless lots of Americans get some effective 
lobbying done,

Peter

Peter Marshall    -    Photographer, Writer: NUJ
petermarshall@...       
_________________________________________________________________
>Re:PHOTO                     http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary                  http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere...... 



stephengledhill wrote:

> Thanks Peter - but how depressing.  And it looks like we in the UK will fall
> in line behind the US - so what's new!  I feel powerless.
>
> Like you, I don't want to disfigure my own images on the web with visible
> copyright information.  I've not looked into using an invisible digital
> watermark in my images so don't know how good it is - but presumably the use
> of a widely recognised invisible watermarking (I googled and found DigiMarc
> for example) would be sufficient to ensure an image could NOT be claimed by
> a thief to be "orphaned".  
>
> Steve Gledhill
> http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
> Marshall
> Sent: 09 May 2008 10:11
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Copyright control
>
> Steve,
>
> If you put images on the Internet or publish them in books or magazines 
> that get to the USA it will apply to you.
> Even now the US copyright laws makes it virtually impossible to control 
> the use of your work in the US unless you register it with the US 
> Copyright Office, preferably before publication on the web or elsewhere 
> - as I've found.
>
> It is also only too likely the the UK government will follow the example 
> of the US on this (rather than that of Canada, which has a system much 
> fairer to unlocatable copyright owners) and UK legislation is expected 
> in the next couple of years.
>
> Read what I've written about it on >Re:PHOTO 
> http://re-photo.co.uk/?p=285 or Tony Sleep's piece on EPUK that I link 
> too - and his comments on my piece. Photographers around the world 
> should be very worried about this, and particularly those in Britain.
>
> I'd hate to have to disfigure my own work on the web (I think over 
> 30,000 images) by adding a large and fairly prominent copyright 
> overprint to every image, but I think it is probably the only sensible 
> approach if this becomes US law.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Marshall    -    Photographer, Writer: NUJ
> petermarshall@...     
> _________________________________________________________________
>   
>
>