I don't know if it applies exactly to that thread but it is interesting
regardless:

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

The U.S. Copyright Office issued its report on Orphan Works only a
couple of weeks ago. The end of that report contained proposed language
for an amendment to the Copyright Act. That proposal is now being
fast-tracked in Washington with a good chance of passage before the end
of this Session. In my opinion, if that language is enacted in its
current form, it will be the worst thing that has happened to
independent photographers and other independent visual artists since
Work Made for Hire contracts.

Orphan works are basically works whose copyright owners cannot be
located. The term "Orphan Works" is really a dangerously misleading
phrase. It makes it sound as if it includes only a few works that are
not valued enough by their creators to warrant taking care of them. That
may be true for owners of many kinds of copyrights. However, the reality
is that for independent photographers and illustrators, the majority of
your published photographs may well become Orphan Works. The reason for
that is that, unlike just about every other category of copyrighted
works, photographs and illustrations are typically published without any
copyright notice or credit to the photographer or illustrator. The one
exception to that has traditionally been editorial uses, but even there
the trend seems to be away from providing credit lines. As more and more
photographs are published on the Internet, credits become even rarer.
Worse, even if you registered your photographs at the Copyright Office,
there is no mechanism for identifying you or your photograph or for
locating you through those records, if the user does not know your name.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:09:24 -0400, Brian <nospam@nawbabynaw.com>
wrote:

Actually it makes sense you know...I mean do you have ANY idea just
HOW MUCH media is out there? Let me put it this way:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Mara's_Special.gif

That's nothing but images harvested off the net over the span of 5
years or so...over TWELVE GIGABYTES worth of image data that, quite
frankly, I have no fuckin clue as to who made most of it or where most
of it even originated from. And those are just the images that I
LIKED, if I had kept EVERY image that I came across on the net...holy
fuckin bejesus.

Furthermore, as a graphic designer I've made dozens upon dozens upon
dozens of different image manipulations, edits, drawings, etc, etc,
etc...and fuck, I can't even keep track of all my OWN work...so if
something I did winds up being used somewhere else...eh, can't say as
I'm gonna be too worried about it.

Remember kids, you only have a right to TRY and make money off your
work, you DO NOT have a right to MAKE money off your work...if you did
you could simply stop people on the street, show them your stuff and
then demand they pay you $20+ for it.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

There was an article in the New York Times a while back about the fact
that for the *majority* of older, published books, it's extremely hard
to locate the author.

If a book is no longer being sold, publishers typically don't have a
current address for the author or even know if he/she is alive or dead.

I imagine the situation is similar for other copyrighted works, such as
photos, etc.

<JamesStep@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153251258.525303.131180@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
| > Orphan works are basically works whose copyright
| > owners cannot be located. The term "Orphan Works" is
| > really a dangerously misleading phrase. It makes it sound
| > as if it includes only a few works that are not valued enough
| > by their creators to warrant taking care of them.
|
| There was an article in the New York Times a while back about the fact
| that for the *majority* of older, published books, it's extremely hard
| to locate the author.
|
| If a book is no longer being sold, publishers typically don't have a
| current address for the author or even know if he/she is alive or dead.
|
| I imagine the situation is similar for other copyrighted works, such as
| photos, etc.

There are serious problems with the proposed legislation which is being
pushed hard by big business. the GAG www.gag.org has some serious
information on the matter.

I find it curious that where there is unclaimed money on the table the state
pockets against the time with someone might claim the cash.

With regard to copyright it appears to be free game and the author get the
shaft.

|

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Good points. I was wondering if I were to take a royalty free image and
do what you said, photoshop changes, filters, etc. would "I" then "own"
the final image or would ownership go back to the author of the free image?

Brian wrote:

It depends. Your work would have to qualify as a "derivative" work --
it must be different enough from the original as to be considered a
"new" work. Even then, your copyright rights would extend to the
*additions, changes, or new material* you added, and *not* to the
original work itself. However, technically, you still would still need
to obtain permission from the original copyright owner before using
their material to create a derivative work.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#copyright

It's important to note that "royalty free" does not mean copyright
free, or even necessarily "free" in a monetary sense. For example,
when using a stock photo site, they'll divide photos into Royalty Free
and Rights Manages sections. Rights Managed photos strictly control
usage -- you pay for a very specific use for a specific length of time
(such as in a print ad for 1 year), and any further use requires a new
contract. A Royalty Free image, on the other hand, often only requires
you to pay once for unlimited use (but you're still paying for the
image).

Usually, a Royalty Free image will be much more liberal with granting
rights to create derivative works -- but it's worth reading any terms
and/or restrictions, even for images that *are* given away at no cost.
One example might be images that contain people in them. The people
might agree for their image to be Royalty Free, but with restrictions
to the types of uses for the photo (they may not want their image used
in, say, a herpes ad).

Finally, just to add to a comment that Hatter made: He is correct in
that you have the right to *try* to make money from your work - and
people have a right to not be interested in buying it. The correlary
to that, however, is that you have the right to protect your work from
use that you don't approve of, and others do not have the right to try
to make money from your work without your permission, or to circumvent
whatever fees you set for your work.

-- Robert

fsdstudio@gmail.com wrote:

On 19 Jul 2006 10:39:29 -0700, fsdstudio@gmail.com wrote:

Not always. If you've altered the work or you're using the work for
satire, you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you like:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...t_Watchers.png
http://www.backwater-productions.net..._Gay_Pride.png
http://www.backwater-productions.net...r_Netkkkop.png

We can thank good 'ol Larry Flint for that! ^_^

Never be afraid of throwing up the de minimis doctrine either, fair
use laws were specifically designed to protect third party ownership
and the expansion, evolution and advancement of art.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Mostly, yes, but the trick is not to cross the legally defined line of
Satire versus Parody. You can use a copyrighted work to make fun of
(comment on) said copyrighted work, but you can't use a copyrighted
work (or the style thereof) to make fun of something completely
different.

http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cas...T/dr-seuss.htm

(OK, to be more semantically correct, you *can* do whatever the hell
you want and the difference is where the law is likely to side should
someone choose to pursue enforcement of their copyright.)


True, but even then, there are some limitations to Fair Use.
Generally, though, the law in that area is pretty liberal and while
*some* attempts of Fair Use have failed, others that might have seemed
on the surface to be slam-dunk violations have been legally justified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbel...e_Music%2C_Inc.

-- Robert

On 19 Jul 2006 19:16:27 -0700, fsdstudio@gmail.com wrote:

Tis the way it should be too, treating copyright on a case by case
manner is much better than just some all encompassing sweeping law
saying one or the other.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

Brian wrote:
Enter the Digimarc digital watermarking system. Granted, this will cost
you money, and depending on just how prolific you are as a photographer
(or graphic artist), it may cost you a lot of money, but Digimarc has
created technological tools to counteract the effects of having your
work ripped off and/or published uncredited on the Internet.

Basically, you purchase a license from them that allows you to
"digitally watermark" a certain number of your works (the licenses are
sold in bundles of varying sizes). You use the Digimarc function within
Photoshop or their own software to apply these "watermarks," which store
data about you and your copyright terms within the image. NOT within the
"metadata" tags (which are excruciatingly trivial to alter or remove),
but actually encoded invisibly throughout the image. They claim that it
cannot be perceived and cannot be destroyed, even by resizing the image
and things like that. I think their main point is that by the time the
image has been altered enough to destroy your watermark, it's probably a
derivative work anyway. That's a matter of opinion, of course.

So that's the first step, being able to prove conclusively that any
given digital copy of a photograph belongs to you. The second step is
their subscription piracy alert service that constantly crawls the web
searching for copies of your photos and reporting back to you. You can
log into their website and say, "Oh, here is one of my photos that some
kid posted on a forum about her cat," and then you can choose to take
action against them.

I'm sure that there are other similar systems, but as usual the burden
of proof lies in the hands of the copyright holder and nobody else. This
new law would certainly make it more difficult for some people to assert
their claims, but in this changing world we all have to try to keep
ahead of the curve.

--
Aaron

"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems
good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the
rest." -- John Stuart Mill