File :-(, x, )
Senate Passes Orphan Works Act Anonymous
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/09/orphan01.html
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70sCamera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern684Focal Length (35mm Equiv)69 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution250 dpiVertical Resolution250 dpiImage Created2008:04:02 13:27:40Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashNo FlashFocal Length46.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
fucking awesome
>> Anonymous
DA GUBBIMINT IZ STEALIN MAH PHOWTOWZ!!!
>> Anonymous
This will make a mockery out of copyright laws on photographs.
>> Anonymous
i do not know english properly. can this be said in less words?
>> Anonymous
>>265179
Your work is no longer yours.
>> Anonymous
As long as I can still take pictures of working orphans, I don't care.
>> Anonymous
If american steals other countries picture
has to abide by their countries copyright laws

If you can't locate the source, no country is known, therefore you risk litigation (very low chance but still a risk)

If country is known to be US, the company will steal anyway and contest they didnt know who was the original owner.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
The orphan works act does this:
If Company X wants to use Photo Y, but cannot locate the owner: They can search for the owner and fail. Then, finding no owner, they can use the photo.

If the owner notices, they can then force the violator to pay, but [here's the key - This is what the orphan works act does] assuming that the search was "sufficient", there can be no damages beyond "actual."

So if they steal your photos and can prove they looked but couldn't find you, they only have to pay you for what they're worth rather than "up to $150k per instance".

*IANAL, IANAA, ICRE
>> Anonymous
This is complete bullshit. A rip-off for artists. This is guaranteed to be heavily abused. The rights and protections for the artist have been diminished once again.

Fuck the senate. I hope they all die horribly.
>> Anonymous
Wow America.
>> Anonymous
>>265292
Excuse me? This was needed and then some. Sometimes, archives have things for whom artists are unknown (no attribution) or can't be located (eg. the homeless). This way, after a good faith attempt, the library or other holding institution may use said photos. If the copyright holder finds out, they may then contact the using entity and collect royalties not to exceed damages. But, if you like, feel free to fight to leave millions of ephemera in a state of limbo whereby their virtually impossible to explot because nothing is known of the producer.
>> Anonymous
>>265400
I would also like to add that I think it's a BAD thing that we have defacto coprighting in this country. Public domain should be the default (was before 1976,) with copyright secured by an assertive mark indicating the chosen license. If it just says "copyrighted," it should fall to the standard restrictive US license we all know. I'm not saying that copyrighting is bad, but rather, perhaps it's bad for the societal commons that every God damned thing in this world is copyrighted- often when the creator had no such intent (eg. cellphone photo).
>> Anonymous
>>265400
>>good faith attempt

Companies practicing good faith? You are pretty funny.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
This is going to get abused to hell.
>> Anonymous
>>265231
>So if they steal your photos and can prove they looked but couldn't find you, they only have to pay you for what they're worth

And how is this at all unfair? The other possible downsides to having them use the picture (namely a company you object to on moral grounds uses it in an ad campaign or something) aren't reversible or referable with money.

And the commercial and stock photographers bawwwing about this are usually so mercenary they shouldn't mind.

>>265400
QFT. This is either these things don't get used at all or they get used like this. The copyright holders actually stand a bigger chance of getting paid now.

Also, I guarantee you- someone is going to develop a sort of invisible digital watermark separate from EXIF, that can't be stripped so easily. The use of that will cut down so much on unknown-origin pictures.
>> Anonymous
>And how is this at all unfair?

So what you're saying is if you're caught stealing something from a store you shouldn't be fined or charged, just forced to pay for the item? A lack of punitive damages means companies will steal by default.
>> Anonymous
>>265506
If you mistakenly take something from a store, you should just have to pay for it

The law requires companies to search and document the search. If they don't, I assume the limit on damages is waived.
>> Anonymous
>>265517
what do you do if 90% of everything taken from the store was intentional, and the person just lies and says they didn't mean to take it.
How many people will you stop, and how many will you miss.
>> Anonymous
"How to get away with not paying for a photographers work."

Step 1 Have third party group steal image, remove EXIF,and crop water mark.

Step 2 Have third party place the image on another site with no info about the original creator

Step 3: Have company that hired the third party group take this image off that website.

Step 4: ??????

Step 5: Profit: By the time the photographer finds out that the image was stolen, it will be too late to pull the ad in most cases. The main company will just say. "We tried to find the creator but we were unsuccessful." and maybe toss the SOB $20 for his image.
>> Anonymous
>>265605
So what you're saying is that /p/ will receive an upswing in sudden photo posts, followed with one comment to prove someone else saw it, followed by the original being deleted?
>> Anonymous
>>265638
You could use /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>265517

If you PURPOSEFULLY take something from a store, you're arrested and tried for it, paying many times the cost of the item in court costs and damages.

Anyone in the publishing business knows that you NEVER print anything unless you own the copyright for it, or have written authorisation from the owner.
The menucia of "public domain" images is made completely irrelevant by the internet, which im guessing is what this law is for.

So make sure you stick your full copyright info in your EXIF data for anything you post here, fellas, cos if you dont, you might find it printed somewhere or shown on TV without possible recourse for decent payment for it's use.
>> Anonymous
>>265682
>If you PURPOSEFULLY take something from a store, you're arrested and tried for it, paying many times the cost of the item in court costs and damages.

Yes, but in the climate of the internet, this law is the equivalent of saying "I found this car in the parking lot - I asked and nobody around knew who it belonged to, so I took it". Add to the equation a friend who takes the tags off it first and tada! Instant non-provable theft.

>Anyone in the publishing business knows that you NEVER print anything unless you own the copyright for it, or have written authorisation from the owner.
BWAHAHAHAHA.....

>The menucia of "public domain" images is made completely irrelevant by the internet, which im guessing is what this law is for.

No, this law is to make sure large entities have the money to protect and register their work, and everyone else can have their stuff stolen. This law ensures "guilty until caught", with the added bonus that if you're caught, the penalty is no worse than buying it. Now the internet is a wonderful microstock catalogue, with the bonus of being free.

>So make sure you stick your full copyright info in your EXIF data for anything you post here, fellas, cos if you dont, you might find it printed somewhere or shown on TV without possible recourse for decent payment for it's use.

Or make sure that your EXIF can't be stripped out by another poster and reposted later for the purpose of orphaning a work. Oh wait, YOU CAN'T.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>265682
stripping exif is effortless
removing obnoxious Copyright watermarks is 1-15minutes in photoshop
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265729removing obnoxious Copyright watermarks is 1-15minutes in photoshop

have fun

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:29 17:59:11Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height685
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265758
I'm not the person you're quoting, but it's really not that hard. Too lazy to spend more time on this. Also, you americans are fucked. I'm looking forward to the first case in which some american company takes pictures due to this law from some european photographer. That ought to be fun.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:30 00:51:01Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height685
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
oh shi-
>> Anonymous
/p/, I'm a Canadafag raging, is there anything I can even do?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>265998

masturbate to that picture like everyone else. you'll feel better.
>> Anonymous
>>265775
proof that pc>mac
>> Anonymous
>>265998
Basically raeg against the Harper government, because they're still working to pass the "I <3 the DMCA" act here and have been deeply in bed with "advisors" (read "US Lobbyists") to write new copyright law to bring all that US awesomeness north of the border. Admittedly, they're still working on the old stuff, so I don't think the orphan works stuff is included, but I'm sure they'll find a way to squeeze it in or at least rule that we should respect the US version.
>> Anonymous
>>266176
I swear to god if the fucking conservatives get majority...
Which they will. Fucking useless-ass Dion and his spinelessness.
>> Anonymous
ART IS DEAD

LONG LIVE THE DOLLAR