Absolutely no crime in looking after your members. That is exactly what the trade organizations are supposed to do.

I think there are many people waiting in the wings to cash in on what will definitely be a cash cow - and compared to others that might jump into that arena, Corbis and Getty are probably not the worst of them. I don’t believe most photographers realize what the impact of this bill will be on both a creative and financial level - the registrations alone will be financially devastating to some.

You are correct in that we are not going to change each other’s minds. You are intent on defending something that in my opinion is indefensible.

Am not certain yet that I am going to the awards, but if I do, would be glad to have a drink with you.

PPA has indeed been more pro-active than any other organization and has put a great deal of time and money into legislative issues. That doesn’t make them right all of the time.

—-

Debra,

No one can be right all the time, but all that time and money makes us more experianced and knowledgeable as to how things work in Washington. The frustration is not when people disagree, but rather when they shut out any input that doesn’t fit their preconceived opinions.

———
Debra Weiss wrote:

Not being one to believe in coincidence, it is a bit curious that one of these great improvements to the bill, the Useful Articles provision, benefits only retail photographers, which is the bulk of the PPA membership.

——–

And if people responded the first time we asked for input, maybe there would be more change . But then from what I’ve heard, we don’t agree on that timeline.

But the your implication that we had that much influence into that wording, just to help our members, is one of those things that keeps our industry splintered into such separate cliques.
If we did have that much influence, and frankly I wish we did, it would be from hard work on the Hill.
And if it was possible, why wouldn’t we look after our members? What crime would that be?

BTW, with the number of our members who say they do commercial work, I’d dare say we represent more “commercial” photographers than APA does. So believe it or not, that is part of our constituency. As a 100% commercial shooter, and as past PPA president, I’d say you’d be shocked that we don’t segregate photographers. We even have a commercial track at our Convention because of the number of commercial shooters we have.

——-

Debra Weiss wrote:

And those two searchable databases can be ready as soon as the bill is passed. Can you spell Getty and Corbis?

—-

LOL. That’s called “fear mongering”. Just what crystal ball are you looking into to come up with that?
Will the Communists be far behind?
When you want to stir people up, call out the Bogeyman.

——–

Debra Weiss wrote:

Photographers testified against it because it would have stripped them of their copyright protection. All work as a guild member would have been work for hire.

————

Yeah. Jack Reznicki would have been doing work for hire for Jack Reznicki Productions.
That wasn’t the reason.

And it was funny to have one of those photographers who testified against it to sit with me when I sat on the APA board in NY when business wasn’t so good for that shooter. I’ll tell you that was strange.

APA was formed to get a standardized Estimating and Billing form, like the TV industry had with the advertising agencies. But because we were not a guild, the 3 A’s basically said they would ignore anything about such standardized forms. And they did. We had no clout.

———-

“Look to see the next head of the Judiciary Committee will be. As stated, going from Berman to Boucher will not be good for any copyright legislation coming up. Don’t “believe” it, but it’s true.”
Please - where did you get your crystal ball because I like to purchase one for myself.

——-

Debra, the crystal ball is easy. Just spend the time in Washington and see who’s stepping down and who’s next in line. It’s really easy if you spend the time to learn what is going on in Washington.

This is one future you don’t need a crystal ball to read.

————-

Debra wrote-

“As a result of being all knowing on everything, we as a creative community will stay as powerful as the Jazz musicians that gave away their copyrights in the ’50’s for peanuts to corporations that made millions off their music.”
Thanks Jack. The above is an excellent case for exactly why everyone should oppose this bill.

———

Funny, I thought I was making a point about staying disorganized and being easy pickings, but I can see how you saw it. But to continue saying that the sky is falling because of this bill is just something to rile people up. I don’t like the bill, but I don’t see the widespread rights grab that you keep telling people. That was my point of the Canadian comparison.
———-

Debra wrote:

“I saw this same thing from both PPA members and non-members a few years ago when PPA tried to start a licensing scheme for photographers ala ASCAP. We even hired someone from ASCAP.”
Again, comparisons between these two industries are non-analogous.
———-

The comparisons between these industries was not my point at all.

My point was that that process and what was spread on the Internet about it, the stir it caused, was very, very similar to what is going on now.
Photographers fixated on the trees, even if the trees didn’t exist, and it made photographers lose the forest.

And frankly, I’m done posting here. I’m not going to change your mind and vice versa. Hopefully people will read into this issue, like reading the actual bill itself.
Reading the current version and then reading the original one presented a few years ago, I think is also enlightening.

It’s now late, the weekend is starting, my jury duty is over (yeah), and I’m prepping for a shoot next week, so I wouldn’t be here, fun as it’s been.

So if you want, please take the last word here ;->

Debra, if you’re attending the Infinity Awards this Monday in NY, I’d love to continue this discussion over a drink there.

This should have said “comparisons between these industries are non-analogous.”

PPA has indeed been more pro-active than any other organization and has put a great deal of time and money into legislative issues. That doesn’t make them right all of the time. Not being one to believe in coincidence, it is a bit curious that one of these great improvements to the bill, the Useful Articles provision, benefits only retail photographers, which is the bulk of the PPA membership.

“The greater harm possible here is actually not from this legislation, …”

Yes, it is.

“Both versions of the bill set an effective date of January 1, 2009, but carve out an exception for photographs and other visual material. The
“House version sets the effective date for visual arts at January 1, 2013 or after two searchable databases receive Copyright Office certification. The Senate version sets the date at 2011.”

And those two searchable databases can be ready as soon as the bill is passed. Can you spell Getty and Corbis?

@26
“In response- The Writer’s GUILD worked because they were a guild. They were organized.

The similarities between these industries and non-analogous.

“When ASMP tried for guild status many years ago, before my time, there were photographers testifying in Washington against it. Amazing. We still suffer.”

Photographers testified against it because it would have stripped them of their copyright protection. All work as a guild member would have been work for hire.

“And with one group, talking with the Congressional aides (where the real things get done) for years, hearing one thing and then getting a lot of emails that are of a different stand, then we look like a disorganized industry, which we are.”

When that one (or two) groups talking are making decisions that are not in the best interests of the very people they are speaking for, I’ll take my chances on looking disorganized.

“I’m sorry, but you can continue to believe that this is “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” but I’d rather live in the real world.”

Actually Jack, it’s a wonderful thing that our system allows us to voice our dissent and yes, even in the real world, we can make a difference.

“Look to see the next head of the Judiciary Committee will be. As stated, going from Berman to Boucher will not be good for any copyright legislation coming up. Don’t “believe” it, but it’s true.”

Please - where did you get your crystal ball because I like to purchase one for myself.

“And it’s not “sucking up”. That doesn’t work. What works is being a professional, communicating, and conducting yourself as a professional who understands the game. Like anything else, it has to do with people trusting who they’re dealing with, believing them, and having a history.
It works in Washington, it works in advertising agencies, it works in magazines. It’s all about people to people relations.”

Well, then something seems to be lacking in these people to people relations.

“As a result of being all knowing on everything, we as a creative community will stay as powerful as the Jazz musicians that gave away their copyrights in the ’50’s for peanuts to corporations that made millions off their music.”

Thanks Jack. The above is an excellent case for exactly why everyone should oppose this bill.

“I saw this same thing from both PPA members and non-members a few years ago when PPA tried to start a licensing scheme for photographers ala ASCAP. We even hired someone from ASCAP.”

Again, comparisons between these two industries are non-analogous.

“The “few” commercial photographers I know in Canada, do get their copyright, in their contracts…”

Good for them! But “few” is not very many. Which means its quite possible that most Canadian commercial photographers don’t own their copyrights. Which leads us back to my point that by not owning your copyright, OW law is quite possibly (probably) a moot point in Canada.

“…it misses all my other points doesn’t it?”
No it doesn’t. Not speaking to your other points doesn’t mean I missed them. I took issue with your point about Canadian OW law. There is no need to address all your points to take issue with one of your points.

“You see, when someone on the ‘net, takes one small point to argue, after a long post like mine, that’s a tactic known as a Red Herring. It throws off the discussion into a rabbit hole.”

Red Herring? There is nothing misleading or distracting in my post. And my post in no way moves the conversation off-topic. I posted about copyright law, OW, and the respective differences between U.S. and Canadian copyright law. All on-topic and appropriate. I don’t see the rabbit hole. Unfortunately, long forum posts on the web simply don’t read well. Its the nature of the beast.

“…what about the other points?”

What about them? Maybe, and I do mean maybe, I agreed with some of them, so they weren’t of issue to me, so there would be no need to discuss them. (I agree that we are our own worst enemy.) The difficult work to be done is where we disagree, not where we agree.

Best,
Steve Skoll

Steve,

Very good point. But it misses all my other points doesn’t it?

You said - “Jack, and others:
Not only is Orphan Works structured differently in Canada, their copyright laws are structured differently as well. Canadian copyright law states that the party that commissions or pays to hire the photographer owns the copyright. Therefore, most, if not all, Canadian commercial photographers probably don’t own the copyright to their images. ”
——-
Steve,

OK, I’ll ask. Where do you get the “probably”? Can you quote any facts and figures?
The “few” commercial photographers I know in Canada, do get their copyright, in their contracts. It’s made them more savvy.
Is it all? I doubt it.
Same as here in the US, “most” commercial photographers don’t register their copyright. I know this from numerous lectures I give on Copyright, where I ask the audience how many people have EVER registered their work? If it hits 5%, it’s unusual. 2% is more like it.

And from what I hear from my lawyer, a “lot” of commercial photographers sign POs with onerous terms, like copyright transfers and indemnity clauses. That’s a whole other thread.

But, OK, let’s say I’ll concede your point.
Now, what about all my other points?
You see, when someone on the ‘net, takes one small point to argue, after a long post like mine, that’s a tactic known as a Red Herring. It throws off the discussion into a rabbit hole.
So if I concede that point to move the dialog, I’ll ask, respectfully, for I’d love a good dialog (it’s a NY thing), what about the other points?

And I thank the PhotoEditor of this great blog for posting the bill as introduced in the House. Now, how many photographers will actually read it?

Jack

Jack, and others:
Not only is Orphan Works structured differently in Canada, their copyright laws are structured differently as well. Canadian copyright law states that the party that commissions or pays to hire the photographer owns the copyright. Therefore, most, if not all, Canadian commercial photographers probably don’t own the copyright to their images. To own your copyright in Canada you need to get the commissioning party to transfer to you the copyright. Good luck with that. Are you personally willing to surrender your copyrights to the commissioning party? I have to imagine that not owning your copyright makes a big difference in whether Orphan Works is evil or benign.

Steve Skoll

>I’m having a really hard time believing several things here:
1. That, individuals sending in letters as opposed to letting an organization do all the work somehow weakens the community. A strong community in my mind is willing to use all available means to get a point across. The writers strike proved that to me.

In response- The Writer’s GUILD worked because they were a guild. They were organized. More power to them. Wish we had that. We’re basically a rabble.

When ASMP tried for guild status many years ago, before my time, there were photographers testifying in Washington against it. Amazing. We still suffer.

And with one group, talking with the Congressional aides (where the real things get done) for years, hearing one thing and then getting a lot of emails that are of a different stand, then we look like a disorganized industry, which we are. It points to the fact we can not control any votes nationally. Not a good thing when you want to have a voice in Washington.

After many years of working in several photographer organizations, I can tell you that photographers, as most independent creatives, have a feeling that they as individuals know better than anything anyone else who can tell them. And they can only relate to what affects them directly.

The idea of doing something for the greater good and something that might take compromise is not a concept creatives understand. As a result, we are so easily manipulated and screwed by big corporations.

It’s like the discussions I have with my lawyer, who’s an IP expert. Photographers would rather get information (usually bad) from other photographers online, rather than get real legal advice from a real lawyer.

I’m sorry, but you can continue to believe that this is “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” but I’d rather live in the real world.
I’ve been active, as a commercial photographer, with PPA because they are the only association I’ve been involved with that actually works, that actually does things, that actually gets things done.

>2. That, if the legislation is defeated congress will craft something worse in response.

Look to see the next head of the Judiciary Committee will be. As stated, going from Berman to Boucher will not be good for any copyright legislation coming up.
Don’t “believe” it, but it’s true.
Again, you can go with the creative’s gut, or listen to those that are knowledgeable in this field.
I’ll live in the real world.

>3. That, sucking up to the right people will give us more leverage in future copyright fights.
Everyone can read the bill themselves to see if they like the terms it offers and write a letter, fax or email to reflect it but the arguments above that I’m hearing from APA and PPA are not supported by anything but insider knowledge. Maybe I’m just naive as to how this process works.

All I can say is yes, you are naive as to how this process works.

And it’s not “sucking up”. That doesn’t work. What works is being a professional, communicating, and conducting yourself as a professional who understands the game. Like anything else, it has to do with people trusting who they’re dealing with, believing them, and having a history.
It works in Washington, it works in advertising agencies, it works in magazines. It’s all about people to people relations.

As a result of being all knowing on everything, we as a creative community will stay as powerful as the Jazz musicians that gave away their copyrights in the ’50’s for peanuts to corporations that made millions off their music.

As said, PPA didn’t suddenly become stupid on these issues.

And you, as a really good photo editor, seem to be an expert as to how legislation gets done in our Capitol, then more power to you.
Do you also ask your auto mechanic when your tooth hurts?

I’m not trying to be snide here. My apologies for seeming smarmy on the Internet, not my intention. It’s too easy to seem that way on the ‘net.
But I do want to point out what I’ve seen for the last 20 years that I’ve been involved in Photographers associations and photographer politics. It’s all very frustrating dealing so so many people that always know better than research and information. Working on gut reactions seem to be the rule.

That is not what happened BTW with the writer’s guild. I’m sure if you talked to their leaders, you would hear an earful of what it took to keep people in line.

I saw this same thing from both PPA members and non-members a few years ago when PPA tried to start a licensing scheme for photographers ala ASCAP. We even hired someone from ASCAP. There was so much bad info on the Internet, and we were slammed from members and non-members, that we had to kill it. I said then and now, it was a big mistake, but photographers got what they wanted. And today I’m answering a lot of questions about how to license work for members.

Kelley was so right when Pogo said “I’z have met the enemy! ….and he is us.”

That’s what I see here. Sorry if I get emotional about all this, but over the years, the fighting gets frustrating. I’m really hoping for real dialog between creatives, so that we are united for future fights, that will most definitely come.

Again, I’ll respect anyone’s decision, after they get real facts and figures, not just rhetoric.

Respectfully,

Jack

1. That, individuals sending in letters as opposed to letting an organization do all the work somehow weakens the community. A strong community in my mind is willing to use all available means to get a point across. The writers strike proved that to me.

2. That, if the legislation is defeated congress will craft something worse in response.

3. That, sucking up to the right people will give us more leverage in future copyright fights.

Everyone can read the bill themselves to see if they like the terms it offers and write a letter, fax or email to reflect it but the arguments above that I’m hearing from APA and PPA are not supported by anything but insider knowledge. Maybe I’m just naive as to how this process works.