Matthew,

If you were the janitor, you wouldn’t have to worry about this bill.

Red or white?

LOVE these last two mentions of the old guard. Back inthe 80’s I wanted to do my own Autochromes because of Sheila, I never did.

Now can you find out of Sarah Moon is going to do a site and get someone to fill her in on all the things we DON’T like?

DO you think that maybe some of these oldies have now figured out that lousy fan based sites of tear sheets is not an effective way to ensure your legacy within photographic history?

(Gee - from one former PPA President to a present ASMP Chapter President. I’m starting to feel all warm and fuzzy, Jack.)

Ok…group hug…

Listen, I don’t see where either one of us is speaking as or for either organization any more than saying “we are guys what so what do you expect?” Obviously we have more knowledge than most because we hear more and see more than most only due to our involvement and are basing our individual judgments as professionals on that.

My opinions would remain the same even if I were the janitor.

matthew pace

PS I like wine..Oct.PDN show

Absolutely.

Jack,

Am very aware of Article 1. This legislation has the potential to be financially, creatively, and morally devastating. It should never have gotten this far.

Debra wrote-
“This is grossly narrow and simplistic. APA was formed due to dissatisfied studio photographers (like Bill Stettner, David Langley, et al) ”

Sorry, as one of the “et al” in the early days, with the late Bill Stettner, David Langley (who I recently saw teaching up at Hallmark), Larry Robins, and Steve Steigman, that is NOT grossly narrow and simplistic.

That , my dear, was the main reason and the driving force of the formation of APA. I was there as a board member in those early days, and if I recall, you weren’t.
So please don’t tell me it’s a grossly simple and narrow view. I put in too much time over those issues and know that my take is a bit more accurate.

There are many things you wrote as “facts” that I take issue with, but in all due respect (and I do mean with respect), it’s best to let those dogs lie. A lot is a difference of opinion.

We don’t see eye to eye and don’t agree with what this legislation means. But I do sincerely hope that my offer for dialog over a drink still stands and that we can find common ground in future battles to stand together on.

Gee - from one former PPA President to a present ASMP Chapter President. I’m starting to feel all warm and fuzzy, Jack.

“And if the infringer tries to undercut the industry standard prices for similar usage, or even drag their feet in negotiating or payment, then OW becomes invalid. THAT was some of the concessions fought for, not coffee mugs.”

There are no industry standard prices and this is good thing. The bad thing, as I pointed out in my previous post, that as a result of all that has taken place in this industry - royalty free, microstock, buyouts, etc., the infringer could argue that the standard price is anything anyone wants it to be.

“I also cringe when I hear someone, anyone, imply that any of the “associations have “sold out” or compromised for “concessions” when it implies for individual gain, rather than an industry gain.”

No one has said this and please stop trying to convince photographers that the concessions made are good for them. They’re not.

“But much more important, false implications like that, will drive a wedge and cause bad feelings between associations that, in the long run, will hurt photographers much, much more than this bill ever will.
It keeps us divided and weak.”

Again, Jack, there were no false implications. And no amount of bad feelings between the organizations has the potential to hurt photographers as much as this legislation.

“APA was formed because a group of ASMP commercial photographers were trying to establish a uniform estimating and billing form. That is the whole reason APA was formed. Period.”

This is grossly narrow and simplistic. APA was formed due to dissatisfied studio photographers (like Bill Stettner, David Langley, et al) who were not being well represented by ASMP - as they were an organization that was originally set up to represent magazine photographers. They were not dealing with the advancing challenges of what the studio photographer’s business model needed to be. Copyright issues also played a hand in APA’s formation. And while much has changed since that occurrence, ASMP, still, is not representing the commercial photographer as they should be. Besides, Jack. This was about 26 years ago. We live in another century now.

“Do the right things and OW is not the evil bill it’s being touted as. Ignore all the proper things you should be doing and OW isn’t the final nail, it’s just another nail. ”

There shouldn’t be another nail unless you and every other photographer are using it along with your tooth to fight this.

“Again, I’d prefer not to have it (OW) at all. And yes, a change in Fair Use would be better for us.”

Yes it would and this is what should have been fought for all along.

I do know you and always enjoy your thoughts and our conversations. I know this isn’t personal its business.

For the record: While I am President of S.FL ASMP…I am not speaking for or as ASMP…let’s be real clear there.

I personally do not agree and I believe that a lot of ASMP feels the same about OW. What is being said is that so far this is the best deal to take that is on the current table, not we love it. My understanding is that there are 2 proposals and this is the least of both evils.

This is where numbers count. Look at Move On…email blasts to the nation that seems to make the Capitol take real notice. You more than anyone know that this profession has little control over itself because most can’t come together or bother to. As photographers we are solo flyers, good in some aspects real bad in others like this one.

No one is sure of how searching for the creator will take place that is why it is imperative to do your homework and also place a demand on software to make some kind of un-strippable info or as another post suggests, a time bomb on your images that self destruct either after intial usage or time factor. Also, I think that when a user registers he as well has to show the image. That is where un-strippable info is needed.

As for grandma, God love her, she does have the same recourse and rights that are not being threatened, but even today without OW, she would still have to hire an attorney to re-cooperate the breach on her copyright. The difference lies with…without copyright registration, an attorney can not recoup his fee from the infringer…you have to pony up, hoping you win whatever the judge decides is fair. So if he says $1500 and your attorney says $800 ( a laugh) you got $700..(with no prior registration) with it, she would get the $1500 and the attorney whatever he charges on top of that. That is not going to change.

Debra wrote:
“The truth, Matthew, is that even if a photographer registers their images with the copyright office, according to this legislation, should their work be infringed upon, the financial remedies will be severely limited. If “reasonable compensation” cannot be agreed upon, the burden is placed on the photographer and he/she will have to file a lawsuit. If an Orphan Works defense has been determined, the photographer will not have the benefit of statutory fees.”

The financial remedies as I understand it, are limited in the sense that an infringement,where no creator is found, where a search is on record, does not constitute a willful copyright breach, unless a “reasonable and fair compensation” can be made. You mention the reference of RF as a measuring tool..perhaps for some image from some random one who got something out there…maybe arguable..but from an established photographer who has a track record,makes his living, doesn’t contribute to RF to start with? He might be seen from a different perspective.

These are just my thoughts and I apologize to Rob here for taking up so much of his Blog space. This is a hot confusing issue.

thank you Rob for your time
and Debra for good comments.. (who for those who don’t know, has defended the rights of photographers for a long time)

matthew pace
just a photographer (still your friend)

Debra you wrote - “One thing is for sure - the Founding Fathers are making a lot of noise down there with all the turning in their graves that’s going on.”

I really wish I could agree with you on this, but its far from true. “God” as often touted by countries at war, is not on our side. (That a metaphor here, I know you never implied God).

If you read Article 1 in the Constitution where we get our copyright law, copyright protection was written not to protect us primarily, but rather to further public knowledge, to spread information.
As it is quoted in the Constitution- “to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts”.
And registration as Jeff Sedlik so well puts, is not to protect our works, but is there to basically feed the Library of Congress.

Here’s a quote from Justice Sandra Day O’Conner when she sat on the Supreme Court.
“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.
This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate.
It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.”

Congressman Boucher from Va., who is next in line for the Judiciary Committee chair, from what I know in my “crystal ball” as you called it,
is quoted as saying about the DMCA-
“This disappointing decision has moved our Nation one step closer to a “pay-per-use” society that threatens to advance the narrow interests of copyright owners over the broader public interest of information consumers.”

Yeah, “narrow interests” of us copyright holders. Like eating and making a living.

Defending our copyrights is an uphill battle and will continue to be so in the future. The founding fathers are not “turning in their graves” over this by any means.

For every fax you send, be aware that there are bigger, better organized groups like the librarians and publishers that are also gathering their troops and sending in letters and faxes in support of OW.

That’s why I keep saying, if we divide over this, we will be hurt more in the long run.
And it will be a long run.