The end of copyright law as we know it?

Update 12th May 2008: I'm far from the only photographer concerned about this. For an informed view from the perspective of a clued-up north American photographer, go here. It's a long read, but it's well argued and sets out in detail the potential repercussions of the proposed bills as they stand. There are also some well-reasoned counter-arguments at the end of the post, with some informed individuals cautioning that the initial knee-jerk reaction from many photographers is based on incorrect assumptions. I suggest you read it and make up your own mind. However the checks and balances are worked out, the bill still represents a fundamental shift in copyright law which, on the face of it, will do photographers no favours.

The Orphan Works Bill currently making its way through the US Senate is something that's likely to affect every photographer, musician, videographer, writer and artist on the planet... if it's passed into law. That means you. And by 'affect', I don't mean in a good way.

Yeah, I know. Seb's banging on about copyright again, yaddayadda blahblahblah. But this is something you really should pay attention to, because although - as with all legislative bureacracy - it's not exactly light entertainment catching up on the details, the potential consequences could blow a big hole in your world. Not to mention your bank balance.

Here's the gist: if this bill is passed, any image, anywhere in the world, that isn't registered with a US-based commerical copyright registry, is liable to be defined as an 'orphan' (in other words, ownership can't be proved). Under the proposed terms of the bill, such orphans are effectively free for use. Some photographers have called the bill a thieves' charter.

Under exisiting international copyright law you don't have to do a thing to protect your creative works; the copyright is automatically yours. Under the proposed changes you will only have the full protection afforded by copyright if you register with one of the privately-run, US-based copyright registries.

In effect this means that the vast majority of photographic imagery - whether pro or amateur - could be up for grabs, for free, by corporate America.

And yes, that potentially includes all your images on your Flickr account. Heck, it could include the whole of Flickr.

There's more to it than that, and I suggest you follow this link to find out more. Or listen to this podcast:

If this isn't bad enough in its global implications, whatever passes into law in the US is bound to affect the upcoming review of copyright laws in the UK. And, er, did I mention it's not likely to be in a good way?

Comments

[Stew Rogers]

Hi Seb
Interesting stuff, definitely worth knowing more about.Thanks for posting. Cheers.

[Nick]

I'd be interested to know what FACT does about this, theft of copyright by a nation state.

[Seb Rogers]

I'm not sure it'd count as theft by a nation state, per se, but in the face of the wealthy and powerful vested interests that help to draw up US legislation I'd have thought most campaigning bodies (and certainly most individuals) will be powerless.

I don't think the intention behind the new law is necessarily malicious, but the potential consequences are far-reaching. Intellectual Property is becoming more valuable, but as it does so lawyers (and law-makers, it seems) are working hard to transfer ownership away from content producers and into the hands of corporations. It's widespread and insidious, and it's not good for any of us.

[Edward Marshall]

Scary stuff and quite a bold move!

Its obviously wrong but i can imagine a lot of pressure from big corporations which could ease it in.

However, does this just apply to online?
If so Photography could go to its grass roots and photographers could begin dealing in prints etc and only putting heavily watermarked images online when needed.....

[Seb Rogers]

No, it doesn't apply specifically to images posted on the web - it's just that that's where most of the problems are likely to arise.

It was certainly easier to control distribution and availability of images in the days of film, but I'm afraid prints aren't going to solve the problem for all kinds of logistical and quality reasons. Watermarking certainly removes any ambiguity, but only if it can't easily be removed (which means not in a corner, or too small, or too subtle).

Pros will find ways around the problems, for the most part. But there are millions of amateurs who risk having their work ripped off - and even that fact will have an impact on the value of photography and, therefore, the ability of pros to earn a living from their images.

The only people the proposed bill will benefit is image users. Image creators - that's you and me - are in trouble.