[NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill

[bob catchpole]

Hi Rob,

Why defend the indefensible?

Rob Myers wrote:

> Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world.

Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work is registered. What kind of right is that?

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html

> The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly.

That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't registered. ONLY in the States!

> The registry system is optional

The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers to use your work with impunity. 

> The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) 

A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a designers and artists association in the UK, is likely horrified at the Orphan Works Bill.

Actually, the American registry system is a form of state intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else.

Bob.



----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill

bob catchpole wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
> 
>  > Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed.
> 
> So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't 
> registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. 

It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on the basis of 
that but I believe this has issues.

> Why not 
> come into line with the rest of the world? 

Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world.

> Just get rid of the need (and 
> expense, $30 a time) to register.

You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the date of 
publication can be useful.

> Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the 
> same as Seth Resnick: "Every image that I shoot is registered before it 
> ever leaves my office."  To us outside the States this seems ludicrous -
> time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an automatic universal 
> right. And in the Land of the Free!...
> 
>  > The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help 
> artists keep
>  > ownership information associated with their works...
> 
> To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of their work. Nowhere 
> else do they need to register the fact.

Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in the US the same 
as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to prevent other 
people from copying their work (and thereby profiting from it) the same 
as everywhere else.

Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that need tackling, 
even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can be improved, and 
Public Knowledge have suggestions for this.

The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big corporations can 
afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown copyright status. 
Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller organization. The 
Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that 
they do so fairly.

The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services 
like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce copyrights and fees 
under the current system. Most professional artists and designers 
already belong to such a scheme.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20080518/ec9c29ae/attachment.htm>