In message
<c9456897-e55c-404d-adf4-4dda0724c9c7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
darrenholmes99@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
>
> The Orphan Works Act 2008 - Bad for Artists, Photographers, Creatives
>Everywhere
>
>How would you like to be required to register all of your artistic
>work with a private body in order to avoid the risk of being
>designated "orphan" and open for use by anyone? The Orphan Works Act,
>introduced this year and intended to be fast-tracked through Congress,
>aims to have this happen.
>
>This bill can make any and all creative work not registered with a
>Government-approved private body completely vulnerable to being taken
>and used in any way, by anyone, with the onus on the creator of
>copyrighted work to find the infringer, rather than being protected by
>default as it is now.
I can't see this being a problem. It only has effect in the US.
Any US firm using pictures in this way would render it's UK office (or
any other office around the world) liable to prosecution for breach of
copyright.
If the company does not have a local office the moment anyone from the
US office sets foot outside the US they can be prosecuted for breach of
copyright
Therefore effectively the only people who can uses the works are
Americans working for US only companies with staff who never want to
leave the US...
It will soon deter most users of "orphaned" art as, after the first few
prosecutions, many companies will not want to take the risk with it.
Tying up staff and corporate lawyers for eve a few days is going to cost
more than the cost of the licensing of the photos.
Especially as the rest of the world will then probably start ignoring
all the US copyrights etc
I can see the estate of Elvis, Getty and a few others getting worried as
they have global brands. It he US pushes this through and the rest of
the world starts ignoring the US copyrights. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|
