Mailing List Membership
Slideshow
Drobo
Category Archives: copyright
SAP Pays the piper
SAP Pays the Piper
I see more and more photographers either giving away their copyright or not bothering to take some of the simple steps required to defend it. I have received looks of confusion about the recent Canadian legislation to strengthen the protection for Canadian photographers. I have even heard, more than once, that copyrights have no value.
Strangely, corporations are pushing hardest to remove copyright protection from individual creators. Well, perhaps not so strange, as they are well aware of two things:
- Visual content is critical to media success (either still or video). Even the Wall Street Journal, notorious for no photography, has changed its tune to include visual reporting.
- Intellectual property is the most valuable asset of all
If you were not sure of this second fact, the recent court decision against SAP should place things in a very clear light. SAP is a large software company that help large corporations automate their business. They are a competitor of Oracle, but was also involved with third party Oracle maintenance and training. This is where you pay SAP for a support contract and training instead of Oracle, presumably for less money.
Well, it seems SAP was downloading copies of Oracle and using them without paying, in other words copying their software without the right to copy (copyright). Oracle sued SAP and the result was a 1.3 Billion dollar judgment against SAP. Yes, billion. This is the largest copyright penalty ever imposed. Oracle certainly knew the value of their copyright and SAP just had it explained to them very clearly.
You can read more about this case here.
Photographers face this problem all the time, where someone downloads and uses our work without paying or even considering the photographer at all. The value of copyright means we can force them to stop. The change we need to copyright is to increase the protection of creators, not decrease it.
Corporations certainly understand the value of copyright, that’s why they are pushing so hard to weaken the laws that protect our property.
It’s very true that you really only have the rights you are willing to fight for. If you create photographic works, or create anything really, you need to consider the laws that protect you carefully.
The CBC wants to steal YOUR photos
Theft by the CBC
Yes, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) wants to steal your photos. At least if you’re foolish enough to enter their photo contest. Photographers, both professional and amateur, need to keep a close eye on their copyrights. We are often told they are not worth anything and don’t need to be protected, but there sure are a LOT of people who want to take it from you. Unfortunately, this is another example of this sad fact.
The latest edition of this scenario comes from a group that should know better, since they are primarily known as a news organization. CBC’s August photo contest: Hot cuisine encourages people to submit their favorite food. Timothy Neesam, CBC News photo editor, even provides helpful advice on how to make better pictures. The advice is solid, but the motivations are not.
I’ve mentioned in the past that you should read the rules carefully before entering ANY photo contest. Photography is valuable and necessary in all forms of media. Of course, if you are too cheap to pay for it, stealing it is an excellent option. One of the most common scams is to run a photo contest, where the entrants sign over their work to you for the privilege of entering. Yes, just for entering.
Usually, the theft clause is hidden among the contest rules. The CBC has so little respect for Canadians, they just put it in the first one:
- CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY Contestants must reside within Canada. Employees of the CBC and their immediate family or persons living under the same roof are not eligible to enter this contest.
Entries become the property of the CBC and by entering the CBC Photo Contest you grant CBC all rights to use your image(s) in all forms, media and manners, without restriction as to changes or alterations, for advertising, trade, promotion, exhibition or any other lawful purposes. You also confirm that all those in the images grant CBC all rights to use your image(s) in all forms, media and manners, without restriction as to changes or alterations, for advertising, trade, promotion, exhibition, or any other lawful purposes.
You also agree to waive any right to inspect or approve the photographs or electronic matter that may be used in conjunction with them now or in the future, whether that use is known or unknown, and you waive any right to royalties or other compensation arising from or related to the use of the photographs.
Yes, they OWN whatever you send them and can use it for ANYTHING they want.The can sell it, run it in ads, make prints, whatever they want – they own it.
Here is the full link, so you can see for yourself (or click to be taken to the den of thieves):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2010/07/hot-cuisine-what-are-your-favourite-summer-meals.html
You express your opinion of these rules on their comment page. Of course, it’s moderated, so if you don’t see mine there you’ll know why.
If anyone knows an email address we can contact at the CBC about this matter, please add it to the comments.
Remember, watch your wallet and watch your photos.
Copyright and Geography
Copyright and Geography
So, I was reading the Toronto Star (not the paper, the website) this morning and I cam across an article by Micheal Geist. For some reason, Geist has become the spokesperson for copyrights in Canada. Not for the people that actually create intellectual property, or (heavens) try to make a living from creating things that need to be protected by copyright. No, he seems to represent the consumers, our clients. I also often think he is of the opinion that the whole concept of copyright should go away. I’m not sure if he actually wants this to happen, but I sure would like to ask him if it’s true.
Geist has his own website (here) and writes for several of the Toronto Papers, including the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.
His most current article, in the star, here , complains that internet content is available in some countries but not others. In particular, there are US sites that we cannot view in Canada (and vice versa). These sites use your IP address to figure out your location and allow or block access based on this information.
Geist feels that if it’s on the Internet, it should be accessible to everyone, because the ‘net knows no boundaries. Geist means a time in the past, which I remember, where the net had no boundaries. Well, that’s because it was a network between a bunch of Universities. mostly within one country.
First, the Internet has always had a geographic component and has never been anonymous of untraceable in nature. There are quite a few hackers and unfortunate Usenet posters, who have discovered this the hard way. The text names we use for websites are a convenience only. You actual web location is an IP address and it is most certainly traceable, traceable, and geographically identifiable. The ‘net most certainly knows your location. Why? Because it has to be to route information to and from there on the network. Each IP address is in a network and that network is connected to other networks, and all those networks and their owners are known. You may use an anonymous service, but that just means the Internet knows where the service is and the service is sending the data to you. Of course, these services are not as anonymous as some would hope. Nonetheless, geography is less well defined on the Internet than in real life, but it is most certainly defined.
Next, he claims that this limiting of access is somehow wrong (or at least inconvenient to users) and based on a business model instead of laws. Well, not so in Canada, as we have strange laws about Canadian content that force Canadian stuff to be included. It’s annoying, as the Government of Canada has this inferiority complex about Canadian artists such that we would be overwhelmed by actual competition. An outdated notion, one I disagree with, and one that should be changed.
The impact of this is limiting to business models. This is why we don’t get netflix, either in our mailboxes or on the Internet. It’s why hulu is not available here. If you want to change the Canadian content rules, you’re going to need to talk to the government and get the law changed. Business has little to do with it.
There is a business model for limiting the use of copyrighted material. It’s called licensing, and it is most certainly NOT outdated. The basis of this model is the wider the distribution you want to use, the more it should cost. Thus, if you want to use one of my photographs on the front page of the New York Times it will cost a lot more than a 1/4 page near the back of a textbook – and well it should.
The is why it’s called copyright – the right to copy. To make a living at creating stuff, I sell those rights. It’s my product – and it’s my property. I own my photographs and I own my articles and I own this post. Why? because I created them. I may sell you a print (or even give you a copy if I like you) or let you read this article because you were nice enough to be interested, but I own what I created. Early in my career, I sold my photographs to a client, meaning I sold them all rights to the work. I regret this now, as that work is no longer mine. I can’t even show you the work here, as I no longer have the right. That work is gone, never to return.
Geist is a professor of law at the University of Ottawa, which I respect, but it also means he has tenure and effectively a guaranteed job. What it really means is he has never tried to make a living creating content. Of course, he writes articles for newspapers, but I’m doubt this is a significant part of his income. When you are an individual artist trying to protect yourself from people and corporations trying to steal your work, copyright is your friend and one of your few allies.
Rights based licensing is a fundamental business model, based on copyright, that assigns a value to the license based on how it’s going to be used. It is only of the ONLY ways for an individual artist to receive fair value for their work.
Copyright is designed primarily to protect and support individual artists in the creation and protection of their work. The social benefit and justification for it’s existence is that it will allow artists to make enough of an income that they will invest the time and effort required to improve their art. We, as society, benefit through artistic expression at even higher levels. Art is one of the fundamental defining features of cultures and human beings in general. Supporting the arts helps us rise above the mundane and makes us better people. Copyright is critical to support this in the modern age. So, I’m sorry that Geist has trouble getting Hulu on his iPad, but I am defending copyright for most important reasons.
Tagged Business, copyright, Michael Geist, rights
Leave a comment
New Canadian Copyright Bill
Canadian Copyright Changes
Finally, and as expected, there is a new copyright bill in Canada. The bill is before parliament, where it will be debated and finally voted on (with luck). We’ve been to this stage before, but hopefully we make it over the line this time.
The complete text of the bill id available here,. It’s a very broad bill that attempts to bring Canadian copyright up to world standards and implement the treaty agreements that have already been signed.
I’m only going to focus on the Photography related changes:
1) Canadian Photographers FINALLY own their own work by default.
|
A small line, but a big deal indeed. In fact, this is a very big deal, as section 13(2) reads:
13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.
Engraving, photograph or portrait
(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.
This means that if someone pays you to create photograph and you have NO contract or no term in your contract to retain your copyright – you lose it. Automatically. Canada is the only country with this ridiculous clause that has harmed more photographers than anything else.
Good Riddance.
2) Re enforcement of Moral Rights
|
No assignment of moral rights
|
(2) Moral rights may not be assigned but may be waived in whole or in part.
|
Moral rights, which do not exist in US copyright law, are a very good thing. IT means that even if a creator assigns their copyright to someone else, they still retain moral rights. What are these moral rights. Well, it means that the copyright holder, who is not the creator of the work, may not do anything to the work that insults or reduces the reputation of the creator. What a interesting concept, that a creator’s reputation must be respected, even if the copyright is transferred. You also cannot give away your moral rights (but you can waive them).
3) Statutory Damages
|
Statutory damages
|
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,
|
|
|
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
|
||
|
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
|
This is the first time Canadian Copyright has tried to implement statutory damages. It[s not as strong as the US version, but it’s a LOT better than we had before.
Notice of Claimed Infringement
|
Notice of claimed infringement
|
41.25 (1) An owner of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter may send a notice of claimed infringement to a person who provides
|
|
|
(a) the means, in the course of providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, of telecommunication through which the electronic location that is the subject of the claim of infringement is connected to the Internet or another digital network;
|
||
|
(b) for the purpose set out in subsection 31.1(5), the digital memory that is used for the electronic location to which the claim of infringement relates; or
|
||
|
(c) an information location tool as defined in subsection 41.27(5).
|
Wow, It looks like we will finally be able to use own own takedown notice. This is the ONLY way to prevent bloggers (some of whom make as much money as traditional publishers) from using our work without permission. Great news.
So what happens if they ignore your notice…?
|
Damages related to notices
|
(3) A claimant’s only remedy against a person who fails to perform his or her obligations under subsection (1) is statutory damages in an amount that the court considers just, but not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000.
|
Well, that ought to get it the attention it deserves…
This is not a perfect bill and there are several items that will annoy consumers of copyrighted material, but it a huge improvement over the old laws. For photographers, it’s some very long overdue changes.
- Scott -
Tagged Business, copyright, rights, work
Leave a comment
Canadian Copyright – Potential Changes
Canadian Copyright
It looks like we may soon be looking at a new Canadian Copyright bill. As is always the case, this is a subject of both debate and confusion. The following is a conversation between myself and Peter Whittaker. Peter and I went to University together, have strong technical backgrounds, and both ended up in the arts. I in photography and he in the performing arts (both stage and film).  It’s a conversation that takes place on the wall of his Facebook page, I am reproducing it here with his permission. I don’t need Facebook’s permission, we each own the text we’ve written. That’s the nice thing about copyright, you get to own the thing you create. Otherwise, as many do not understand, Facebook would own my very words. Given Facebook’s lack of concern for both copyright (only theirs) and privacy (also only theirs), I think it’s poetic.
For the reference of Canadians and any others of interest, you can find the complete text of current Canadian Copyright law here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-42.pdf
Peter Whittaker Speak out now to avoid US-style copyright. Preserve Canada’s balanced
tradition.
PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks
www.michaelgeist.ca
Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa., pmo demands Canadian DCMA
I’m in favour of DCMA copyright. As a creative, I want to retain ownership of my work. That’s what controlling the right to copy means. It protects artists, NOT corporations.
May 6 at 2:16pm ·
Scott, you already have ownership of your work. What’s missing?
Copyright is granted by the vast majority of us to the few who create, with the recognition that a balance is needed between unlimited right to profit and unlimited access. Limited term and fair use strike that balance, allowing reward and social good.
How are you harmed by the current regime? What is missing?
May 6 at 6:18pm
DCMA does not specify that you can only watch a movie on your computer.
Yesterday at 4:14pm ·
Flaws with current Canadian copyright:
1) photographers lose their copyright unless they retain it by contract. No paperwork is no copyright.
2) no ability to stop infringement except lawsuit ( no DCMA take-down notice)
3) no effective registration of copyright. I have to do that in the US.
4) no statutory damages. I can only sue for lost license fees. I have to take infringement cases to the US for protection…. See More
5) it’s not illegal to remove my metadata and simply claim my work as your own.
DCMA was the US implementation of an international treaty signed in 1996. DCMA was in 2001 or so. Canada is the ONLY industrialized nation to have NOT implemented the treaty with signed in 1996.
We should not copy all of the DCMA, but we should comply with the treaty we signed (and fix our copyright).
Copyright is designed to protect individual creators, not corporations. Only corporations will benefit from the removal of copyright protection.
Yesterday at 4:23pm ·
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-2.html#codese:10-ss:_2_
Thanks, Jacob. Scott, taking your points in turn:
#1) You take the photo, you own the photo, unless it is a work for hire – work for hire implies paperwork or at least a meeting of the minds. Same as my work. The way it should be, IMHO.
#2) Oh? Section 42. Call the cops. Besides, why shouldn’t a judge be involved? The DMCA has led to myriad cases of fraudulent takedowns. When rights are in dispute, trust not administrators.
#3) Section 46 on?
#4) Section 38.1?… See More
#5) Oh? Refer to section 42, esp 43.2
Yesterday at 6:27pm
#1) Not for Photographs, engravings, or portraits. Without a contract specifically retaining it, the buyer owns the copyright. Section 13 (2).
#2) Does not work for photography, if my work is used in an ad, none of these terms are met and it’s a civil matter. Most copyright infringement is forced into civil court unless there is a physical sale or … See More distribution (pirate DVDs, for example)
#3) In the US, I formally register copies of my work receive a certificate. In a lawsuit I can point to the copies there. No such ability exists here. I can register my work, but no copy is maintained, hence useless.
#4) Once more a civil suit, with damages as low as $500 it’s hard to justify the $5K – $10K a civil suit costs.
#5) 43.2 applies to dramatic or operatic work or musical composition, not photography. 42 applies to physical expression of copyright and it long overdue to be updated for the electronic expression of an idea.
Now, for me this more than just reading a document. I speak from experience. I am a creator of copyrighted material and I have pursued legal remedies in the past. A civil suit takes more time, money, and effort than is usually worth it unless the stakes are very high.
DCMA takedown notices have a specific requirement that you are the holder of the copyright of the material in question. A false statement has specific penalties in itself, but also perjury, which is serious stuff. It’s affordable and can be done directly by the copyright holder and does not require lawyers either side. In Canada, it’s a lawyer’s letter and a year long lawsuit.
Hence, I am forced to register my work in the US and use the Berne convention to pursue an infringer in my own country. It also means I sue them in the US and use statutory damages and contingency hiring to pay for the suit. With penalties of 150K per willful infringement, I can take on a major magazine. Under Canadian law, I need to BE a major magazine or large corporation to protect my copyright. That’s broken.
Under DCMA, if you remove my studio name from the photograph, it’s a violation. In Canada, it’s ignored, along with most copyrights related to electronic material.
I want my copyright. I want the right to control who copies and uses my work, be that a large corporation or a blogger. It’s my work, I created it. If someone lacks the skill or talent to make their own, tough, pay me or someone else for it.
If someone wants to give their work away to anyone who wants it great, but that does NOT need I need to give away mine (at least while I’m breathing and 50 years after that).
Not that I want a copy of the DCMA here, but I want us to comply with the treaty we signed in 1996. I want copyrights in Canada to protect the people that created it. I want this country to finally act like an adult, instead of a frantic teenager, and recognize that creative work has value and needs to be protected – and if you want a copy PAY FOR IT. In the long run, artists can make a living and you get better work.
Yesterday at 7:56pm ·
BTW, the actual text of C-42 Canadian Copyright Act is here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-42.pdf
I prefer reading it in PDF, but you can get it in HTMl as well.
Yesterday at 8:01pm ·
Yesterday at 11:50pm ·
Scott, so it’s Kingsian “DMCA if necessary, but not necessarily DMCA”, right? Would you be relatively happy with a copyright update that brings some consistency to the treatment of various types of work AND that allows for more meaningful damages?
13 hours ago
Re DVDs: The use of encryption schemes and region codes is essentially tacit acceptance of monopolistic, anti-consumer practices. Neither technology slows down at all those who would infringe, for profit or not, and both technologies get in the way of the legitimate consumer who wants to watch their movies when and where they want.
That’s why we need superior statutory recognition of consumer rights and fair use and meaningful punishment for willful acts that restrict fair use and user rights.
13 hours ago
Yes, in many ways we are in agreement. Copyright’s original intention was to protect the artist, an individual, from losing control of their work to the public (later to include corporations). Modern view seems to think that corporations benefit from copyright, but many more would benefit from its removal.
DCMA is the US interpenetration of … See More complying with two 1996 treaties of the WIPO. Given that its 14 years later and the Internet was not even considered in the original treaty, perhaps we can account for both creator and user rights.
1) Treat photography as an equal artistic effort with the same protections as such. Copyright should go to the creator by default.
2) Permit the enforcement of copyright violations by a mechanism that does not require significant time or expense by the artist (DCMA takedown notices do work well|).
3) Protect the interests and freedoms of users while respecting the copyrights of the creators.
4) Recognize, define, and deal with the expression of ideas and copyright that are purely electronic and distributed electronically. Creative work should not need to be burned to physical media to be properly protected.
5) Clearly define fair use and provide for its protect and enforcement. A user should be able to complain against a corporation infringing on it and a corporation should be able to protect against “fair use” being used to implement infringement.
6) Implement a true registration of copyright (with samples being stored) for electronic works, including significant statutory damages and contingency lawsuits. An artist should be able to sue to protect their work without selling their house.
Canada does NOT actual have balanced copyright laws, neither for the creator, nor the user. Corporations are, in fact, irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps rather than treating copyright legislation as evil, this is the chance to speak up and create truly balanced legal protection for both creators and users.
This is the chance for Canada to lead rather than follow. Much as our constitution recognizes free speech in electronic communications, we should recognize and protect the rights of BOTH creator and user.
12 hours ago ·
And this is why FOX News just doesn’t sell in Canada, folks!
Darned reasonable discussions and reasonable, balanced conclusions.
Re takedown: I don’t have a problem with takedown in principle, but in practice there is no cost to it, which has led to a situation akin to takedown spam in the US. Perhaps something akin to a small claims court system as a starting point, where takedown does have a cost, with punitive damages for ignoring takedown or fraudulent takedown…?… See More
Re corporations: The term of copyright in some jurisdictions is so out of hand that the only entities that benefit from it are corporations (or trusts, or what have you). Just as we limit the terms of patents for the good of innovation, the term of copyright should be reasonably limited. I would have no problem with going back to 10-30 years (with moral rights in place to death + some margin).
Re leadership: I like the sounds of that. I am prepared to be surprised and am expecting to be disappointed.
12 hours ago
Scott, interesting articles re DMCA, takedown, etc.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070202/164759.shtml
http://blog.lawdeveloper.com/2010/05/11/no-dmca-protection-for-you/… See More
6 hours ago
Two problems:
1) Youtube does not even attempt to enforce copyright. The uploader of the video should need to declare they own the copyright on the video. Google, for that matter, has NO respect for copyrights of book authors and photographers in particular.
2) Purposeful or negligent filing of a false DCMA takedown notice should have an enforceable penalty of its own. Viacom should know better.
4 hours ago ·
Peter Whittaker Speak out now to avoid US-style copyright. Preserve Canada’s balanced
tradition.
PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks
www.michaelgeist.ca
Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa., pmo demands Canadian DCMA
I’m in favour of DCMA copyright. As a creative, I want to retain ownership of my work. That’s what controlling the right to copy means. It protects artists, NOT corporations.
May 6 at 2:16pm ·
Scott, you already have ownership of your work. What’s missing?
Copyright is granted by the vast majority of us to the few who create, with the recognition that a balance is needed between unlimited right to profit and unlimited access. Limited term and fair use strike that balance, allowing reward and social good.
How are you harmed by the current regime? What is missing?
May 6 at 6:18pm
DCMA does not specify that you can only watch a movie on your computer.
Yesterday at 4:14pm ·
Flaws with current Canadian copyright:
1) photographers lose their copyright unless they retain it by contract. No paperwork is no copyright.
2) no ability to stop infringement except lawsuit ( no DCMA take-down notice)
3) no effective registration of copyright. I have to do that in the US.
4) no statutory damages. I can only sue for lost license fees. I have to take infringement cases to the US for protection…. See More
5) it’s not illegal to remove my metadata and simply claim my work as your own.
DCMA was the US implementation of an international treaty signed in 1996. DCMA was in 2001 or so. Canada is the ONLY industrialized nation to have NOT implemented the treaty with signed in 1996.
We should not copy all of the DCMA, but we should comply with the treaty we signed (and fix our copyright).
Copyright is designed to protect individual creators, not corporations. Only corporations will benefit from the removal of copyright protection.
Yesterday at 4:23pm ·
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-2.html#codese:10-ss:_2_
Yesterday at 5:23pm
Thanks, Jacob. Scott, taking your points in turn:
#1) You take the photo, you own the photo, unless it is a work for hire – work for hire implies paperwork or at least a meeting of the minds. Same as my work. The way it should be, IMHO.
#2) Oh? Section 42. Call the cops. Besides, why shouldn’t a judge be involved? The DMCA has led to myriad cases of fraudulent takedowns. When rights are in dispute, trust not administrators.
#3) Section 46 on?
#4) Section 38.1?… See More
#5) Oh? Refer to section 42, esp 43.2
Yesterday at 6:27pm
#1) Not for Photographs, engravings, or portraits. Without a contract specifically retaining it, the buyer owns the copyright. Section 13 (2).
#2) Does not work for photography, if my work is used in an ad, none of these terms are met and it’s a civil matter. Most copyright infringement is forced into civil court unless there is a physical sale or … See Moredistribution (pirate DVDs, for example)
#3) In the US, I formally register copies of my work receive a certificate. In a lawsuit I can point to the copies there. No such ability exists here. I can register my work, but no copy is maintained, hence useless.
#4) Once more a civil suit, with damages as low as $500 it’s hard to justify the $5K – $10K a civil suit costs.
#5) 43.2 applies to dramatic or operatic work or musical composition, not photography. 42 applies to physical expression of copyright and it long overdue to be updated for the electronic expression of an idea.
Now, for me this more than just reading a document. I speak from experience. I am a creator of copyrighted material and I have pursued legal remedies in the past. A civil suit takes more time, money, and effort than is usually worth it unless the stakes are very high.
DCMA takedown notices have a specific requirement that you are the holder of the copyright of the material in question. A false statement has specific penalties in itself, but also perjury, which is serious stuff. It’s affordable and can be done directly by the copyright holder and does not require lawyers either side. In Canada, it’s a lawyer’s letter and a year long lawsuit.
Hence, I am forced to register my work in the US and use the Berne convention to pursue an infringer in my own country. It also means I sue them in the US and use statutory damages and contingency hiring to pay for the suit. With penalties of 150K per willful infringement, I can take on a major magazine. Under Canadian law, I need to BE a major magazine or large corporation to protect my copyright. That’s broken.
Under DCMA, if you remove my studio name from the photograph, it’s a violation. In Canada, it’s ignored, along with most copyrights related to electronic material.
I want my copyright. I want the right to control who copies and uses my work, be that a large corporation or a blogger. It’s my work, I created it. If someone lacks the skill or talent to make their own, tough, pay me or someone else for it.
If someone wants to give their work away to anyone who wants it great, but that does NOT need I need to give away mine (at least while I’m breathing and 50 years after that).
Not that I want a copy of the DCMA here, but I want us to comply with the treaty we signed in 1996. I want copyrights in Canada to protect the people that created it. I want this country to finally act like an adult, instead of a frantic teenager, and recognize that creative work has value and needs to be protected – and if you want a copy PAY FOR IT. In the long run, artists can make a living and you get better work.
Yesterday at 7:56pm ·
BTW, the actual text of C-42 Canadian Copyright Act is here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-42.pdf
I prefer reading it in PDF, but you can get it in HTMl as well.
Yesterday at 8:01pm ·
Yesterday at 9:52pm
Where does the DMCA say that?
Yesterday at 9:55pm ·
You are right. It’s against modern copyright law to break copyright encryption (or to remove a copyright mechanism). However, DVDs are encoded, not encypted (there is no encryption key). You can watch your DVD on anything that can read it. Your computer, of any make, is simply a DVD player.
Yesterday at 11:50pm ·
Scott, so it’s Kingsian “DMCA if necessary, but not necessarily DMCA”, right? Would you be relatively happy with a copyright update that brings some consistency to the treatment of various types of work AND that allows for more meaningful damages?
13 hours ago
Re DVDs: The use of encryption schemes and region codes is essentially tacit acceptance of monopolistic, anti-consumer practices. Neither technology slows down at all those who would infringe, for profit or not, and both technologies get in the way of the legitimate consumer who wants to watch their movies when and where they want.
That’s why we need superior statutory recognition of consumer rights and fair use and meaningful punishment for willful acts that restrict fair use and user rights.
13 hours ago
Yes, in many ways we are in agreement. Copyright’s original intention was to protect the artist, an individual, from losing control of their work to the public (later to include corporations). Modern view seems to think that corporations benefit from copyright, but many more would benefit from its removal.
DCMA is the US interpenetration of … See More complying with two 1996 treaties of the WIPO. Given that its 14 years later and the Internet was not even considered in the original treaty, perhaps we can account for both creator and user rights.
1) Treat photography as an equal artistic effort with the same protections as such. Copyright should go to the creator by default.
2) Permit the enforcement of copyright violations by a mechanism that does not require significant time or expense by the artist (DCMA takedown notices do work well|).
3) Protect the interests and freedoms of users while respecting the copyrights of the creators.
4) Recognize, define, and deal with the expression of ideas and copyright that are purely electronic and distributed electronically. Creative work should not need to be burned to physical media to be properly protected.
5) Clearly define fair use and provide for its protect and enforcement. A user should be able to complain against a corporation infringing on it and a corporation should be able to protect against “fair use” being used to implement infringement.
6) Implement a true registration of copyright (with samples being stored) for electronic works, including significant statutory damages and contingency lawsuits. An artist should be able to sue to protect their work without selling their house.
Canada does NOT actual have balanced copyright laws, neither for the creator, nor the user. Corporations are, in fact, irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps rather than treating copyright legislation as evil, this is the chance to speak up and create truly balanced legal protection for both creators and users.
This is the chance for Canada to lead rather than follow. Much as our constitution recognizes free speech in electronic communications, we should recognize and protect the rights of BOTH creator and user.
12 hours ago ·
And this is why FOX News just doesn’t sell in Canada, folks!
Darned reasonable discussions and reasonable, balanced conclusions.
Re takedown: I don’t have a problem with takedown in principle, but in practice there is no cost to it, which has led to a situation akin to takedown spam in the US. Perhaps something akin to a small claims court system as a starting point, where takedown does have a cost, with punitive damages for ignoring takedown or fraudulent takedown…?… See More
Re corporations: The term of copyright in some jurisdictions is so out of hand that the only entities that benefit from it are corporations (or trusts, or what have you). Just as we limit the terms of patents for the good of innovation, the term of coyright should be reasonably limited. I would have no problem with going back to 10-30 years (with moral rights in place to death + some margin).
Re leadership: I like the sounds of that. I am prepared to be surprised and am expecting to be disappointed.
12 hours ago
Scott, interesting articles re DMCA, takedown, etc.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070202/164759.shtml
http://blog.lawdeveloper.com/2010/05/11/no-dmca-protection-for-you/… See More
6 hours ago
Two problems:
1) Youtube does not even attempt to enforce copyright. The uploader of the video should need to declare they own the copyright on the video. Google, for that matter, has NO respect for copyrights of book authors and photographers in particular.
2) Purposeful or negligent filing of a false DCMA takedown notice should have an enforceable penalty of its own. Viacom should know better.
4 hours ago ·
Magnum sells Archive
Magnum Sells it’s Archive
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3i8decb5ca03594f57edb6fec52a3fe9e6
Well, It’s been an interesting few weeks in the photo industry.
Magnum, perhaps one of the most famous photo agencies in the world, has sold it’s photo archive. Many journalists and photographers are shocked and upset at this news and more than one is claiming the sky is falling.
Now that the news has had time to sink for people and much of the noise has dropped off, I though it was time to look at this event with a clear and reasonable view.
Magnum, for those who may not be aware, was one of the first photography agencies set up by photographers for photographers. Magnum photographers have covered most , if not all, the major political events since there founding in 1947. In fact, Magnum was started because most photographers were not treated well by other agencies and often had trouble maintaining ownership of their work (sounds kinda familiar – the more things change, the more they stay the same). Magnum has included some of the most famous names in photography as founders and/or members. Henri Cartier Bresson is considered the founder of modern photojournalism. Robert Capa is considered the definitive war photographer. Magnum photographers have, in many ways, shown the modern world the power of photography as a journalistic tool.
…but they sold their archive….
The magnum archive contains some of the most famous photographs of the past century, from Robert Capa’s dying solder in the Spanish civil war to the tanks in Tianamen Square. Magnum photographers have been there and came back with photographs.
….but they sold their archive….
Well, let’s look at that. Although Magnum was one of the first agencies to defend photographer’s copyrights and license them to clients instead of selling all rights, Magnum has also often been short of funds. Magnum is a co-operertive agency, with all members sharing in risks and rewards. It also likes to focus on longer term and more difficult to cover subjects. There are plenty of shooters for the lighter subjects, but Magnum tries to cover the deeper elements of the human condition.
….but they sold their archive….
Yes, they did. For 30 million dollars, which is no small amount of money and they sold it to Dell. In fact, Dell purchased with the express intention of protecting it and making it more widely available then it had in the past.This was not a trival purchase, nor did Magnum consider it for just money
Dell invested the time and effort to transport this precious library in the safest means possible. It’s not like photographic archives can be just shipped by fedex somewhere. They also invested in the facilities to store it properly. This is from the days of film and most of the material is in the form of negatives, all of which can age and detriotate over time.
They also invested the time and money to have Magnum archivists come over and educate them in the notes on the material, the proper storage, and how this material should be treated. This was an investment for reasons more than money.
So, the result is the Magnum archive is now in the hands of a group with deep pockets, so they can protect it as well or better than Magnum itself. It’s in the hands of a group who plans to use its deep pockets to make it more accessable, which is something Magnum probably could not have afforded in the same manner. Finally, it puts a healthy amount of money in the hands of Magnum so they can use to support more the great work they have delivered in the past.
I think this is a win-wion deal for everyone involved, including ourselves.
Interestingly enough it appear that this sale may only apply to Magnum’s US archive and the4 individual photographers are retaining their copyrights. More from the British Journal of Photographer here.
Magnum itself discusses the sale here.
I think Magnum has been very smart in this transaction. They have placed some of their most valuable work in a storage facility better than they could probably afford themselves. They will be available in a manner that does not increase their workload and it gives them some much needed funds to continue doing what they do best.
Also posted in Business, famous, magnum, photojournalism, Professional Photography, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Canadian Copyright Law under review
The Canadian Government is in the process of reviewing the existing copyright laws with the intention of “correcting” them. They have started a consultation process with the public and the following is my response:
1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?
As a professional photographer, my only value to a client is my skill, training, and experience. My only asset is the photographs I create and my only protection from abuse is the copyright laws. My clients are larger, better financed, and better able to endure a legal process that an individual such as myself. Even if in the right, I am unable to sustain an extended legal process without destroying my business and the people who depend on me. They are many and I am one, so they can steal from me without some form of protection.
Canadian copyright laws need to be modernized and improved, but they need to remember and reinforce their purpose. That purpose is not to protect the interests of large corporations, but to protect the individual creator from abuse from both individuals and groups, such as corporations. Canadian copyright law currently fails in this mission, as registration does not use a sample of the work, copyright infringement is difficult to detect and to punish, and there is no support in the legal process for enforcement or restitution. Willful infringement, which should suffer the most penalties, is not even recognized properly. To protect my work, I am forced to register my copyright in the US and use the Berne convention to protect myself in my own country. It has forced me to turn to the American legal system for protection in my own country. This is wrong and a complete failure of the system – this is what needs to be corrected.
2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time
The laws must be changed to use the strength of the state, in the form of the legal system, to protect the individual creator. Of all the parties involved, they are the most vulnerable and the most underrepresented. This is not the individual who copies materials, as this requires neither skill not artistic talent, but rather the individual who can create art and intellectual property. This person strengthens our country with every creation and this person deserves the protection of copyright laws with strength and focus.
3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?
4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?
All three of these questions are answered in the same response.
A true registration process that includes a sample of the work to be protected and a certificate. Infringement against registered copyrights should have mandatory penalties of a magnitude that is noticed by the largest infringer – corporations. Each infringement should be fined individually and legal services at a free or reduced cost should be made available to individual content creators.
J.R Rowlings created an industry unto itself and one of the most successful book series in history. She would have failed had she not been able to protect her work through copyrights. Most poetry, painting, and photography is created by individuals (although some photography is created by a team led by an individual). Without copyright laws, there would be no value in our creations and there would be no reason for us to focus on the effort. The result would be a grey and mediocre world full of endless slight variations of the same idea. The ease of copying does not increase the creativity of the copier, it simply weakens the efforts of the creator. This is the very reason copyright laws must ecist.
The value if the individual creator is rarely noticed, except in hindsight, but it is their creative efforts that bring true value to the world. The arts are often how the value of a society is measured and without individual creators there would be no arts, with solid and strong copyright laws there are no true creators, just copies.
Regards,
–
Scott MacQuarrie, CPP
Certified Professional Photographer (www.certifiedphotographer.com)
ZWCX Photography
www.zwcx.com
99 Bronte Rd, Suite 123
Oakville, Ontario, Canada L6L 3B7
416-818-4449 scott@zwcx.com
Also posted in Business, Uncategorized
Tagged Business, Canadian, copyright, laws, protection, rights
Leave a comment
Follow Me
Signup with dropbox and get 250MB extra free space