Shakodo Community

Good question, Iris...but I think it will not help us independent artists, only big corporations...but curious what others think!

I am sure you are right. The large corporations will find a way around such laws. Most likely they simply will move to another country to bypass the law. I rather see a copyright tax/fee that would help individual copyright holder freelance artist with their legal cost when their work is infringed on. Right now due to the cost most artist can not fight those very same companies who are infringing on their work. 

I am currently dealing with a client who refuses to pay his bill and is in copyright infringement. I have so many hurdles to get paid for work done.The client even states how happy he was with my job he just does not want to pay. Or should I say he wants to settle for 1/3 of my bill and get unlimited rights forever. His words not mine. First am to make sure all contract issues are cleared only then might I go to court for copyright infringement. However the price tag just $20 000 US Dollar to start after that the cost accumulate like a taxi meter. Big corporation have legal teams on retainer wile the artist is on his own. There needs to be something done to level out the playing field. If large corporations had to pay a fee much like they do in Europe for TV and Radio that money to be used to help artist with court cost to protect their rights and  compensate them for the use of their art.

Solutions.... ?

I am sure you are right. The large corporations will find a way around such laws. Most likely they simply will move to another country to bypass the law. I rather see a copyright tax/fee that would help individual copyright holder freelance artist with their legal cost when their work is infringed on. Right now due to the cost most artist can not fight those very same companies who are infringing on their work. 

I am currently dealing with a client who refuses to pay his bill and is in copyright infringement. I have so many hurdles to get paid for work done.The client even states how happy he was with my job he just does not want to pay. Or should I say he wants to settle for 1/3 of my bill and get unlimited rights forever. His words not mine. First am to make sure all contract issues are cleared only then might I go to court for copyright infringement. However the price tag just $20 000 US Dollar to start after that the cost accumulate like a taxi meter. Big corporation have legal teams on retainer wile the artist is on his own. There needs to be something done to level out the playing field. If large corporations had to pay a fee much like they do in Europe for TV and Radio that money to be used to help artist with court cost to protect their rights and  compensate them for the use of their art.

Solutions.... ?

I am sure you are right. The large corporations will find a way around such laws. Most likely they simply will move to another country to bypass the law. I rather see a copyright tax/fee that would help individual copyright holder freelance artist with their legal cost when their work is infringed on. Right now due to the cost most artist can not fight those very same companies who are infringing on their work. 

I am currently dealing with a client who refuses to pay his bill and is in copyright infringement. I have so many hurdles to get paid for work done.The client even states how happy he was with my job he just does not want to pay. Or should I say he wants to settle for 1/3 of my bill and get unlimited rights forever. His words not mine. First am to make sure all contract issues are cleared only then might I go to court for copyright infringement. However the price tag just $20 000 US Dollar to start after that the cost accumulate like a taxi meter. Big corporation have legal teams on retainer wile the artist is on his own. There needs to be something done to level out the playing field. If large corporations had to pay a fee much like they do in Europe for TV and Radio that money to be used to help artist with court cost to protect their rights and  compensate them for the use of their art.

Solutions.... ?

Sorry about that I did not mean to post 3 times.

Just got this in my e-ail from ASMP

Google Asks Court to Rule Against ASMP

Google has filed court documents challenging the standing of ASMP and the other associations as plaintiffs in the 2010 class action copyright infringement lawsuit filed over Google's unauthorized and massive scanning of library books and its related actions. Google argues that because of the requirements of copyright claims, plaintiffs must be actual rightsholders rather than associations acting on their behalf. It has also challenged the standing of the Authors Guild in its related lawsuit filed against Google in 2005. 

Ok at the risk of talking to myself I just got this great link on the very topic of SOPA
http://seekingalpha.com/article/320238-why-google-is-all-in-a-lather-about-sopa

Anything that protects copyright grabs is a good thing. Censorship - which is another issue - is what the website blackouts were about Wednesday 2/18/12. If not being able to use copyrighted material is censorship, than I have to support it. I don't like being told what I can and cannot put on my website but if what I'm putting up there is not mine, than that is theft, plain and simple. I support SOPA and don't believe it is censorship, but a law giving more "teeth" to current legislation. Could this be a slippery slope towards outright censorship? Yes it could be. If they start telling me I can't put my own creative work up, that is a battle for another day.

Nobody seems to be asking the artist copyright holder. Where are the artists pro organization on this issue? 

I need to make one glaring issue about this, this has nothing to do with helping Hollywood or its "big" Corporations. That is a bit shortsighted. It is about copyright and who owns them (corporations or individuals) and the infringements or piracy as a result of it.

I need to mention that as far as fighting for the photographer in terms of Trade organizations, PPA (Professional Photographers of America) and APA (American Photographic Artists) were in support of the bills.  But as expected and not surprising that ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) caved in (against).  I must disclose that I was an ASMP Member and no longer support it nor do I agree with the direction it has been going in for the last 12 years. And I am right with my present feelings as recently they did not support the bill regardless if the bill needed to be tweaked.

The letter that I got from PPA (No, I am not a member) was very well put together, informative and succinct.  I echo exactly the points made on here and the sentiments felt by the president.  I will repost here:

SOPA and PIPA - don't be fooledDear Photographer,

We know that many of you have been following the developments with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). There has been some confusion over the proposed legislation, which frankly is the intent of the bills' opponents. We wanted to take a moment to correct some of the bad information, and to let you know where we stand.

We were disappointed by some of the heavy-handed tactics used by opponents of the bills. The objective of those tactics was obviously to create fear and hysteria, while at the same time spreading false information about what the bills would actually accomplish. We want you to know the following:

• Both pieces of legislation (SOPA in the Senate and PIPA in the House) targeted off-shore pirating of works produced in the U.S.
• We do not feel that the measures were perfect—no legislation is. But the greater good demands that measures be taken to protect the rights of creators like you.
• It is true that those mega-corporations opposed to the bill could possibly have been inconvenienced by the legislation. It is their job to make money, and their actions merely represented those purposes.
• It is not true that the public would have been deprived of works to which it has rights, but rather, only those works that are copyrighted and being sold illegally by rogue off-shore websites.

Particularly disturbing to every photographer should be the attempts by Google, Wikipedia and others to define copyright as censorship. The tact is both offensive and intentionally false. Of course, the word "censorship" was chosen by opponents of the legislation for its obvious emotional value. Americans in particular are born with a deep-seated aversion to anything that loosely resembles censorship. Those feelings are amplified in photographers and other creators. After all, you earn a living by SHARING your work, not depriving people of it. So when a behemoth corporate money-maker like Google attempts to stand on the backs of photographers to increase its profits, we as your association take exception. (As a side note, we appreciate all of the words of support you regularly extend to us as we defend those rights.)

It is important to recognize that Google, while it claims to be a friend to copyright, is anything but. PPA is one of several associations joined together in a lawsuit against the search engine giant for illegally scanning and posting copyrighted photographs on the Internet. A similar lawsuit filed by publishers and authors is also underway. It is our opinion that following Google's lead in defending intellectual property is something like depending on the fox to defend the hen house.

That Americans have bought into the false and misleading rhetoric issued over the past few weeks by opponents of the bills is unfortunate. We were surprised that a few creators were swayed by last week's Internet blackout. And we were disappointed that some members of Congress, who are typically more reasoned in their consideration of copyright issues, crumbled in front of the scare tactics used by the bills' opponents.

We will continue our Capitol Hill work on your behalf to educate members of Congress. Copyright is not a "Hollywood issue." The vast majority of copyright holders in the U.S. are small businesses. While Hollywood makes an easy target, the tactic is little more than a smoke screen designed to draw attention away from the true issue—online companies wanting to increase profits at the expense of mom-and-pop creators.

Americans have always valued and defended small-business rights. Each of us must work to be more enlightened about the real issues, and encourage our friends and neighbors not to be led astray by the fear-mongering of Internet bullies. In the meantime, PPA will continue its efforts to defend the rights of photographers now and in the future.

Best wishes for a successful 2012,

David Trust,
Chief Executive Officer
Professional Photographers of America