As for narrow self-interest – yeah us mean old photographers actually have the nerve to think we should get a paycheck and make a living like you and everyone else.

For those who support your position, I am sure there will be equal efforts. Let the games begin.

I appreciate your long response – I think we have both said our points and neither of us wants to continue this disagreement.

My comments about your being thrilled to be a US citizen was not a quote, it was my impression of our comments on the most recent show in which you talked about the superiority of the U.S. vs. Great Britain on the basis of first amendment freedoms. Sorry to have characterized any opinions you have. That was the impression I took from your comments.

As for hating Disney, I quite enjoy some of their products. I am angered by corporations and individuals that show a disregard for the betterment of society through narrow self-interest. I see Orphan Works legislation as solving one of these problems.

I have no doubt this legislation has imperfections, but I believe you are exaggerating them and their effects. I believe the best solution is for legislation that properly balances the interests of copyright holders with society’s interest rather than nipping at the edges with something like this Orphan Works. I suppose I have made that point as best I can right now and I appreciate your indulgence.

When you put words in my mouth and mischaracterize what I say Chris – you already start out showing that you’re on less than solid ground.

Let’s start by me completely debunking your comment as of the first sentence. Please go find the podcast, blog post or video related to this site where I say that I am thrilled to be a US citizen. I’ll patiently wait here for you to do that.

Of course because you want to prove a point that simply doesn’t need to be made by the way, you’re engaging in hyperbole and distortion.

I’ve never said I am proud to be a US Citizen.

Now – thank you for the lecture on the role of Congress here, but it was unnecessary given the fact that I have demonstrated a fairly deep grasp of the statutes surrounding Copyright.

I have never ever once said that I deserve to have Copyrights forever. I have never said there should be no limits. So again, you’re arguing about something that’s silly. Prove me wrong – show me where I said that and again, I’ll wait here for you to do so.

If you can’t do those first two things, please start your next comment by apologizing for mischaracterizing my position.

As to the meat of it – I agree there should be limits.

Now where we actually disagree is here. You say…

“the point of orphan works legislation is so that in 50 years, when the children of an athlete that I photographed want to use one of my photos in an article about their family perhaps, they are not prohibited from doing so after making good faith attempts (and there will be a procedure, well publicized, that must be followed) to find me and work out a deal.”

The REAL reason is to weaken Copyright legislation – everything else is smoke screen.

And you’ve exposed yourself as just another run-of-the-mill Disney hater. Personally, I don’t care about the Disney stuff one way or another.

But as a photographer depending on my Copyrights to earn a living in my waning years, it’s a big deal to me that this Legislation would create the following problems for me…

1 – It’s so vague on its face as to make any of my Copyrights unenforceable for all time – now – and in the future.

2 – Companies who make the most remedial showing that they tried to find the owner of a photograph, i.e., one search in a local database, will be able to harvest millions of images for use claiming they couldn’t find the owner.

3 – It will create overburdensome and unduly expensive registration processes that STILL won’t guarantee that the photographer gets paid.

4 – It shifts the burden to the photographer, away from the infringer.

5 – It would create a flood of court cases as affected parties rushed to court to sue over the vague terms like “reasonable compensation.”

6 – There is no provision in the legislation that would prevent such profiteering. Any online database allowing browsing of images that are potential orphans could easily become one-stop-shopping for anyone seeking to use images for free.

7 – It would turn the notion of a model release on its head allowing the subject of the photo, not the maker to, license the image.

I’m just getting started here. This legislation is shockingly bad.

I understand the need for a change. What I don’t understand is the need to effectively destroy an entire industry as a means to do it.

If this legislation passes as proposed, there will be such a huge negative impact that even those who support it now, will later wish they hadn’t.

Perhaps you Chris are merely here shilling for the anti-DRM crowd or some other party who hopes to profit from the change that would come if this passes. Or perhaps you’re simply unaware, uneducated and unconcerned about how it impacts anyone but you. Whatever your real motivation, I urge you to spend five minutes thinking about how this will affect someone other than yourself or the causes you represent and ask if you were in their shoes, how would you feel?

I’m confused about why we are talking about what limits as though their should be none. I should note that my comments only apply to US citizens – something you have indicated you are thrilled to be. So I doubt you are unfamiliar with the importance of the Constitution.

Congress sets copyrights – Article 1, Section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

For the purposes of my argument, the key aspect is for “limited” times. Thus, it was never intended for you to have copyright forever. If you do not like that, good luck amending the Constitution. At least you will have Disney and other corporations on your side.

So long as we are arguing about time frame rather than whether it should be limited, the point of orphan works legislation is so that in 50 years, when the children of an athlete that I photographed want to use one of my photos in an article about their family perhaps, they are not prohibited from doing so after making good faith attempts (and there will be a procedure, well publicized, that must be followed) to find me and work out a deal.

Orphan works is an important fix to problems (mostly in video and print, I believe) in which people cannot track down copyright owners who produced something 50-60 years ago and, in many cases, have no interest in maintaining their copyright anyway.

This legislation should, at a minimum, make it easy for those who want to retain all their copyrights to do so, while also allowing non-maintained copyrights to fall into the public domain for societal betterment, as was explicitly intended by the Founders.

The real problem is a Congress that has bowed to the wish of the Disney corporation (by greatly extending copyright time frames) to use the public domain as a well for ideas without contributing anything back – which is explicitly what the Founders wanted to prevent.

Copyright has never been about merely protecting artists and creators. It has always been a balance between creative rights and the importance of public domain. That balance is now out of whack and the Orphan Rights legislation is an attempt to deal with a symptom of that imbalance.

While opposing this legislation is half the battle, the other half is to register your work through copyright. If you register through the copyright office, your work will not be considered “orphan” anyway, so you should be fine. Please still though, let your voice be heard to support your fellow photographers and the artistic industry as a whole.

I’m willing to allow folks to present alternative views – just so long as they aren’t working to reduce MY rights – of which I am willing to give up exactly none.