That makes 3 of us. Gotta start somewhere!
Here's an example of a book that encourages using PicScout to earn money from your photographs:
http://tinyurl.com/7opz3f2After you read this advice which totally plugs PicScout as a monetizing tool for failed photographers and stock photo companies, please check out the table of contents.
Suggestion number 2 out of 99: "Sell Royalty-Free Photography"
Suggestion number 14 out of 99: "Turn Your Photographs Into Wallpaper"
Suggestion number 34 out of 99: "Make Image Thieves Pay You with PicScout"
I wonder how many people out there are doing this in the same order. Of course, I agree that "image thieves" should pay. The huge disagreement I have with PicScout is when they call anything they find "image thievery" as if innocent infringements didn't exist, and then use the abusive extortion letter for money instead of the civilized cease and desist letter to protect a copyright.
There is some interesting legislation being proposed for a category of works named "orphan works". Orphan works are works for which the owner is very difficult or impossible to find. The idea is that some great works are locked up in a vault and not being shared because people don't want to expose themselves to being sued if the copyright owner suddenly turns up and makes a claim. The legislation is intended to free up stuff like archival film, paintings, photographs, books and other types of work that can be copyrighted.
When I was reading the proposed legislation, it seemed to me that it would provide some balance in cases such as the HAN/VKT baitpaper images we've discussed at length. The images are being offered for free on thousands of websites, so even an honest and diligent search for a copyright owner would be incredibly difficult. VKT's bulk registrations with the Copyright Office are little or no help. A person caught using one of his images could argue that they did a reasonably diligent search for an owner and found nothing except for a mountain of evidence suggesting that the image was in the public domain. VKT would be entitled to the following:
...we recommended a framework whereby a legitimate orphan works owner who resurfaces may bring an action for “reasonable compensation” against a qualifying user. A user does not qualify for the benefits of orphan works legislation unless he first conducts a good faith, reasonably diligent (but unsuccessful) search for the copyright owner. As defined in our Report, reasonable compensation should be the amount “a reasonable willing buyer and reasonable willing seller in the positions of the owner and user would have agreed to at the time the use commenced.”2 Such a recovery is fair because it approximates the true market value of the work. It allows a copyright owner to present evidence related to the market value of his work and, at the same time, allows the copyright user to more precisely gauge his exposure to liability. Statutory damages would not apply to use of an orphan work. (The Office agrees with copyright owners who have since suggested that an award of attorney's fees might make sense in certain instances where an orphan work user acts in bad faith.)
Source: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html
This is an example of how legislators are actually trying to address some of the issues that are currently making a mess out of copyright law in the digital age, where reproduction and publishing are nearly instantaneous and there is a huge demand for content. Copyright owners must be protected, but not at the expense of fairness or worse yet, people's civil rights.
The way the trolls are handling copyright protection with innocent infringements is tantamount to treating dandruff by decapitation.
For profit, may I add.
Show Posts