Archive for the ‘ law ’ Category
stealing this straight outta the APA playbook but a solid one page take on the latest + greatest from everyone’s photo hero over at aphotoeditor. rob haggart busts out a slew of material along with a great interview with suzanne sease covering the spectrum of pricing in today’s market. nice to see photographers laying out examples +
from the ever cheeky uk we get this – photographer not a terrorist. though these folks have a strong euro twist, specifically when it comes to the various legal proceedings, it’s good info. there’s a printable portable info card in case your busted. you’ll find it under the law is an ass listing. in their own words;
Photography is under attack. Across the country it that seems anyone with a camera is being targeted as a potential terrorist, whether amateur or professional, whether landscape, architectural or street photographer.
Not only is it corrosive of press freedom but creation of the collective visual history of our country is extinguished by anti-terrorist legislation designed to protect the heritage it prevents us recording.
This campaign is for everyone who values visual imagery, not just photographers.
We must work together now to stop this before photography becomes a part of history rather than a way of recording it.
not quite in line with this but closer then just about anything else, how to shoot (+ not get shot) in a war zone via gizmodo.
though i don’t see this carrying over to photography anytime soon it will be interesting to see how this ripples through the film industry. apparently a very dedicated group of loyal fans of LOTR has put together a prequel (something that peter jackson is working on now as well reportedly) and will be releasing it this sunday. jrr tolkien’s family has all rights to the main LOTR story but as this is done without commercial intentions (it’s being released for free) it’s a kind of uncharted territory.
check out the trailer via dailymotion + full story via npr. thought not a huge fan of the series the craftsmanship is undeniable, especially for $4500. let the story of copyright begin.
so the orphan works bill is still floating around and there has been some recent attention as it’s fate fluttered between life and death. as it stands now, everything’s on hold while congress is on recess. no doubt though that we’ll be starting all over once the next session swings back to work.
last week i had the chance to catch up with MT senator jon tester during his trip through the area to try and discuss the orphan works bill. unfortunately he had little time and awareness about the current intellectual property rights concerns that face creatives. but it was a start, his staff now has a few photographers they can consult as i wasn’t the only one there. (hats off to another local shooter who has taken upon himself to contact and speak or meet with all three of MT’s reps).
with this in mind i wanted to let everyone know that PACA (Picture Archive Council of America) is working within the creative community to further copyright education and to that end has created the Jane Kinne Copyright Education Program and posted a video. this via creativepro.com,
“In support of this effort PACA developed the Jane Kinne Copyright Education Program, which can be streamed online or ordered on DVD. The free one-hour presentation provides a thorough review of copyright law in the United States and how it applies to the use of imagery in advertising, the news media and fine art.” The video touches the finer points of what we all need to be familiar with as covered by counsel Nancy Wolff.
and fresh off the press this am on wired.com comes a short concept on “Who Should be the First US Copyright Czar?”. with the president signing the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act just monday, we could be in for an interesting argument to determine who might fit this bill. in true wired style they’ve already got a poll going so you might want to check it out. so far Lawrence Lessig, Founder of Center for Internet and Society & a Stanford professor is in the lead.
the basic idea behind the copyright czar would be to mirror the drug czar and to implement a nationwide plan to combat piracy and then report directly to congress and the president. with the right person engaged, this could be a huge boost for intellectual property in my mind but it will be fascinating to see who that might be and how the powers that be, google, yahoo, etc, can serve their influence.
Here’s the latest on a US government permit change that affects anyone shooting on location outside on a majority of public lands. The public comment period is almost up (Oct 19th) so speak now. This was brought to my attention by fine art photographer Nelcha Cross. Here’s her report:
“The U.S Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose changes to 43 CFR Part 5 that would require a permit for still photography using models, sets, or props, in much the same manner as Public Law 106-206. Nominally, at least, there should be little change from current policy. The devil is always in the details, however. Under the proposed rule, still photography would require a permit if:
It uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.
Unfortunately, the proposed rule doesn’t define “model” or “prop.” Common sense suggests that a model is “one who is employed to display clothes or to appear in displays of other merchandise,” and a prop is perhaps an item that might appear in a product advertisement. However, unlike current policies, the proposed rule does not tie models, sets, or props to commercial advertising. Without this connection, a model could be anyone who poses for a photographer, and a prop could be almost any object that isn’t part of the natural landscape. Thus a tourist on public lands could require a permit to photograph her spouse or her car. I doubt that the intent is anything quite this drastic; however, I have seen comments from the NPS that the intent with the word “model” was a person or thing added to the natural or historic setting, and that the meaning of “model” could often be up to the whims of enforcement personnel.
The proposed rule makes some attempt to deal with this by excluding filming and photography by visitors from permit requirements, but unfortunately, it doesn’t define visitor …”
Recommendation————–
The problems could be fixed by providing definitions for “model” and “prop.” The definitions might read;Model means a person who poses for filming, photography, videotaping, or recording by other means for the purpose of promoting the sale or use of a product or service.
Prop means an object such as a vehicle, boat, article of clothing, food and beverage product, or other commercial article filmed, photographed, videotaped, or recorded by other means to promote its sale or use.
These definitions are simplified versions of ones provided by the Forest Service and BLM after the enactment of Public Law 106-206; I suspect they connected the terms to commercial advertising because they could not think of any other way to provide adequate definitions. Quite honestly, neither can I. Adding these or similar definitions would ensure that the new rules are the same as those that have been in effect for well over a decade.
Requiring, in essence, a permit for photography for commercial advertising isn’t quite the same as requiring a permit simply because a photographer may sell the images, which is impossible to determine unless enforcement personnel can read the photographer’s mind. The activity involved in photography for commercial advertising is much like pornography for Potter Stewart: it may be difficult to define, but it’s usually easy to recognize. Stated otherwise: without the connection of models and props to commercial advertising, we would have less protection than we currently have.
I would go one step further to make the rule simpler and tidier by requiring permits for commercial filming and photography, and defining commercial photography to the effect of Commercial photography means the recording of a still image on film, electronic, magnetic, or other media and using models, props, or sets that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.
The world will not end if this rule is issued as proposed; however, photographers may have less protection than under current rules. A few simple changes could eliminate the problems. Federal agencies do payattention if enough comments are received; in 2005 the proposed rule for permits in the U.S. National Arboretum was changed in response to just over 100 comments.
Comment Period and Contact Information————————————–
The public comment period for the rule extends to 19 October 2007.
The part of the Federal Register in which the proposed rule appear can be obtained from the GPO Access website; search for “filming”.
The relevant result is in the Federal Register on 20 August 2007 (fr20au07P)