Ben Cochran

(4) REASONABLE COMPENSATION- The term `reasonable
compensation’ means, with respect to a claim for infringement, the
amount on which a willing buyer and willing seller in the positions of
the infringer and the owner of the infringed copyright would have agreed
with respect to the infringing use of the work immediately before the
infringement began.

I have a serious problem with this one too. Let’s say that it is a first publication for an artist and that the infringing party has a schedule for new artist ~vs~ established artist that they have listed? Let’s say that a well established artist may charge $10,000.00 for the use of this image but the infringer normally only uses stock images at a price up to $500.00 for use. Once more, a first time artist that may have only been paid $35-$50.00 for their past works that were only used in News Paper print would suffer drastically with this provision. Wouldn’t the court refer to the past pay of the artist as reasonable or what this particular infringer normally pays? They would greatly benefit by breaking this new law and the artist would suffer drastically. It comes very close to price fixing in my book but it goes much further in the government providing legislation that entities can use to break a particular law for profit. It takes rights from one group and gives to better benefit to other, who fall into the category of minority in numbers of will and only measures composition benefit for the minority at the expense of majority. In this case the minority holds the collective purchasing power over the majority who only want to protect their current rights of livelihoods. At least that is the way that I see it…

The provision also stated the composition would be equal to what would have been negotiated prior to the infringement. So, if this work would have been illegally used in a derivative 20 years ago, would that not constitute the first infringement and also devalue the work of current rates? Seems that this bill would also go a long way in devaluing collectable arts.

The prime examples of that attitude in the Copyright realm is the U.S.
approach to the “moral rights” of copyright owners. These rights (sometimes
called the rights of paternity and integrity) are extremely important in
most other countries. When the U.S. joined the Berne Convention in 1989, it
was required to amend its Copyright Act to provide moral rights. It did
that, but it did it in such a way as to make them almost non-existent and
applicable only to very limited editions of fine arts. Take a look at §106A
of the Copyright Act to see what it says.

Off-hand, I do not think that there is much that photographers from other
countries can do to affect U.S. copyright law. Typically, U.S. lawmakers
are interested in hearing only what their constituents have to say.
However, you could try contacting your own lawmakers to see if, at the
national, diplomatic level, your governments might talk to some people in
the U.S. government to let them know how distressing all of this is and how
economically devastating it might prove to international trade.

Just a thought,
Vic
—
Victor S. Perlman
General Counsel & Managing Director
American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP)
http://www.asmp.org

Any idea how Non US photographer can help out to get this thing taken off the table?

Registration is free and literally takes seconds.

Another great way to take action is to vote on the actual legislation and have your vote, and letter, sent direct to your reps.

http://www.govit.com/S_2913/
http://www.govit.com/H_R_5889/

Check it out, and take action!

Registration is free and literally takes seconds.

Another great way to take action is to vote on the actual legislation and have your vote, and letter, sent direct to your reps.

http://www.govit.com/S_2913/
http://www.govit.com/H_R_5889/

Check it out, and take action!