Tag: copyright

All your Burning Man photos belong to Burning Man

Nicolai Grossman Leave a comment

Problem: people get naked at the Burning Man festival. People take pictures of them and post and/or sell them on the Internet.

Burning Man’s "solution": they steal the copyright (PDF) to all photos taken at the festival.

The Burning Man spokesperson says:

"Our main concern in enacting the policy was to be able to create this weeklong cultural bubble where people can express themselves without worrying about their image being plastered all over the Internet," she said, reiterating that Burning Man wants to be able to take down these images if the poster refuses.

"There are a lot of nude people out here, and this protects the school teacher from Iowa who doesn’t wasn’t want to appear on a porn site," she said. "I acknowledge that the copyright law is heavy-handed way of handling this, but it’s the only tool we have right now.

More here at The Legal Satyricon and here at XBIZ (which is a porn industry news site and may have NSFW ads).

I’m not a lawyer, but I think a saner approach would be to have a photo agreement that states that you aren’t allowed to do whatever they object to, and specify a very heavy remedy if you do it anyway.

Via Jonathan Block

Microsoft fix rights-grabbing terms in student photographer contest!

Nicolai Grossman 3 Comments

The rights-grabbing terms in Microsoft’s Future Pro Photographer Photo Contest that I previously posted about have been changed!

The old, abusive clause has been changed from

5. ENTRIES PROPERTY OF SPONSOR.

All Entries become the property of Sponsor and Administrators and will not be returned. By submitting your Entry, you grant Sponsor and Administrators an irrevocable royalty-free, worldwide right, in all media (now known or later developed) to use, publish, alter or otherwise exploit your Entry. You hereby forever release the Sponsor and Administrators from any and all claims you might have in connection with their use and exhibit of your Entry as set forth above. You also agree to sign any necessary documentation to effectuate that license and release. If you do not want to grant Sponsor and Administrators the foregoing, please do not enter the Contest.

to the very model of reason and fairness:

5. Rights to Use Entries.

As a condition of accepting a prize, you agree to grant Microsoft an irrevocable royalty-free worldwide license to reproduce and display the image, credited with your first and last name, in print and on the web for the purposes of only promoting this contest.

These terms take only what’s necessary to reasonably manage the contest, and it guarantees a photo credit. I never thought I’d hand it to Microsoft, but well done. (Of course the original all-your-rights-are-belong-to-us terms should have never, ever been out there in the first place, but they sorted it out quickly.)

Microsoft rights grab in student photographer contest

Nicolai Grossman 3 Comments

By entering work in the Microsoft Future Pro Photographer Photo Contest, you give them all rights to it. Not even by winning, just by entering. They’ve done it in a really sleazy way, too.

The contest FAQ says:

Does Microsoft own the rights to images submitted to the contest?

As an entrant, you retain the copyright ownership of the images you submit. Submitting an entry does not assign or transfer any ownership or copyrights to Microsoft; those rights remain with the creator of the original work. However as a condition of accepting a prize, you agree to grant Microsoft the right to reproduce and display the image, credited with your first and last name, in print and on the web, for the purposes of promoting this contest.

These sound like perfectly reasonable, maybe ideal, terms to me: they only take the rights they need to make the contest work, and they even guarantee a photo credit. Too bad it turns out to be a lie—the the actual submission guidelines and official rules tell a very different story:

5. ENTRIES PROPERTY OF SPONSOR.

All Entries become the property of Sponsor and Administrators and will not be returned. By submitting your Entry, you grant Sponsor and Administrators an irrevocable royalty-free, worldwide right, in all media (now known or later developed) to use, publish, alter or otherwise exploit your Entry. You hereby forever release the Sponsor and Administrators from any and all claims you might have in connection with their use and exhibit of your Entry as set forth above. You also agree to sign any necessary documentation to effectuate that license and release. If you do not want to grant Sponsor and Administrators the foregoing, please do not enter the Contest.

Don’t bend over for these clowns, Microsoft neither needs nor deserves your charity. And always read the fine print.

Cost of US copyright registration increasing

Nicolai Grossman Leave a comment

The cost of registering copyright goes up July 1, 2006, the U.S. Copyright Office has announced on their Web site.

Registering a single photograph or groups of photographs goes up $15 USD to the new price of $45 USD. Renewing a copyright without an addendum increases from $60 to $75, and renewing a copyright with an addendum goes up from $30 to $220.

Continue reading summary at the National Press Photographers Association

New rate schedule at the US Copyright Office

Via Utata

Help change NZ copyright law: commissioning rule under review

Nicolai Grossman Leave a comment

The following is taken in its entirety from the current GRINZ newsletter:

After 12 years of photographers working towards this with the government(s), Associate Commerce Minister Judith Tizard has announced that the Copyright Act (1994) is under review, specifically the Commissioning Rule as it relates to photography.

Even if you aren’t a full-time professional photographer currently, this may apply to you. Have you ever taken photos for a friend / workmate / colleague / employer / social group / club, for which they paid you, gave you something in return, or covered your costs? Then you may not actually own the copyright in those images – but you could, and you should, in future. Potentially (and I’m not a lawyer, so this is somewhat speculation), even if all you got in return was tea & coffee at the club meeting rooms, that could be considered payment – and that may be enough for it to be a commission. If you ever intend to become a photographer, do a little of it on the side, have friends or children who do, or might in future, you can help yourself and them now.

A discussion document, "The Commissioning Rule, Contracts and the Copyright Act 1994" prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development, considers two main issues: the provision of the Copyright Act 1994 that deals with commissioned works, known as the "commissioning rule"; and the interface between copyright and contract law. The discussion paper seeks PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS on this provision, and in particular, whether any changes or amendments are considered necessary.

Submissions close on 31 MAY 2006. You can download the discussion document here.

Emailed submissions are encouraged. They should be sent to copyrightact@med.govt.nz.

So What Can I Do?

The AIPA and NZIPP will be preparing comprehensive submissions seeking the removal of the "Commissioning Rule" (i.e. section 21(3) of the Copyright Act) so that the author of any commissioned work is the first owner of copyright.

WE NEED YOUR HELP! In order to help bring about the removal of the "Commissioning Rule", please take the following action ASAP.

Everyone can post the following letter to your local MP (or alter it to suit your needs, or draft your own – just send SOMETHING!). A full list of MPs can be found at www.ps.parliament.govt.nz/mps.htm – and feel free to cc: it to Judith Tizard and Helen Clark as well, if you like. My feeling is that the more noise we make, the better.

Dear (insert your MP’s name),

You may be aware that the Ministry of Economic Development is currently seeking consultation from concerned parties regarding its pending review of the Contracts and the Copyright Act, 1994.

As a professional photographer, my livelihood is directly affected by this Act. In particular, the current Commissioning Rule (Section 21(3) of the Act) has had an adverse effect on my ability to make a living.

The default position of the Law requires me to contract out of the Act in order to be protected by it. You must agree this is not a fair position to be in as it is both cumbersome and puts me at a disadvantage when negotiating with potential clients. Further, the language of the Act does not guarantee me payment for my work. A client only has to "agree to pay" in order to have full ownership of the copyright in my work. Even if they never pay, by law they still own the copyright.

Most importantly, the Commissioning Rule of the current Act is entirely out of step with international copyright conventions, to which New Zealand is a party, as well as with copyright laws of our major trading partners, making it more difficult for me to compete on the international arena.

Repealing the Commissioning Rule will put New Zealand photographers in the same position as regards copyright ownership as their colleagues in Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and most other western countries. The present Act not only makes it much more difficult for New Zealand photographers to compete internationally but is also a source of embarrassment that a country and a government that place so much importance on the development of the creative industries and the protection of intellectual property should be so out of step with such a fundamental right.

Within the established framework of the discussion as outlined in the Government’s Discussion Paper: "The Commissioning Rule, Contracts and the Copyright Act 1994" the only viable option as far as I and my professional colleagues are concerned is OPTION 2: Repeal section 21(3) of the Act: "The author of any commissioned work is the first owner of copyright."

I will be keeping you informed as the Discussion Paper moves through the consultation process. I hope, this letter will allow you to familiarise yourself briefly with the basic points of how the Commissioning Rule affects the livelihoods of people like me as well as numerous architects, designers, illustrators, computer programmers, painters, draftsmen, cartographers, engravers, model makers, sculptors, and film makers. The Commissioning Rule must be repealed.

Yours sincerely,

(Insert your name and signature)

This may be our only chance to repeal the Commissioning Rule! So PLEASE, put aside a few minutes of your time to complete these tasks.

Thanks everyone –
R!

Via GRINZ

Bill creeping through US Congress limits artistic expression

Nicolai Grossman Leave a comment

Edward Greenberg of StockPhotographer.info writes,

"The Act contains certain anti-speech aspects which will directly affect illustrators, photographers and others.

"It will serve to eliminate the current protection for non-commercial speech currently contained in the Lanham Act. It will prevent businesses (artists)and consumers from invoking famous trademarks to explain or illustrate their discussion of public issues.

"For example, using the phrase "Where’s the Beef" could be actionable. Although you might use it in a non-commercial way, the (very) famous Wendy’s slogan when used to comment might not be protected by the fair use exception…"

Continue reading the article, which provides further explanation and contact info for who to write to to express your concern. Please check this out and take action—it has potentially catastrophic effects for artists as well as free speech and fair use in general.

Via Boing Boing