at this very moment, two 'orphan works' bill are being fast-tracked through the house and senate. the bill essentially seeks to remove image copyrighting ability from any individual visual communicator. although it more acutely affects photographers and graphic artists, the potential is there to directly impact us as well.
for the purposes of congress, the bill is being cloaked as an image liberator for the greater good. in actuality, it will allow giants such a google and getty images to lift anything and everything they can find, especially on the internet. for instance, large companies will have no need to hire an artist for an ad campaign - they simply need to use the right search engine.
as architects, this bill would ensure that any image you created would be 'free' for public consumption. for example, under the current copyright laws, you as a 'creator' have passive/implied rights to a sketch you make on a napkin, a photo you upload to the internet or an image you make for a thesis book/dissertation. under this new bill, you will be required to register (for a fee!) every image you make with privatized registries in order to protect yourself. in other words, the 'little guy', burdened by red tape, financial copyrighting, and legal fees, will eventually drown.
architects with personal websites (or even offices) documenting their work would be forced to register and cough up the cash in order to protect themselves and continue to be a valuable commodity. in addition, you yourself would be forced to take legal action upon discovery of image theft. the government is effectively washing it's hands of the situation, leaving only the wealthy and powerful to survive. frankly, the possibility is there to be forced to register your proposal renderings BEFORE wanting to present to a client.
obviously, as architects, we are being paid for more than image or sketch. we are valued for the services rendered throughout the building process, from conception to completion. however this bill is very disconcerting and yet another blow to idea that as creative and intellectual professionals, we have something valuable to offer.
i encourage you to click on the link below and listen to the mp3 interview which outlines this case much more clearly than i ever could. the artist (turned activist) discusses what you can do next, in terms of contacting your congressman, etc.
wow. I will look into this when i get a chance to understand it.
I always find it funny that some of the super right republicans bash democrats and liberals for being socialist about idea that would benefit the majority of the population but you very rarely here them mentioning the word Fasicm and Fascist. Then again the Dems from what i understand are the majority in both the house and sentate.
alot of this issue would come down to how imagery related to a project is dealt with in the contract with the client... i've seen contracts where owners retain rights to every bit of imagery and drawings generated for a project...obviously there are clauses made for the architect to retain use of those images as they see fit for their own benefit... in a case such as this i do not think that the US government can intervene since they would be disrupting a contract for a product between 2 private entities...
as for paper architecture made without any clients there probably is a real threat to that... although the question becomes who is going to use the imagery and for what? the AIA is pretty clear on the appropriate way to assign credit for projects and imagery.... i would think most architects wouldn't be interested in using someone else's imagery for their benefit
May 16, 08 11:29 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
legalizing image theft
at this very moment, two 'orphan works' bill are being fast-tracked through the house and senate. the bill essentially seeks to remove image copyrighting ability from any individual visual communicator. although it more acutely affects photographers and graphic artists, the potential is there to directly impact us as well.
for the purposes of congress, the bill is being cloaked as an image liberator for the greater good. in actuality, it will allow giants such a google and getty images to lift anything and everything they can find, especially on the internet. for instance, large companies will have no need to hire an artist for an ad campaign - they simply need to use the right search engine.
as architects, this bill would ensure that any image you created would be 'free' for public consumption. for example, under the current copyright laws, you as a 'creator' have passive/implied rights to a sketch you make on a napkin, a photo you upload to the internet or an image you make for a thesis book/dissertation. under this new bill, you will be required to register (for a fee!) every image you make with privatized registries in order to protect yourself. in other words, the 'little guy', burdened by red tape, financial copyrighting, and legal fees, will eventually drown.
architects with personal websites (or even offices) documenting their work would be forced to register and cough up the cash in order to protect themselves and continue to be a valuable commodity. in addition, you yourself would be forced to take legal action upon discovery of image theft. the government is effectively washing it's hands of the situation, leaving only the wealthy and powerful to survive. frankly, the possibility is there to be forced to register your proposal renderings BEFORE wanting to present to a client.
obviously, as architects, we are being paid for more than image or sketch. we are valued for the services rendered throughout the building process, from conception to completion. however this bill is very disconcerting and yet another blow to idea that as creative and intellectual professionals, we have something valuable to offer.
i encourage you to click on the link below and listen to the mp3 interview which outlines this case much more clearly than i ever could. the artist (turned activist) discusses what you can do next, in terms of contacting your congressman, etc.
http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/
home/
wow. I will look into this when i get a chance to understand it.
I always find it funny that some of the super right republicans bash democrats and liberals for being socialist about idea that would benefit the majority of the population but you very rarely here them mentioning the word Fasicm and Fascist. Then again the Dems from what i understand are the majority in both the house and sentate.
alot of this issue would come down to how imagery related to a project is dealt with in the contract with the client... i've seen contracts where owners retain rights to every bit of imagery and drawings generated for a project...obviously there are clauses made for the architect to retain use of those images as they see fit for their own benefit... in a case such as this i do not think that the US government can intervene since they would be disrupting a contract for a product between 2 private entities...
as for paper architecture made without any clients there probably is a real threat to that... although the question becomes who is going to use the imagery and for what? the AIA is pretty clear on the appropriate way to assign credit for projects and imagery.... i would think most architects wouldn't be interested in using someone else's imagery for their benefit
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.