Photo Attorney

Jul 28, 2006

US Copyright Code in Verse

An Internet professional and game designer from Israel has created a wonderfully entertaining (and perhaps educational) derivative work of the US Copyright Code.

Board Games and Gaming Blog from Jerusalem, Israel - Yehuda: The U.S. Copyright code, in verse

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney®

Technorati Tags:

Jul 26, 2006

Standardized License Terminology

Many photographers authorize others to use their copyrights without transferring them entirely, which is known as licensing. Often, the language used to license copyrights is not clear so that the photographer and the licensee may not agree upon what rights have been granted. Thanks to the PLUS Coalition, we now have the beginnings of a solution to this problem.

PLUS is an international non-profit trade association that hopes "to simplify and facilitate the licensing of images." The Coalition consists of photographers, illustrators, stock picture agencies, artist representatives, advertising agencies, advertisers, graphic design firms, publishers, attorneys, and associated industries and initiatives, which have joined forces to create a universal licensing language. Through PLUS, licensors and licensees are working together "to provide a single, comprehensive resource for use by every professional engaged in licensing images so that we all may speak a common language, avoid misunderstandings, and achieve a precise mutual understanding of the scope of any image license."

Already, the PLUS Coalition has developed a free searchable glossary with more than 1000 licensing terms, definitions, and uses. You also can use the glossary to find a term to use in a license to communicate a specific concept.

Use the PLUS glossary as a reference when dealing with your licenses. When licensing terminology is understood by both you and your clients, everybody wins.

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney®

Technorati Tags: ,

Jul 21, 2006

Defend, Hold Harmless, and Indemnification Contract Clauses

Photographers often are asked to sign contracts that include defend, hold harmless and indemnification clauses. Should you agree to them? That depends.

Contract language related to these defend, hold harmless and indemnification agreements typically is something like this: Photographer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless The Company from and against any action, suit, claim, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), arising out of or related to the use of the photo by The Company.

Your agreement to "defend" a company means that you must pay for its legal representation against claims and lawsuits, which can include expensive attorneys' fees and high litigation costs. While many companies will want to choose their legal counsel, you will have to pay for those fees as long as they are reasonable.

When you agree to "indemnify" a company, you must pay for any financial loss it incurs, such as a settlement or a court award, either directly or through reimbursement. "Hold harmless" means that you will not make a claim against a company if claims are made against you for events related to the agreement.

Agreeing to these contract provisions can be costly in the long run. In reality, however, a company rarely will seek defense costs or indemnification from the photographer unless you have done something wrong and you have significant assets worth seizing. Nevertheless, you should accept these types of risks only when you understand them, given any special facts and circumstances, and are willing to accept the consequences.

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney

Technorati Tags: ,

Jul 14, 2006

Deductions for Donating Photography to Charities

Many photographers are asked to donate prints or to license photographs to charitable organizations for use in their fundraising efforts. So is any of that deductible on your tax return? It depends.

IRS Publication 526 explains the rules related to charitable contributions. You can download a copy from the IRS website.

Before you can deduct anything for your donation referenced here, you either have to itemize your deductions on a Schedule A (as opposed to taking the standard deduction) or you have to report the profit or loss from your photography business on a Schedule C (for a sole proprietorship) or on your company's tax return. Your donation also must made be to a qualified organization (Publication 78 lists most qualified organizations or you can check the charitable organization's status with the IRS at 1-877-829-5500).

If you meet the above criteria, you may deduct the smaller amount of either the costs of the donated item (paper, ink, CD) or the fair market value of the property at the time of donation. The fair market value generally is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither having to buy or sell, and both having reasonable knowledge of all of the relevant facts.

In most cases, the costs of the donated print or photo will be less than the fair market value. For photographers who have an established photography business, they most likely already have deducted the costs (materials such as ink, paper and CDs) as business expenses and cannot again deduct the contribution. The hobbyist photographer who does not deduct photography materials for a business is the only one who really benefits from this situation.

What about your time and talent that it takes to take the photo? Publication 526 specifically states that you cannot deduct the value of your time or services.

You're also out of luck if you donate your entire copyright to a charity. IRS Form 8899 provides that you cannot deduct as intellectual property a copyright held by a taxpayer whose personal efforts created the property.

What can you do if you want to help the charity? Charge your normal fees for your work and otherwise make a direct cash donation to the charity. Or just donate your work and be satisfied with using your talents to help others.

When dealing with tough tax issues, it is always best to personally consult with a certified public accountant or tax attorney. You also can contact the IRS directly for help at 1-800-829-1040.

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney

Jul 4, 2006

Copyright Registration Fees Increased July 1

The U.S. Copyright Office increased basic registration fees to $45 per application effective July 1, 2006. Fees that changed include registrations for photographs (Form VA and Short Form VA), registrations for writings (Form TX and Short Form TX), document recordation, and supplementary registration. Any request received in the U.S. Copyright Office on or after July 1, 2006, for a service whose fee increased on that date must be accompanied by the new fee.

You get a bigger bang for your buck when you bulk register your unpublished photographs. The fee is still a bargain considering what it can do for you in the long run. So don't let it stop you from registering your work today.

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney

Jul 3, 2006

Request for Action Against Orphan Works Act

The Illustrators' Partnership is taking a lead in organizing opposition to the Orphan Works Act. More information about the Act can be found in my March 1, 2006 blog.

Following is a note from The Illustrators' Partnership asking for our help:

Artists and photographers have been joined by writers, textile manufacturers and others in realizing the threat of the Orphan Works Act of 2006 (HR5439). As we continue to spread the word, it's time again to act in concert. Others in related fields will be doing the same. Starting in about one week - as soon as Congress returns from its Fourth of July recess, we'll be emailing lawmakers in numbers. This notice is to give you time to get your letters ready.

First, we're asking each of you to write your Congressional representative. Please note in your first paragraph that you are: a.) a constituent; b.) a small business owner; and c.) opposed to the Orphan Works Act. You can identify your representative by entering your zip code into www.congress.org.

Second, please write to members of the House Judiciary Committee. They can be located on the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page:
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00175

Several members of the Judiciary Subcommittee are particularly important because they've already shown an understanding of the concerns we've expressed in previous letters. Please thank them for this and ask them to vote against this bill or table it until it an be properly re-considered and amended. Here are some of their names:

- Howard Berman (CA, 28th District)
- Darrell Issa (CA, 49th District)
- Bob Goodlatte (VA, 6th District)
- Howard Coble (NC, 6th District)
- John Conyers (MI, 14th District)

Below is one suggested sample letter. We'll email you two more. Use any of these texts you like and feel free to modify them as you choose. You can edit, copy and paste the text of these letters onto your letterhead for faxing. In the letter below, please insert an introductory sentence. Again, if you are a constituent, say so at first and cite your profession. Because the bill is being fast-tracked, it's critical that we write now. To join us, get your letter ready for sending the week of July 10.

For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

Please post or forward this email in its entirety to any interested party.
_________________________________

SAMPLE LETTER:

The Honorable _________ ___________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Via Facsimile
RE: HR 5439

Dear Rep. ____________,

(INSERT INTRODUCTORY SENTENCE(S) HERE) As a small business owner, I am writing to express my grave misgivings about the Orphan Works Act of 2006 (H.R. 5439), now before the House Judiciary Committee. I strongly oppose this bill.

The Orphan Works Act has the potential to do great harm to those of us who create intellectual property. It was drafted to allow museums, libraries and other not-for-profit institutions to legally exploit the creative work of authors who have died or abandoned their copyrights. Unfortunately, it would do this by legalizing the infringement of all works - old and new, registered or unregistered, published or unpublished, domestic and foreign, managed or abandoned, whenever a work is unmarked so long as an infringer asserts that he or she has made a "reasonably diligent search" to find the rights holder.

This would expose countless works of visual art to misuse because clients often require artists to omit identifying information from their work or because credit lines can be removed by reckless or unscrupulous users. Not only artists, but industries that license art, can be harmed by this carte blanche license to infringe.

In the interest of brevity, I am enclosing some basic objections I and other copyright holders have to this bill.

- The Act is written so broadly that its use cannot be confined to orphaned work situations.

- It would permit an infringer to determine when he or she has made a "reasonable effort" to locate me even though the infringer would have a financial interest in not locating me.

- It would be retroactive, which means that work I created under existing law would be exposed to infringement because I didn't take steps to protect my copyrights which the Copyright Act never required me to take.

- It would expose my work to infringement immediately upon creation, even though I am alive, in business, and managing my copyrights.

- It would place an impossible burden of diligence on me to protect my work because I will never have the resources to police infringement, which can occur anytime, anywhere in the world.

- It would remove any meaningful remedies for infringement, even though the threat of meaningful litigation is the only means I now have to enforce copyright compliance.

- It would impose on me the burden of proving in court the amount of "reasonable compensation" I could collect from someone who has infringed my work as an "orphan."

- But it would limit "reasonable compensation" to whatever sum an infringer is willing - or able - to pay.

- It would deny me injunctive relief in situations where the entirety of my "orphaned" work has been used in a so-called "transformative" work.

- And it would undermine my option to retain or sell exclusive rights to my clients because neither I nor my clients could ever guarantee that the work would not be used by others - even for purely commercial purposes.

- The inability to retain or sell exclusive rights would greatly decrease the market value of my work because market value is determined by the licensing potential locked up by exclusive rights.

- This bill would prevent me from restricting certain unwelcome uses of my art.

- And it could drive my work into low-end markets where I would otherwise never license my work.

- At present, the law does not allow infringers to claim my work by infringing it, but this legislation would let them.

- Yet by "limiting remedies," the bill guarantees that the cost of suing an infringer could exceed whatever sum I might recover in a successful court action.

- While the bill would limit the amount I could recover from an infringer, it would set no limits on the amount an infringer could win from me in a counter suit.

- And while the bill would not legislate "formalities," it would have the same effect because it would require artists like me to rely on marking, registering and meta-data as a condition of protecting our property.

- This would violate the Berne International Copyright Convention and fail the three-step test of TRIPs, which requires that exceptions to an artist's exclusive rights should be limited to certain special cases, not interfere with an artist's normal exploitation of his work, and not prejudice a rights holder's legitimate interest.

In short, the Orphan Works Act fails to properly define the category of orphaned work and it sets the infringer's bar of due diligence so low that it virtually guarantees abuse.

It would force into the courts countless business decisions that should be made in the marketplace and create problems that do not now exist but that would require the expansion of the entire Federal judiciary system to solve.

For those and other reasons, I ask you to consider the harm this bill can do to existing businesses and vote against it unless it is amended to do the following things:

a) Precisely define an orphan work as a copyright that is no longer managed by a rightsholder;
b) Raise the infringer's bar of due diligence and define precisely the steps a user must take before infringing a work;
c) Eliminate the unrestricted use of a copyrighted work in a "transformative" work;
d) Restrict the use of true orphaned works to not-for-profit uses;
e) Restore full remedies for infringement as the only means rights holders have to protect their intellectual property.

Respectfully,
Your Name
______________________

Keeping rights to your work is easier than trying to get them back once they are gone. Do what you can to hold on to them.

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney