Resolve
A collaborative online community that brings together photographers and creative professionals of every kind to find ways to keep photography relevant, respected, and profitable.
Have an idea for a post?
Want us to find an answer to your question? Interested in becoming a contributor?Email us
CATEGORIES
- Aerial Photography
- Business
- Featured Blogger
- Featured Website
- Fine Art Photography
- Ideas
- Industry Events
- Inspirational Work
- Meet the Team
- Networking
- New Features to LB8
- On The Calendar
- Philanthropy
- Photography
- Adventure Photography
- Advertising Photography
- Animal Photography
- Art Photography
- Beauty Photography
- Celebrity Photography
- Commercial Photography
- Documentary Photography
- Editorial Photography
- Fashion Photography
- Food Photography
- Hospitality Photography
- Interior and Architecture Photography
- Landscape Photography
- Lifestyle Photography
- Nature Photography
- Photojournalism
- Portrait Photography
- Science Photography
- Space Photography
- Sports Photography
- Still Life Photography
- Travel Photography
- Wedding Photography
- Wildlife Photography
- Wine Photography
- Playlist
- Playlists
- Social Media
- Tuesday's Tip
- Video
- Webinar
- Website Tips
The online tussle surrounding The Copyright Registry a few weeks ago grew out of a bit of hyperbole on both sides: C-Registry overused “orphan works” to stress the advantage of their service, and the blogosphere overreacted — as it sometimes does — by jumping to some unfair conclusions. The blogs that misconstrued the facts are as responsible as the company that proffered the facts. Most disappointing in this chaos was the email alert sent out by the APA. The fact that the ASMP endorsed C-Registry should have been a signal to the APA that they needed to do some additional fact checking before sending out their alert. This would have gone a long way to preventing the blog mob that rose to crucify C-Registry.
The orphan works bill that sits in Congress like an unstable nuclear device has the potential to radically shift the way photographers will have to manage their work that exists online. Understandably, the photo industry is jumpy about anyone or anything that mentions it, which has resulted in an overly suspicious atmosphere. When companies like C-Registry come along with an entrepreneurial solution to offer photographers a method of registering images, they need to be aware of this volatile atmosphere and word their references to orphan works carefully.
There were three other details that also served as flashpoints in this debate, and which deserve some clarification:
EULA (end user license agreement): C-Registry had an EULA that asked subscribers to their service to grant some of the rights of the work to C-Registry. This is very similar to the facebook fiasco that I wrote about a few months ago. Simply put, to display your work online, web services need your permission.
DOT US: Any American website that utilizes a domain suffix other than “.com,” “.net” or “.org” immediately falls under scrutiny because many nefarious internet companies have adopted these obscure suffixes for their endeavors. C-Registry was accused of trying to look like the government — “.gov” — by utilizing a “.us” domain suffix. My gut reaction was they were going to distinguish their services by country. It turns out I was correct.
Seeding a stock agency: Probably the most inflammatory detail that surfaced against C-Registry was the fact that the people who started C-Registry also own a stock photo service called StockPhotoFinder. Because of the first point above, assumptions were made that C-Registry was going to be a content supply service for StockPhotoFinder. That’s a broad and bold accusation, especially without verifiable evidence. C-registry would have been wise to anticipate that assumption and to indicate to the contrary on their website. But then again, obvious notions like that are often lost in the avalanche of details an entrepreneur has to contend with in getting a business started.
If you’d like a blow-by-blow point and counterpoint of this situation, you can read the blog posts and the emails from the APA and ASMP (PDN has a comprehensive and pretty fair rundown of the situation here). From my estimation, both sides had very valid arguments — as usual, it just depends on your perspective. If you’re a suspicious photographer, you could easily spin the rhetoric on the C-Registry site in a negative way. If you are not, then C-Registry could seem like an intriguing idea. I asked for an opinion from an independent individual who is a heavyweight in the business of online rights management and very close to the orphan works issue. His response? Many people assumed C-Registry was a scam when, in fact, it looked pretty legit from the outside. He did see some room for improvements, but he felt that the idea was sound.
So what’s the larger lesson here? The climate in our industry is tense at this point in our history. As such, we tend to assume the worst before collecting all the facts. Photographers are wise to keep a weather eye on the horizon. But let us not forget who we are. All of us know that due diligence and fact checking are cornerstones of our industry. If we as photographers weren’t under such a barrage of assaults from different fronts, the C-Registry issue probably wouldn’t have exploded as it did. Let’s give C-Registry the fair shake that any new business deserves before we start lighting the torches.
7 Comments
Leave a reply
FREE EBOOK
Learn how to engage your audience and
build brand recognition across social
channels. Learn more...
READY TO GET STARTED?
Pick your package. Pick your design.
No credit card required.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:11 am
Jeff Singer
I personally can’t wait until my Livebooks site retains all the IPTC copyright data that I so diligently put into each file, rather than stripping it upon upload.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:25 am
Theresa Raffetto
Lou,
I’m both disappointed and surprised to read your blog post on Livebooks where you state “Most disappointing in this chaos was the email alert sent out by the APA. The fact that the ASMP endorsed C-Registry should have been a signal to the APA that they needed to do some additional fact checking before sending out their alert. This would have gone a long way to preventing the blog mob that rose to crucify C-Registry.”
You suggest that APA should have relied on ASMP’s endorsement. While we respect the work of ASMP and other trade associations in serving their members, APA will not rely on the judgment of any other organization, ASMP or otherwise. APA’s responsibility is to serve its members’ best interests and will take whatever steps APA deems necessary to do so.
If APA relied on ASMP’s early endorsement of C-Registry, we would have failed our members. The language contained within Copyright Registry’s Terms & Conditions was clearly misleading and yet was endorsed by ASMP. Four examples are listed below.
1) C-Registry stating that the Orphan Works bill was in effect when it clearly is not.
2) That the C-Registry is an official copyright registry that holds as much protection as the U.S. Copyright Office.
3) By signing with C-Registry, photographers would grant C-Registry the unlimited right to license their work at C-Registry’s sole discretion.
4) C-Registry’s encouragement of infringers to buy C-Registry certificates to prove the image is an orphaned work just because the copyright holder is not registered with the C-registry.
All of these things were alarming, and our alert was just that… a caution to read the terms and conditions carefully before moving forward. We asked these questions and offered C-Registry an opportunity to respond to these points, and posted their answers on our forums in fairness. It was APA’s Alert that directly resulted in action by C-Registry to change the egregious terms and to correct the copy on its website. Had APA not issued an alert, the terms and conditions and copy at the C-Registry site would remain as they were two months ago.
Your opinion on the sequence of events is uninformed and while you are entitled to suggest that APA rely on third party opinions, we respectfully decline.
Theresa Raffetto
President APA
May 1st, 2009 at 8:28 am
Lou Lesko
In your assessment and subsequent alert you chose not to contact c-registry. I did not suggest that you rely on the ASMP endorsement, I suggested that the ASMP endorsement should have been a “signal” that a diplomatic outreach to c-registry would have been a prudent first step.
The next five years is going to see some extraordinary challenges for photographers. The influence of the APA and ASMP is going to be critical in protecting best interests of photographers. Personally I’m obsessed, as is John Harrington, with walking through field first looking for land mines that will affect photographers.
Some battles will be won with diplomacy some will not. But I feel very strongly in any potentially contentious situation, diplomacy is always a wise first step.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
RANDY TAYLOR
Hi Theresa,
Although it’s possible that some could interpret our beta website as you have described, these were not our intentions. And when we realized the misunderstanding, we made changes immediately. The clarifications we made should dispel any confusion in the future.
The marketing language at our site came from the brochures that we gave to APA management and that were available at the booths of other trade associations when we launched at PhotoPlus. We would have been pleased to hear your concerns in the five months that preceded the APA ALERT, as we would welcome it if APA were to begin making suggestions moving forward.
When APA emailed its questions, we responded that same day with full answers. Everyone received APA’s questions, including key sites by PDN and CEPIC, photo agencies, news media and photographers. It would be beneficial to all concerned if those who received APA’s questions could also hear the answers. We’ve been doing what we can by posting to various blogs and in our Open Letter to the Photo Community. Everyone should hear all sides on these important issues.
The industry is changing fast. Land mines are everywhere. We believe helping users and clients to find photographers from uncredited copies of their images is a way to disarm future legislation that will impact these uncredited works. We look forward to working closely with the trade associations that support copyright and help creators. It’s time for everyone who believes in the value and power of copyright to unify around our common objectives, which will benefit working photographers the most.
I’d like to reiterate my invitation to you and APA’s management, and to everyone who’s interested, to see a live web demo and exchange some Q&A. We’re always open to sharing how our technology can assist photographers to more safely navigate those mine fields.
Randy Taylor
http://www.C-Registry.us
http://www.RandyTaylor.com
May 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Theresa Raffetto
Lou, our questions were put out to the C-Registry and along with them were explanations as to why we had those questions. You suggest “I suggested that the ASMP endorsement should have been a “signal” that a diplomatic outreach to c-registry would have been a prudent first step..” With such egregious Terms & Conditions our responsibility is to our members to ensure due diligence.
You still can not acknowledge that two months ago ASMP endorsed the C-Registry regardless of their T&Cs. It is due to our alert that you find so shocking that C-Registry made appropriate changes.
Lou, you have done exactly what you have accused APA of – you did not do your research before trying to call APA out. I stand by what we have done and in doing so what we accomplished.
Theresa
President APA
May 1st, 2009 at 9:26 pm
RANDY TAYLOR
The questions in question, and answers, are at:
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.com/2009/03/c-registry-answers-apa.html
December 18th, 2009 at 6:58 am
glenniszed
Do you want a fresh joke from net? Have you seen Quasimodo? I have a hunch he’s back!
___________________________
vigra