That was my first reaction, but then I started thinking carefully about
it.
Besides dealing with copyright issues in photography, in my work, I
closely worked with copyright laws and
regulations, working with IP attorneys and copyright and patent
specialists. So, I probably have a bit higher than average knowledge of
the laws, regulations, including some cases in the past decade or so.
I didn't have much time to analyze this law carefully, but I'd like to
share a few thoughts that came to my mind.
I am all for protecting the rights of the photographers and other artists,
whose art has been used without any permission (I've been in that
situation several times).
However, I am also aware of the "copyright predators" and
"copyright vultures" who do not create anything, but prey and scavenge.
You may have heard about "patent trolls", - they were in the news in 2017
because of the Supreme Court decisions:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/23/the-supreme-court-just-undercut-patent-trolls-in-a-big-way/?utm_term=.97ef90049f99
I am afraid that this new legislation will open a green light to similar
copyright trolls by making the lawsuit process easier for them.
Upon a quick search, I've found EFF's earlier analysis of the CASE Act:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/creating-copyright-court-copyright-office-wrong-move
I should point out that I don't always side with EFF. But, they often have
some good points that create a balance in evaluating situations concerning
rights. And being a scientist, I always look for the opposing ideas and
opinions, - that's how you make sure your analysis/conclusion/... is
reasonable.
I don't know if all the points in that EFF post are applicable to
the current version of the bill. But I see that they also comment
on the point of making it too easy to file frivolous claims, - which is
my concern.
Again, one has too look carefully at all claims.
I've also seen some attempts to debunk EFF criticism:
http://mistercopyright.org/debunking-criticism-of-the-copyright-small-claims-act
And this debunking just doesn't sound reasonable. They simply dismiss
the foundations of some claims without any reason (just because it is not
the case), and then build their counter arguments on top of that.
One good example of where frivolous claims happen right now is Youtube.
There are several problems with copyright issues there. There are some
companies that claim to be copyright owners or authorized right-protection
agencies but who aren't. (For the sake of brevity, I will not get into
details. If someone is interested, - ask me, - I'll respond.)
Now, imagine, similar frivolous claims going to small courts.
As for Youtube, at least, with the current law, as far as I understand, the
self-proclaimed copyright owners (copyright trolls) cannot obtain personal
information of the presumed copyright violators (probably only after a court
decision/subpoena). From the EFF criticism, it looks like
under the proposed law, Youtube would be forced to disclose the identity
of who posted the video without much of a due process, - which can be used
for baseless harassment.
Finally, I am amused, how awful the language of the material posted by
PPA is:
"However, the average infringement claim is approximately $3,000 or less.
Compared to filing a claim in Federal Court and hiring an attorney, which
can cost upwards of $10,000. Leaving many photographers without a
copyright enforcement remedy."
The author was told that the sentence was too long, so it was broken. In
three. Incomplete. Sentences.
When I see such a bad language from a self-proclaimed "Reformist"
organization, I have suspicions about the quality of the content of what
they've written in/lobbied for the law.
Caveat Emptor!
Cheers,
Igor
Daniel J. Matyola Thu, 09 May 2019 13:38:53 -0700 wrote:
Sounds like a good idea!
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:04 PM Paul Sorenson <[email protected]> wrote:
Bills are before both the US House and Senate that would allow remedies
for copyright infringement to be adjudicated in Small Claims Court
instead of the current process of having an attorney and going through
Federal Court. If you're of a mind to support these bills, here's a
link to a page where you can send a letter to your House and Senate
representatives...
https://www.ppa.com/smallclaims
-p
However, the average infringement claim is approximately $3,000 or less.
Compared to filing a claim in Federal Court and hiring an attorney, which
can cost upwards of $10,000. Leaving many photographers without a
copyright enforcement remedy.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
