Copyright holder’s Comments

• May 1st, 2013 @ 1:15pm

  What is desired is not always possible

  on No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think
  I don't think the UK Parliament understands the scope of enforcing and managing what a "diligent search" would mean, or are willing to fund such an enormous task. They may be able to get it right in ten years, but in the meantime, many thousands of artists will be unfairly infringed, financially and/or morally. Most all artists would not have the time or incentive to go after mere usage fees, or have time and treasure to register and track all the work of a lifetime.
  
  BTW, this law applies to every image creator worldwide, not just the UK. As a US citizen, are you going to find a UK lawyer to represent you? Or do you have the money to take a Berne Convention violation to court? Of course not.
  
  Until effective image identification mechanisms exist and are proven, this law is effectively abolishing copyright protection for all practical purposes. Try showing an image to the US Copyright Office and asking if it is registered. They couldn't tell you without a name attached to the image. You think the UK is going to crack that nut by July? Dream on. :-)
• Nov 17th, 2012 @ 2:29pm

  Corporate grab

  on House Republicans: Copyright Law Destroys Markets; It's Time For Real Reform
  This new "attitude" by Repubs is nothing but a clever corporate grab to steal your creative material at a fraction of its value. If you are an individual who creates artistic material for your livelihood, don't you want it protected? It's corporate power and greed you want to rail against, not copyright. Copyright protects the individual from abuse.